This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 08/18/2021 4:47:39 PM PDT by Lazamataz
While all the crazy events surrounding our White House and the District of Columbia have been unfolding, the BATFE has attempted to slip one by us. Known as 'Proposed Rule 2021R-05', the bureau intends to arbitrarily change quite a few definitions, and create new ones, such that the level of change is equivilent to MAKING law, not INTERPRETING it.
They have a period, ending tomorrow, in which individuals and organizations can comment on the propositions. While it seems like a pointless exercise, it is not. The ATF has withdrawn rules before when there has been numerous negative comments.
I've submitted such a comment. I kept it respectful, avoided cliches, stayed clear of any profanity, and kept the tone critical but not derogatory.
Here it is, in its' entirity:
--------------------------------------------------------
Gentlepeople,
This is in reference to ATF 2021R-05.
I have several problems with the proposed legislation referenced above, and firmly believe that -- should you proceed with attempting to make this into law -- you will face serious court challenges and the likely overturning of these proposed rules. I can forsee many constitutional law attorneys emerging to address these excesses.
First: It is unimaginable and completely without basis in federal law that you are attempting to redefine the term 'receiver' as you are. It is clear in the original statute that a receiver is not intended to be any component that houses ONLY ONE of the components of a firing mechanism. If so, every single covering plate, regardless of its function -- even if purely decorative -- would be considered a 'receiver'! Your desired redefinition could make simple components such as trigger lock, that covered the trigger entirely while in locked position, into a receiver! This is an example of how absurd the desired redefinition is, and such an attempt is very likely to be struck down -- including at the Supreme Court. I don't think you understand the loss of credibility your organization could suffer.
Second: The certain components of the proposed rule change, seems to create a permanent federal registry of firearm ownership, something that the House and Senate have not explicity legislated. It seems more than untoward to attempt to usurp the powers of the House and Senate for your own. Your agency is not tasked with making law, but interpreting law in an honest way, uncorrupted by the political winds of the moment.
Third: I understand the frustration your agency experiences when it sees such products as 'solvent traps' on the market, such products that could be converted to suppressors with the mere drilling of one hole and the subsequent affixing to a firearm. I also understand the frustration you must feel about 80% reciever kits. But consider: How far can you go without going to the absurd. Will a a 0% reciever kit (e.g., a block of steel) be considered a receiver? Will a simple unmilled cylinder of metal be considered a supressor? Your terms surrounding these redefinitions, such things as (for example) 'readily completed, assembled, converted, or restored' are far too arbitrary. Arbitrary definitions give your agency unprecedented and unconstitutional power.
Fourth: To change 'the rules of the game' so completely, when the precedent of your agency has set forth the definitions and rules for decades upon decades, is simply patently unfair and likely unconstitutional.
You simply may not usurp the role of the Legislative branches of government. Your efforts will likely be unsuccessful and will cost your agency a great deal of money and court time. I would ask that you withdraw some or all of the proposed rule changes, and wait for the Legislative branch to act, instead.
Very respectfully,
L.M. (name withheld and initials substituted so that the full name is obscured when it is published in the Federal Registry)
The steel card with an outline etched on it is way beyond stupid for enforcement.
Most guns are not homemade. I think that counts for a lot.
I guess they figure if the CDC can make law then they may as well give it a whirl. :)
The most compelling of my arguments is that, under their proposed rules, a trigger-lock that completely covered a trigger and its guard would be considered a ‘receiver’.
We’ve struggled with this agency making law for a decade or so.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Don't use profanity whatsoever, reference the rule change at the very top (Proposed Rule 2021R-05) and stay cogent and respectful.
The Official Lazamataz Sometimes-Funny, Sometimes-Disturbing Ping List
436 Satisfied Customers!™
Their idea of redundancy is to exacerbate the problem.
Hi guy, I hope everything is going well.
If you need a hideout, you know where I live.
Wear dark clothing and bring your hardware.
5.56mm
About twenty years ago a senator asked the DOJ for a list of all the rules and regulations at all levels of government that require a prison sentence. The DOJ responded that there are literally millions of laws at all levels of government that require a prison sentence and that there is no practical way to list them.
In Florida you can go to prison for having the wrong kind of fish in your boat, or the right kind but in the wrong season, or the right kind in the right season but an inch too short. There’s a sentence for disturbing an eagle that can range up to a year in jail and a fifteen thousand dollar fine. There’s a similar sentence for disturbing a tortoise or its eggs. The state has many more things on its endangered list than the feds do. A developer I knew had a multimillion dollar development come to a screeching halt because they discovered an eagle’s nest on the property. “Someone” killed it while he was away (surrounded by witnesses.) When I interviewed him for an article he told me, “I can tell you to the day when I’d go bankrupt if we didn’t keep building. I didn’t have anything to do with what happened, but I paid the $15,000 fine and added it to expenses.” (I’ll wager someone on the project took home a bonus.)
Their latest jihad has been about Rare Breeds frt trigger system which will reset after firing once. Which allows for some rapid firing but it’s still one pull for one shot being fired.
I wrote in on this and expressed my opposition when it first came out. It is a bad regulation that boarders on the ATF making up laws( so what else is new?).
I fully expect them to ignore me and all other comments.
bump
The solution, as you propose, is legislation.
The difficulty is our ruling class (at least those aligned with the Media) doesn't want to give up control.
They see any loss of control as a personal defeat.
These fools have nothing to say on gun control when they lost a whole arsenal of guns to the Taliban.
You lose your gun and have someone commit a crime with it and see what happens.
That was really well done.
Thanks for the heads up too.
Counts for a lot of what?
You are nicer then me.
I feel frustration when the alphabets apparently can find no crime that would not endanger their skins to resolve so they go out and create easy low risk crime in order to enrich themselves.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.