HIGH CALIBER, YET UNDER FIRE: THE CASE FOR DEFERENCE TO ATF RULEMAKING.

In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) utilized its regulatory power to ban bump stocks. Given its long history of congressional marginalization and political demonization, the ATF has historically been hesitant to engage in binding forms of regulation. However, with the support of the public and a Republican president, the ATF interpreted “machine guns,” which were already banned under the National Firearms Act, to include bump stocks. The legal challenges that ensued questioned the ATF’s regulatory authority by invoking the rule of lenity. The litigation that has percolated throughout the courts of appeals has distilled into a fundamental question about agency deference: when an agency, such as the ATF, retains both criminal law enforcement and regulatory power, what level of deference should be given to its interpretations of statutes? With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill this term, one of the cases that challenges the ATF’s regulatory authority, this Note explores the primary justifications for the rule of lenity and explains why they do not apply when agencies engage in notice and comment rulemaking. Furthermore, this Note argues that, as an agency with technical expertise in an area that experiences rapid technological advancement and is subject to continual political accountability, the ATF presents the prototypical case for agency deference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of New York University Journal of Legislation & Public Policy is the property of New York University School of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)