"The government conceded that there were at least two plausible interpretations of the law covering the Abramski case. One was put out in an ATF circular to dealers in 1979, stating that what Abramski did was perfectly OK. In 1994, ATF reversed their position and took the position that it was illegal. In the meantime, there was no change in the law."
Not only fascinating, this has been the case on a number of other ATF rulings. They've been so fickle, in fact, that their opinions can't truly be relied upon, and are seen by builders and manufacturers as a mere risk aversion measure, rather than a true "ruling" with attendant expectation of precedence, similarity, etc.
Offhand, PPSH parts kits, pistol to rifle conversions, broomhandle Mauser stocks, open bolt semi autos...the list goes on. I am surprised that something as central to "what the ATF does" in enforcement as straw purchases isn't more explicitly baked into the law. As aggressive as they are on that front, I figured they had explicit instruction to do so, when it's really just that they have been increasing these efforts for so long that they have created their own legal authority to do so in the interim. I imagine that fact surprised many ranking officials in the Bureau, too.
I would be...interesting, to see how the court addresses this whole scheme of agencies both writing and enforcing regulations without congressional input or consent. I imagine they will avoid the issue, in the interest of not raising too big a fuss from a single court ruling. As reliant as our governments have become on this mechanism, I have to wonder if they could even function without the ability to write (or bend) their own rules on a whim.
TCB
