violations of § 922. This new subsection “(u)” was intended to protect the holders of federal licenses who import, manufacture or deal in firearms from theft of their inventories. In fact, many of these licenses are issued in accordance with other subsections of § 922. Furthermore, in May 1995, the Sentencing Commission filed proposed Amendment 522 with Congress. In this amendment, the Commission itself determined that the proper guideline for handling § 922(u) violations would be U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. When dealing with a new statutory crime, we believe the courts should defer to the authority of the Sentencing Commission to define, by amending the guidelines, which particular guideline will be applicable to the new crime. See United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 826-26 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Where, as in this case, evidence of the
recognizing that congress instructed the sentencing commission that the sentencing ranges could not include sentences in excess of the statutory maxima holding that congress has power to subject the states to wage and hour regulation recognizing that congress desired a broad definition of a claim  holding that congress necessarily contemplated that the commission would review the work of the courts and revise the guidelines recognizing that congress has the power to completely divest the courts of their sentencing discretion and that congress granted broad authority to the sentencing commission guided by specific goals and principles