Why bureaucrats should not be allowed to decide what the law is,

or change it by screwing with definitions:
Following his testimony, O'Kelly submitted a declaration in the case saying it was his professional opinion that roughly 60 percent of the firearms in America do not have a single part that qualifies as a receiver under the current regulation.

In siding with the defense, (Judge)Carr wrote that the ATF's long-standing interpretation was "plainly erroneous and inconsistent with the regulation." He added, "misapplying the law for a long time provides no immunity from scrutiny."
No, it does not.

This also goes under the heading of "Why do so many people distrust(or flat-out hate) the BATFEIEIO?"

Vann asked O'Kelly about his tenure at the ATF National Academy and whether he taught new agents that the AR-15 did not have a receiver.

 

"No, I did not," O'Kelly responded. "That would have been seriously frowned upon by the agency."

 

When Vann pressed him on why he didn't include that information in his curriculum, O'Kelly replied, "It wasn't allowed."

 

At that point the judge intervened, asking the same question.

 

O'Kelly told Carr he voiced his concerns to an official named Richard Turner at ATF headquarters, but was told "we're not going to teach that."

 

O'Kelly added, "I could only teach what was approved by headquarters."

 

Turner declined comment through an ATF spokeswoman.

Bold mine.  And I'll bet he did.


This being CNN, a surprisingly well-done bit of reporting.