TexasCHLforum.com

Bolton Strid wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:07 am

extremist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:10 pm New more reasoned voice responding to the FUDD and the Brace Rules.

Those fuddy-fudds out there best pay attention, any boomstick is at risk with this Regime. They could wake up one day and find their H&R break-open single shot shotgun has now been classified as a ballistic assault cannon destructive device and must be surrendered immediately.

Arbitrary and ambiguous maliciousness like this must be crushed. Buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart and the ground salted behind. They get away with this, the sky's the limit with the harassment. What's to keep them from suddenly declaring 16 inch barrels are illegal, must now be 16 .125 inches to comply. Yeah, they'd try if they were comfortable enough about it. All hands on deck to resist.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:13 am

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against — then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” [from Atlas Shrugged]

Rafe wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 3:56 pm The NRA-ILA posted a brief article today updating this issue:

Biden Administration Continues Push to Target Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022121 ... ing-braces

While ATF estimates that there are approximately three million pistol stabilizing braces, even other portions of the United States government recognize that this is a vast undercounting of the number of pistol braces currently in circulation. A report by the Congressional Research Service puts the estimate much higher; suggesting anywhere from 10 to 40 million pistol stabilizing braces. With so many in circulation, effectively banning firearms with these devices attached would be the largest confiscatory firearm regulation in the history of the United States.
...
More than one year since the comment period ended, and a year-and-a-half since the original proposed rulemaking, it is still unclear when, or how, the new rule will be implemented.

In January of this year, we reported, in a story on different rules Biden’s ATF had put in place, that the regulations page for the proposed stabilizing brace rule indicated it would be finalized in August.

That didn’t happen.

Now the regulations page says “Final Action” will take place on “12/00/2022.” What date that actually signifies is unclear, but it would appear the final rule remains in a holding pattern.

There may be other complications facing Biden’s ATF when it comes to this pending rule, other than the general complexity and poor optics of potentially criminalizing millions of Americans (especially disabled veterans) for owning items that same ATF previously said they could legally acquire and own.

The rule has now been transferred to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. That means that the final rule could be posted in the federal register in the coming days.

The article goes on to note that Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will House Judiciary Chairman when the House convenes next month, and Jordan has already called new BATFE independent and unilateral gun rules "a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress and infringe on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights." He sent a letter to BATFE director Steve Dettelbach that included, "Through its proposed rule, ATF seeks to subject stabilizing braces to GCA criminal penalties and NFA regulation without Congressional prohibition of the underlying activity."

Fingers crossed that the loss of the dimocrat House majority plus indications that SCOTUS could be inclined to rule in favor reigning in rulemaking that may exceed Constitutional authority--and given that it's already December 12--may convince the BATFE to sit on their hands for a while rather than attempt to do something incredibly stupid. Up to 40 million pistol stabilizing braces already sold? Can you imagine the nightmare? Even if it's 10 million and half of those want to submit paperwork to keep their previously completely-legal-to-purchase firearms, the ATF would be swamped logistically trying to handle all the NFA paperwork and stamps.

tomneal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 9:45 am "It's a trap"?

Washington Gun Law President


He is wondering if this 'Amnesty' is a trap.

I don't have a dog in this fight but if you do...

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:42 pm

LSUTiger wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:57 am Did this ridiculous rules ever become the rule?

Also curious as this seems to have died. Did our congress-people actually cause enough fuss to kill it? I recall them calling the upper ATF to testify.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:17 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am I believe that the ruling must be intended to be used against manufacturers. As you point out, it will be tricky for brace manufacturers since it is nothing until it is added to a firearm, but the makers of the pistols themselves can be prosecuted. The ATF also has a long history of prosecuting people for making things "intended" to produce illegal weapons. If I understood the case correctly, the maker I referred to was selling a "coat hook", that is he sold a piece of metal he claimed was a small coat hook for hanging things on the wall. The ATF claimed that was a subterfuge and it was really intended to produce a fully automatic weapon. They raided the maker and took his files and did raid some of his customers homes to find the parts. I could be wrong on what he was selling and how because I generally do not follow that market area (I want a fully automatic rifle or three but not so badly that I would try to make it, even with a bump stock).

If you agree that there are too many AR pistols with braces for the ATF to try to arrest the owners now, then you have to ask yourself why they would make the rule. One of the basic principles of legislation is (or should be) never pass a law (or rule) that you do not intend to enforce or cannot enforce. It breeds contempt for the law in general and creates more problems than it is worth. Then you have to ask yourself who they intend to enforce this ruling on. Manufacturers is all I can come up with.

My problem with your feeling that it is okay to interpret the law is that it belongs to the courts to make that interpretation. That was the decision in Marbury v. Madison and I believe it is correct. But the courts have also adopted a policy of deference to agency interpretations, which makes the interpretations law making. Laws should be written clearly enough that the citizen can understand it without needing an agency to interpret it. Do you understand what a handgun is, as defined by the law? A Short-barrelled rifle? A machine gun? I understand the definition in the law very well and see no possible need for an interpretation by ATF. This is how you get stupid definitions like a bump stock is a machine gun. The law defines a machine gun as a weapon capable of firing twice with one pull of the trigger. How can a bumpstock fire at all to be classified as a weapon?

I said that the entire CFR is unconstitutional and that may be an overstatement. Agencies can and should adopt some rules, such as how to apply for a license for something. Procedural rules on how to work with the agency are fine as long as there is no penalty attached to a mistake. If I do not fill out the forms correctly and in the right order, my license gets denied but I cannot be fined or jailed. When a rule is adopted where you can be arrested for violating it, the agency is making law and not rules, in my opinion.

The problem with this new rule interpretation AND the worksheets it includes is that it can be used to prosecute BOTH manufacturers and private citizens. Corporations have deep pockets….deeper than mine, anyway……and since a corporation is an "individual", it will merely pay a fine if it persists, but it’s unlikely that any corporate officers would go to jail because they manufactured braced AR pistols deemed by ATF to be rifles.

On the other hand, a private individual might face up to 10 yrs in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count (if I correctly remember the penalties called for in the law), and that’s a big club to hold over anybody's head. Personally, I have a registered lower with two uppers for it in different calibers; so I’m in no immediate danger of having to get rid of a sub-16” barreled upper. BUT…… I also have a braced pistol lower which I built for the specific purpose of being able to transport a short upper across state lines, specifically into states contiguous to Texas. I have no intention of transporting one any further than that.

I built that braced pistol lower IN. GOOD. FAITH that I was compliant with the law as it was being interpreted by ATF. Now ATF wants to change its mind and turn me into an instant felon……me, a nonviolent person who has never committed any previous crimes. With the combined weight of 10 yrs and $250K for every infraction, they are now able to prosecute anyone with a "non compliant" braced pistol the same way they’d treat someone who built a backyard suppressor without filing a Form 1. And that is nothing short of despicable. These people are out of control, and the only way to defeat them is by MASSIVE civil disobedience.

After having read through their PDF and used their worksheet to analyze my own pistol braced lower with the two uppers I have—both of which would end up defining that lower as an SBR—and having thoroughly examined the three examples they provide in their PDF (https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download), it is painfully obvious that ATF specifically targeted SB Tactical for elimination. The ONE example they opined would still qualify as a pistol used the SB-Mini brace which—coincidentally conveniently for ATF—is out of production and no longer available. I don’t believe in coincidences of that type.

ATF has gone rogue. We need to repeal the NFA, and strip them of any authority or the power to exercise that authority.

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:18 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:55 amMr. Rothstein, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, 100%, and I won't argue against the second part, either. However, I'm sure you know that no law is any better than its enforcement. So what I am curious about is this: how many braced-type AR pistols do you think are out there right now? It has to be a pretty big number, six figures perhaps. Additionally, are law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas going to aid the BATFE in any significant manner to locate and arrest people who own AR pistols which might run afoul of those proposed rules? I understand the scenarios of "you get pulled over for a traffic stop on the way to the range and your now-illegal AR pistol gets you arrested", etc. But still, how practical is it for the BATFE to rely on such a strategy? And, if the number of AR pistols is a six-figure number, can they really jail even a significant proportion of those? All that said, what I'm getting at is that over-reach by a Federal agency might have more than one meaning, in this case, biting off more than they can chew. (Disclaimer, I don't own one of those, never could afford it compared to other things I wanted to purchase.)

Mr. Mooneyham, I believe you are correct that this law is effectively unenforceable on the vast number of braced AR pistols that exist right now. The ATF can only enforce that on people idiotic enough (I tried to think of a polite way to say that but I think that about describes it) to send their pistol to the ATF or local police for an evaluation. There is simply no way to enforce this against existing firearms now. The real question is if there is any way to enforce it against future firearms. I think ATF will be monitoring the market place and will go after the manufacturers of braces they feel violate their rules. Then they will get the list of the customers and will send them letters demanding they turn in the weapon (much like they just did with one company and its "autosear". I think the average gun owner is fairly safe from the ATF on this and it will primarily hurt manufacturers and some of them will end up in jail. But that will dry up the supply for future gun owners who want a braced pistol.

I think this proposal almost makes our legislature seem prescient. They did pass the bill, and I believe the governor will sign it, that stops state licensed peace officers from enforcing these laws or helping federal agents do so. I had not expected to see a benefit from it that quickly.

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:21 pm I want to first point out that I think all of the NFA of 1934, GCA of 68, and parts (and maybe all) of FOPA of 86 are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. I think the very concept of any federal agency making rules to clarify the law is unconstitutional (Congress is the exclusive legislative body and the CFR violates the concept of separation of powers).

Having said that, I think this action was brought on by people deliberately trying to get around the law on SBRs by claiming it is a pistol. This ruling is, IMO, trying to stop that and still allow real AR pistols with braces. The ATF is trying to appease the leftists while still allowing the legal pistols with braces.

Wait until the really read the law and try to apply it. The actual law says a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand. I am just curious, but doe anyone around here have a hand that has two index fingers on it? But I see pistols with trigger guards that have a front edge that is serrated and has a reverse curve, so that it is designed for an index finger to wrap around and stabilize the gun better. And we are taught to shoot them that way, in either an Isoceles or Weaver stance (or a modified combination thereof. Remember when we carried revolvers with smooth trigger guards and were taught to fire them by holding it straight out in one arm with the other arm on our hip to help counterbalance us?

I will write comments opposing this proposal and I will support the NRA and TSRA as they fight it. I am seriously considering joining GOA and JFPO to assist them in fighting things like this too. But I do want to point out that we brought this on ourselves too.