Many people who know anything about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, or ATF for short) will know they started off as a “harmless” tax collecting agency that eventually turned into a law enforcement agency in its own right. In other words, they evolved from a bunch of glorified robbers with mechanical calculators and spreadsheets into a gang of violent thugs with guns and badges. This transformation became obvious to the world in the famous Ruby Ridge (1992) and Waco (1993) incidents, both having had heavy ATF involvement and with the latter event culminating in an open massacre of the Branch Davidians that included women and children.

Later as they have cooled their trigger fingers, the ATF’s side gig of deliberately allowing guns to flow into Mexico for “tracking purposes” was exposed in the Fast and Furious scandal after two of these guns turned up near the scene of the killing of Brian Terry, a border patrol officer, in 2010 (a whole of lot of good this “tracking” did).

In more recent years, ATF’s favorite pastime has been to send several car-loads worth of thugs LARPing with full tactical gear to raid and intimidate American licensed gun dealers for supposed infractions of federal firearms laws and confiscate their property. Jim Skelton had his business raided in 2021 after a federal entrapping weasel lied on the federal background check forms and successfully purchased several firearms (a whole lot of good this “background check” did). Russell Fincher was raided at his home in 2023, one of the reasons being that he sold firearms without a Federal Firearms License (FFL), even though he had one. He was yelled at, threatened, and ultimately intimidated into giving up his license.

However, lately the ATF must have been having the blues and reminiscing about the good ol’ days when they could get some solid trigger time on some innocent Americans instead of just yelling at them and stealing their stuff, because just a couple of months ago they raided the home of Bryan Malinowski and shot and killed him.

Malinowski, executive director of the Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, was an avid gun collector and would frequent gun shows to buy and sell firearms with other private individuals, which is completely legal and does not require an FFL. His frequent buying and selling of guns prompted the ATF to consider him as “engaging in the business of selling firearms” and therefore violating a federal law by not having an FFL (what the actual threshold is, nobody knows). They thus obtained a search warrant and proceeded to serve it in the most dangerous way possible.

Even though they knew his workplace, work schedule, and phone number, they showed up at Malinowski’s house completely unannounced over an hour before sunrise, covered up the doorbell camera, cut their electricity, and then loudly banged on his door before breaking it down while Malinowski and his wife were asleep. The ATF deliberately created a situation in which any reasonable person would assume his home is being invaded by a gang of violent thugs (which was true in this case, but with the caveat that they had badges) and would be legally and morally justified in taking appropriate self-defense measures by shooting the intruders, which Malinowski did. One ATF agent was hit, but the gang (of which there were roughly ten carloads) returned fire, hitting Malinowski in the head. Naturally they confiscated a bunch of his property afterward.

Just recently a Congressional hearing was held regarding the ATF raid, in which members of Congress engaged in the usual partisan theatrics for our amusement in front of some cameras. One Stacy Plaskett (D-VI) took the opportunity to rant about Donald Trump and mass shootings (totally relevant to the ATF raid). Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) argued that the ATF was being over-zealous with its recent increased rate of revocations of FFLs (as if some “ideal” amount of zealousness exists in enforcing a ridiculous and pointless licensing scheme).

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) expressed his anger that they were “criticizing the ATF because they retaliated with deadly force” after someone shot an ATF agent (who at the time was a violent intruder). Rep. Debbie Schultz (D-FL), remarked that there are “far too many loopholes” when buying a gun (like when entrapping weasels lie on federal background check forms) and then later said “isn’t it true that clerical errors can often be serious problems that cause guns to fall into a criminal’s hands?” (like when the ATF itself let a bunch of guns fall into criminals’ hands in Mexico).

Later in a separate hearing with ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, Jordan put Dettelbach’s feet to the proverbial (special effects) fire by questioning him about the policy of federal officers while executing search warrants to have body cameras on, which were distinctly missing in the Malinowski incident. Dettelbach replied that because the policy had a “phased implementation,” only about a third of all ATF agents had them (The policy was only over 20 months old at the time; give them a break!). Of course, when the ATF issues its various arbitrary and capricious rulings, such as the infamous bump-stock, pistol-brace, and frame-definition rules, we common plebs must obviously comply immediately or face the prospect of federal charges, while the ATF itself can take its sweet time to implement something as novel and intricate as body cameras! How convenient it must be to be the enforcer of one’s own rules.

In the end, I think the ATF is unlikely to face any consequences of note for breaking into an innocent American’s house and murdering him. It is noteworthy that the Malinowski raid, which was premised on the excuse that he was considered an unlicensed gun dealer, took place roughly two months before a new rule was to go into effect (it has been stayed as of this writing). This rule “clarifies” who is to be considered as “engaging in the business” as a gun dealer. However, in typical government fashion, the only thing that is really clarified is the fact that the ATF intends to further confuse the public and exercise increasingly arbitrary power to terrorize and prosecute American gun owners. There is really only one remedy. Abolish the ATF.

The Supreme Court today rejected the statutory interpretation underlying a criminal charge against some of the Donald Trump supporters who participated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The same charge—obstructing an official proceeding—also figures in the federal indictment accusing the former president himself of illegally attempting to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Prosecutors alleged that rioters obstructed an official proceeding by interrupting the congressional ratification of the election results. In Trump's case, they argued that he interfered with that process by promoting the stolen-election fantasy that motivated the rioters, a subset of the protesters who attended the pre-riot rally at which he ginned up his supporter's outrage at President Joe Biden's supposedly illegitimate victory and urged them to march on the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically." But according to the Supreme Court, neither the rioters' actions nor Trump's meet the elements of this offense.

The case involves Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding under 18 USC 1512(c) after participating in the riot. That provision was created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a 2002 law that Congress approved in response to a financial scandal involving the destruction of potentially incriminating documents by the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. In light of that context and the provision's structure, Fischer argued, his conduct at the Capitol, which allegedly included entering the building and confronting police officers, did not fit the requirements for prosecuting someone under that statute.

Six justices agreed. Writing for the majority in Fischer v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts says proving a violation of Section 1512(c) requires "establish[ing] that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects," or "other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so."

Section 1512(c)(1) applies to anyone who "corruptly…alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." Section 1512(c)(2), the provision used in the Capitol riot cases, applies to anyone who "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." Both are felonies punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The crucial question, Roberts says, is whether "this 'otherwise' clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specific provision that precedes it," as a federal judge concluded, or as a catchall broad enough to encompass Fischer's behavior, as a divided D.C. Circuit panel held. Roberts concludes that the latter interpretation is implausible.

"Subsection (c)(1) describes particular types of criminal conduct in specific terms," Roberts writes. "To ensure the statute would not be read as excluding substantially similar activity not mentioned, (c)(2) says it is also illegal to engage in some broader
range of unenumerated conduct."

To determine how broad that "range of unenumerated conduct" is, Roberts relies on two interpretive principles. "The canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is 'given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated,'" he notes. That principle "avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent" with "the company it keeps." And under "the related canon of ejusdem generis," a "general or collective term" at the end of "a list of specific items" is typically "controlled and defined by reference to" the "specific classes…that precede it."

Roberts illustrates those principles with the example of a sign at a zoo that says, "Do not pet, feed, yell or throw objects at the animals, or otherwise disturb them." Does that last phrase encompass "a visitor [who] eats lunch in front of a hungry gorilla, or talks to a friend near its enclosure"? Common sense suggests not.

...

The practical implications of this decision are important for defendants like Fischer, given the stiff punishment authorized by this provision. But there is no shortage of other charges that the Justice Department can file (and has filed) against the Capitol rioters, ranging from misdemeanors such as "entering and remaining in a restricted building" to felonies such as aggravated assault. And while the Court's decision negates two of the charges against Trump, it does not affect the other two counts in the election interference indictment: conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to deprive Americans of their voting rights.

The more serious threat to that prosecution is the litigation over whether—and, if so, to what extent—Trump is immune from criminal charges based on his "official acts" as president. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on that question this Monday. But with just four months to go before the presidential election, it seems likely that, even if the Court clears the way, any trial would begin after that contest is decided. If Trump wins the election, as he seems poised to do right now, he surely will find a way to make the case disappear.