The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Steve Dettelbach, could not define the term “assault weapon” during a budget request hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday of last week.
When asked to define the term by Republican Texas Rep. Jake Ellzey, Dettelbach replied that he could do so in less than 15 seconds because he can not define what an ‘assault weapon’ is and that it would be up to Congress to define the term. He added that the ATF could provide technical assistance and that the agency had experts who could talk about the velocity of firearms and the damage they cause.
Dettelbach had expressed support for an assault weapons ban in Ohio during his unsuccessful 2018 campaign to become the state’s attorney general and noted that the Biden administration endorses instituting “an assault weapons ban.”
The confirmation of Dettelbach to lead the ATF was a controversial decision, with 15 state attorneys general opposing his appointment and arguing that he would “merely rubber stamp” Biden’s “partisan anti-gun platform.” The inability of Dettelbach to define the term “assault weapon” has further fueled criticisms of the Biden administration’s efforts to outlaw this vague class of weapons.
I am Not An Expert on Guns…
Dettelbach’s lack of expertise in firearms was called into question by Ellzey, who stated that he had extensive expertise in weaponry and self-defense weapons, citing his status as a military veteran and 20-year gun owner. ATF director Dettelbach acknowledged that he is not as well versed in firearms as the Congressman.
Critics of the ATF chief’s lack of expertise on guns argue that it indicates a broader problem of government employees being assigned roles that they are not qualified for.
They say this leads to ineffective policies and poor decision-making and ultimately undermines the functioning of government agencies.
The controversy around Dettelbach’s inability to define the term “assault weapon” comes amid renewed efforts by the Biden administration to ban such weapons. However, opponents of the gun ban argue that it would be ineffective in reducing crime and mental health violence and that it would infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Dettelbach’s admittance that he lacks expertise in the primary item his agency is tasked with regulating underscores the need for government employees to possess the necessary expertise to perform their roles effectively. It also highlights the ongoing debate around the efficacy and constitutionality of a potential ‘assault weapons’ ban. Lastly, it shines a burning light on the hypocrisy of using emotionally loaded words with only one purpose: to promote a political agenda.