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 The ATF has withdrawn rules before when there has been numerous negative comments.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)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms sounds like it should be a convenience store.
The Democrats just gave the murderous Taliban bastards enough arms and munitions to equip a 300,000 man army, yet want us to be disarmed. Lol.
The entire unconstitutional agency should be disbanded. Anyone who has ever, at any time worked for this agency should be rounded up and thrown in prison for the rest of their unholy lives.
Personally, I’d stake them out on an ant bed in the middle of a desert somewhere.
Thanks for posting. I uses as a starting point on mine but made several revisions and additions.
Do you know on the form can you use your first and middle initials instead of your first name and not have it thrown out?
Thank you.
Good ping. Thanks.
They don’t care about lawyers’ fees. They aren’t going to be paying for them, you and I are.
Thanks Laz. I commented a while ago on this as well. I’m not optimistic they give a damn, but I won’t be conforming to their new regulations anyway. No more yielding.
I wonder if the ATF is collecting names and “wrong thinking.”
“Personally, I’d stake them out on an ant bed in the middle of a desert somewhere.”
Don’t forget the honey. Lots and lots of honey.
Think they are bad now, just wait until that Chipmunk (AKA the Waco Kid) guy is in charge.....................
Biden's ATF pick faces grim confirmation prospects as key Democrats withhold support
"the existence ab initio of a 'BATFE', at least in those portions dealing with firearms and explosives, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and violates said Constitution egregiously, openly, and continuously.
"The BATFE should be abolished in toto."
?
“Most”, yes.
Nonetheless, the quantity which are is substantial, and the BATFE is specifically targeting them.
Tangent: I’d like to find a lawyer interested in a “right delayed, right denied” case. Idea is file an NFA Form 4, and simultaneously file the case ... that a judge would, after all the time of filing & processing & scheduling & convening, be considering the case would be prima face evidence that the right to keep (to wit, obtain) arms (to wit, whatever is legislated a “firearm”) shall not be infringed (to wit, delayed so long that normal judicial process got around to taking notice of the delay over processing a mere 3 pages of sparse info and $200).
For a while I was concerned about ending up on a government list.
Then I realized I could deliberately get on the best government lists, ensuring that I’d not think I wasn’t.
(C&R FFL, and NFA, are very good lists to be on.)
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.