Completely irrelevant, as that is a perfect example of where you are wrong. Yes, the BATF declared bump stocks to be a variant of an automatic weapon in 2018 after the President instructed them to do so. That actually does fall under their authority. Which is why when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals published their opinion on that definition, they struck it down. Not for reasons that the BATF exceeded their authority, but simply because the bump stock did not apply under any of the legal definitions of either the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act. What, are you not even aware that had been overturned back in January? https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf Now it is up to Congress if they want to make a law to actually ban them. Which I kinda doubt will happen, as all attempts in the past failed. And this is a perfect example of why the President should never try to legislate via Executive Order. It rarely ends well if that is challenged.
Most do not care, and I find it fascinating when viewing the Constitution through the eyes of others. Specifically, I find it almost comical when the anti-gun types will scream that the wording of the Constitution must be taken literally and therefore only applies to a military militia force. And almost comically ironically the same people generally scream that the Constitution should not be taken literally, as obviously the right of ANTIFA to riot is "Free Speech", that some nutjob on the Internet is "The Press", and ten thousand other things they want to press are obviously in their mind critical Constitutional issues (transgender, LGB, and the like), even though none of their claims are in the document anywhere. And the funny thing is, I had an uncle who was an almost fanatical hunter and shooter, and when he passed a few years ago he left his gun collection to me (all of which I passed to other family members except for a single .22 that had belonged to his father and was the first rifle I ever fired). He even moved back to Alaska for many years so he could hunt there. And he was about as "far left" as one could get, and even taught Marxism in college and considered himself a Marxist. Yet he proudly stated many times he never voted for a Republican in his life, and he was a lifetime member of the NRA and was a strong believer in the Second Amendment. And before he died we even talked about that a few times, and he said he knew more than a few people who switched parties over Second Amendment issues. And he had voted for Independent candidates against a Democrat over that himself (but would never vote for a Republican). And he thought that might be one of the leading cause of Republican gains in rural areas. That is simply where you will find more people that hunt, and if they feel their rights to do so are being threatened they might well change parties to one that they think supports those rights. And in that I do agree with him. When I lived in LA or the San Francisco or Sacramento areas I never really met hunters. And those are all pretty urban and Democrat areas. Yet in Idaho, Alabama, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Northern California I knew a hell of a lot of hunters. Even ones that used bows and black powder just so they could get an early start on the season. And none of them hunted for trophies, it was always to put food on the table. Even another uncle who was a "quasi-hippy" and is now retired still goes hunting every fall and maintains a gold claim mostly for the purpose of having his hunting camp there for elk and deer season. That I think has been the real problem lately in the divisive political trend of the last few years. As it can even cause people to be seen as "the enemy" if they are in their own party. That is outright Mao and Stalinist crap in my eyes. "You have to agree with everything we say" is what people who want slaves want, not actual supporters.
I agree with the lack of authority; I'm noting that despite that lack of authority the feds continue to use their power illegally.
