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 The ATF has withdrawn rules before when there has been numerous negative comments.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)
Thx!
I will submit my own.
‘Pod.
I agree completely !
Government agencies are creating "Newspeak" by virtue of administrative fiat, and thus bypassing any legislation oversight.
ATF redefining what is a "receiver" is just another example of Federal administrative "over-reach".
AND, they want to define any part that is visible to the exterior of the weapon, and encloses any one part of the firing mechanism, as a 'receiver'.
That would make a trigger lock into a 'receiver'. It is exterior-visible, and encloses the trigger. Example:
NUCKING FUTS.
Hi.
Imho, the Entire U.S. government is OOC, out of control.
5.56mm
Very apropos - I am just re-reading John Ross’s Unintended Consequences.
Wonder when someone out there will go full-on Henry Bowman...
That for the most part, patriots haven’t had to resort to making their own guns due to the unavailability of the popular name brands.
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.