What we are seeing actually is unfolding of what our founders established go through it's paces.
To ensure what was outlined in the Constitution, having freshly experienced the imposition of tyranny on their "rights" for freedom and liberty,
founders then added the Bill of Rights to ensure the viability of the Constitution and chose the republic representative form of government with electoral college election process
so the will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority.
And just as ATF agency's overreach (as extention of legislative and executive branches) is challenged/stopped by the courts, our founders foresaw the future reality that imposition of tyranny on our rights not only could come from foreign powers but also from domestic powers, our own government. And our
founders separated government powers into three branches to apply checks and balances.
So now that legislative and executive branches passed anti 2A laws at federal and state government levels, the
judicial branch is doing their job of challenging/stopping the imposition on the rights of minority gun owners in the form of district/circuit court rulings and Supreme Court rulings. And if fate and destiny would have it as framed by the founders, in 2022/2024,
"We the People" could elect the legislative law makers and executive president to permanently enforce the Supreme Court/judicial branch's challenge to stop the unconstitutional laws that violated the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
So this young nation is going through the exact steps/processes the founders foresaw, anticipated and framed our government.
As to the OP's agency overreach in violation of Gun Control Act by redefining the definition of firearm without Congress, my anticipation is the court will find that act illegal.
So share your sentiment with "We the People" and vote to change our legislative and executive branch "representatives".
If they don't represent our sentiment, vote them out and replace them with those who will.
With 6-3 pro-2A Supreme Court bench of 2022, especially with Bruen ruling and other 2A cases on hold that were remanded back down to circuit courts, I do believe 2022 is the start of "turn around" of gun rights that could continue for decades with lasting effects felt for generations!
ACK-shuly...the founders did no such thing (create the Bill of Rights). This was the work of the First Congress, though James Madison (a founding father) pushed the subject through. There were 29 Senators and 66 Representatives (counting seats which had more than one member during the first term). If I remember correctly, thre were only 4 of the founding fathers who served in the First Congress.
And James Madison himself used to be very adamantly against a Bill of Rights. He was against it as a precondition of ratification of the Constitution and he doubted that simply putting the words on paper would actually provide any real protection at all. But both election politics and personal thoughts on the matter brought about a change and he because the most vocal proponent of a Bill of Rights. In fact, it was part of his election campaign.
The lack of a Bill of Rights threatened the newborn nation, as some States let it be know that their ratification was based on the First Congress addressing that very issue. If I recall correctly (I'd have to dig through my books again), NC and NY were adamant that a right to keep and bear arms be a part of any bill of rights, or they'd withdraw from the Union.
The Constitutional Convention itself wasn't what "should have happened". A convention was convened to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, under which our country actually officially existed after it's ratification in1781 until the new government was formed under the Constitution following it's ratification in 1789. The Confederation Congress endorsed the 1787 convention in Philidelphia "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Convederation".
Why? Because the federal government held so little actual power and authority that it was essentially useless.
What happened was the delegates literally held closed door sessions until they completed drafting the entirely new Consititution.
From the beginning, the two biggest factions were the Federalists, who favored a strong, centralized form of government, and the Anti-federalists who didn't for fear of the abuse such a government could represent.
Interestingly, the BORs ended up with heavy Federalist support. To be sure, the Federalists were opposed to a BOR, because "it wasn't needed". Politics of the day said it wasn't needed based on the way the Constitution was already written. Given that the nature of politicians hasn't changed since the history of ever, this is likely the watered down historical textbook version and they really saw it as a roadblock to greater federal power. My opinion on this. So why did the Federalists actually end up supporting the BORs? Because they, like politicians of today, could see where the political winds were blowing. It was, quite simply, a case of getting with the program or getting left behind. The States had spoken during the ratification process and it was going to be a huge First Congress issue...or there would be consequences.
People practically deify the founding fathers and quite often overlook the fact that they were all people, just as people are today. There was much ado about what they did during the Constitutional Convention, but because there were no "minutes" of the closed door meetings, we don't have a blow-by-blow of all that happened, as it happened. But it was very much a huge political power play where a very small number of not-entirely-like-minded individuals duked it out over what became the Constitution. The battle raged over who could exert what powers, how those powers could be affected, how they could be held in check, State vs. Federal powers, even slavery. These people were POWER BROKERS and they were knowingly playing with fire in the process. Rest assured, had they all been of like-mind, the Constitution as we know it would never have come to fruition.
The Constitution, and it's associated Bill of Rights and other Amendments, are not the only thing protecting the people's rights. We are a geo-politically huge and diverse nation. If we were not, then our Constitution would not have done much to stem the flow of tyranny in our relatively young nation.
