The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Garland v. Cargill and the pending Garland v. VanDerStok expose a fundamental problem: federal agencies operating outside constitutional boundaries by rewriting laws Congress never passed. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has repeatedly exceeded its statutory authority, transforming policy preferences into criminal law through administrative sleight of hand.

Constitutional Foundations Under Attack

The Constitution establishes clear boundaries. Congress writes laws. Agencies enforce them. Courts interpret them. When agencies begin rewriting statutory definitions to expand their power, they violate the separation of powers that protects citizens from arbitrary government action.

Thomas Jefferson understood this danger: “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

George Washington warned against constitutional usurpation in his Farewell Address: “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

The Latin legal principle applies directly: Potestas stricte interpretatur — a power is strictly interpreted. When doubt exists about government authority, the presumption favors liberty, not power.

The Cargill Decision: Checking Agency Overreach

In Garland v. Cargill, the Supreme Court confronted ATF’s attempt to redefine “machine gun” to include bump stocks. The National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

For nearly a decade, ATF consistently ruled that bump stocks were not machine guns. Ten separate letter rulings from 2008 to 2017 reached the same conclusion: bump stocks do not convert semiautomatic firearms into automatic weapons because they still require individual trigger pulls for each shot.

After Congress declined to ban bump stocks following the Las Vegas shooting, ATF reversed course. The agency issued a final rule in 2018 declaring that bump stocks were suddenly machine guns, criminalizing possession of devices it had previously deemed legal.

The Supreme Court rejected this administrative lawmaking in a 6-3 decision. The majority opinion applied straightforward textual analysis: a bump stock-equipped rifle “does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger’” because “a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot.” The device merely reduces the time between separate trigger functions—it does not eliminate the requirement for multiple trigger pulls.

The Court also found that bump stocks do not enable “automatic” fire because using them requires continuous manual input from the shooter, who must maintain precise forward pressure to achieve the bumping effect.

Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence emphasized the core constitutional issue: “the statutory text of the NFA is clear, so any change to the law must come from Congress.” Agencies cannot rewrite laws they wish were broader.

VanDerStok: ATF’s Latest Constitutional Violation

The pending VanDerStok case presents another example of ATF exceeding statutory authority. Congress defines a “firearm” as a weapon “which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” or “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”

ATF’s final rule expands this definition to include raw materials, information, jigs, and tools that skilled persons might use to fabricate firearms. The agency justifies this expansion by claiming it needs to “trace” more firearms to solve crimes.

This policy argument fails on multiple levels. First, ATF’s own data undermines the claimed crisis. The agency traces roughly 19,000 privately-made firearms annually against a backdrop of 500 million firearms in civilian hands and 24 million modern sporting rifles in circulation. This represents a microscopic fraction—hardly the “exponential rise” ATF claims.

Second, tracing provides limited investigative value. A trace only identifies the first retail purchaser, assuming that person can be located and records exist. After the initial purchase, firearms may be inherited, gifted, sold, lost, or stolen without creating traceable records.

Third, criminals rarely obtain firearms through traceable channels. Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows that among 24,848 prison inmates surveyed, only 10.1% acquired their firearms through retail sources, and only 6.9% used their real names. The majority obtained firearms through underground markets (43.2%) or from individuals (25.3%).

The Gun Control Act, as amended by the Firearm Owners Protection Act, explicitly prohibits ATF from establishing “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.” Yet the agency’s expanded definition serves precisely this forbidden purpose—creating a registration system through redefinition rather than legislation.

The Pattern of Administrative Lawmaking

ATF’s constitutional violations extend beyond bump stocks and firearm definitions. The agency has systematically rewritten statutory language across multiple areas:

• Redefining unfinished frames and receivers as complete firearms
• Expanding the definition of “engaged in the business” to criminalize private sales
• Reclassifying stabilizing braces as stocks to create short-barreled rifle violations
• Attempting to regulate 3D printing files as firearms

Each rule follows the same pattern: ATF identifies what it considers a regulatory gap, decides the gap should be filled, then redefines statutory terms to criminalize previously legal conduct.

This approach violates fundamental constitutional principles. As the Supreme Court noted in Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

The Tracing Deception

ATF’s emphasis on firearm tracing reveals how agencies manipulate statistics to justify expanded authority. The agency traces every firearm it encounters, regardless of whether the firearm was used in a crime. When ATF raids a collector’s home for a paperwork violation and seizes 200 firearms, all 200 become “crime guns” in the statistics—despite having no connection to violent crime.

Congress recognized this statistical manipulation in 2013, requiring ATF to include disclaimers in its reports: “Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.”

The law further specifies that “firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals.”

New Jersey provides a case study in trace manipulation. The state criminalized unregistered firearm kits in 2022 and traces every firearm law enforcement encounters. That year, New Jersey reported 5,248 traces, with 73% classified as “possession of weapon” and “found firearm”—mere possession violations, not violent crimes. Only 67 traces involved homicide and 132 involved aggravated assault.

Constitutional Limits on Agency Power

The Constitution’s structure protects liberty through separated powers and enumerated authorities. When agencies exceed their statutory boundaries, they undermine this protection by concentrating legislative, executive, and judicial functions in unelected bureaucrats.

Alexander Hamilton explained the principle in Federalist 78: “every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Modern administrative agencies operate as Hamilton’s forbidden deputies—servants claiming authority over their masters. ATF’s redefinition campaigns represent exactly the usurpation Washington warned against: changing law through agency action rather than constitutional amendment.

Implications Beyond ATF

The Cargill decision and potential VanDerStok ruling carry implications far beyond firearms regulation. By establishing clear limits on agency authority to redefine statutory terms, the Court creates precedent for challenging regulatory overreach across the administrative state.

Agencies throughout government use similar tactics—expanding statutory definitions to criminalize conduct Congress never prohibited. Environmental agencies redefine “waters” to expand wetlands jurisdiction. Labor agencies redefine “employee” to reclassify independent contractors. Financial agencies redefine “investment advice” to capture new activities.

Each redefinition follows ATF’s playbook: identify desired policy outcome, manipulate statutory language to achieve it, then enforce the new interpretation as if Congress had enacted it.

The Path Forward

Constitutional government requires agencies to operate within statutory boundaries. When Congress writes narrow definitions, agencies must respect those limits. Policy disagreements belong in legislative halls, not administrative offices.

Citizens have both the right and responsibility to challenge agency overreach. As Abraham Lincoln observed: “We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

Voltairine de Cleyre’s warning remains relevant: “So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

The Supreme Court’s rejection of ATF’s bump stock redefinition provides a template for challenging similar constitutional violations. Agencies cannot rewrite laws they wish were different. They cannot expand criminal statutes through regulatory interpretation. They cannot transform policy preferences into criminal law without congressional authorization.

The Constitution’s text means what it says. Agency wishes do not change statutory language. And citizens need not accept administrative tyranny disguised as law enforcement.

When agencies ignore constitutional boundaries, courts must restore them. The alternative is government by bureaucratic decree—precisely the arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to prevent.