But it is alarming when that person is Steve Dettelbach, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Furthermore, the power vested in his hands is to control vast and sweeping regulations concerning the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
His revelation came at a Tuesday hearing before the House Appropriations subcommittee discussing his agency’s 2024 budget.
Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX) began the exchange. “As a gun owner of many different types and a 20-year military veteran, I have some expertise in weaponry and self-defense weapons. In 15 seconds, would you define an ‘assault weapon’ for me?”
Dettelbach told the representative that he did not need the full 15 seconds.
“I’ll go shorter than that, because honestly, if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work, but we would be there to provide technical assistance.”
Then came the bombshell.
“I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert to the same extent that you may be, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause, so that whatever determination you choose to make would be an informed one.”
If the head of the federal agency tasked with regulating firearms is not a firearms expert, what exactly are his qualifications for the job? Tens of millions of law-abiding citizens are subject to the whims of the ATF, and its leader is not well-versed on the subject?
Social media, as could be expected, was quite unkind after his confession. Many asked why he is leading the agency overseeing federal firearms laws when he is not an expert on firearms.
An attorney, Kostas Moras, noted that he appreciated the director’s honesty but then questioned his leadership role with the ATF. “Does he know a lot about alcohol or tobacco or something?”
Still another observed the ATF director wants a ban on so-called “assault weapons” yet cannot define one.
Therein lies a major problem with this scenario. Despite not knowing what an “assault weapon” is, Dettelbach has repeatedly stated his desire for a ban on popular semiautomatic firearms. Earlier this month he called on Congress to prohibit the weapons after the tragic shooting at a Christian elementary school in Nashville.
This week’s testimony before Congress was not the first instance where he avoided providing a definition of “assault weapon.”
During his confirmation hearing in May 2022, Dettelbach admitted that when he ran for Ohio attorney general in 2018, he found himself discussing sweeping gun control without a definition of an “assault weapon.”
“When I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on ‘assault weapons,’” he recounted. “I did not define the term. And I haven’t gone through the process of defining that term.”
One senator at that time noted Dettelbach’s hesitance to broach the subject and considered it a statement about proposed firearms bans in general. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said, “I think it’s very telling that you’re nominated to lead the ATF and you don’t have a definition of ‘assault weapon.’ And point is that there is really no such thing as a category of weapons known as ‘assault weapons.’”
Calls are springing up from grandstanding politicians and the mainstream media for a blanket ban on what are termed “assault weapons.” But how does the shooting public take them seriously when proponents cannot even provide a definition?
And it is very telling when the head of the ATF, the man whose job it is to make such a determination, admits to his inability to do so. Surely there is a true “expert” in firearms who is fit to lead this important agency.
