[MtnClimber]

It would be nice if congress could gain some control of the unelected, administrative state.

[nagant]

In the aggregate the Constitution says that everything which congress has not made illegal .....is legal.

It’s a sad day when America’s lawmaking body has to pass a law to make something legal which the administrative branch has made illegal.

[plangent]

“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note, there is no description or limitation of what arms are considered. No bullets, no shoulder braces, no sights, no barrel coolers, no anything other than a means of protection.

how did “bump stocks” and “pistol braces” get to limit this right? Answer, they don’t

[Jim Noble]

Well, yes, OK - but there are too many articles, opinion pieces, and blog posts openly mocking BATFE and its minions as too stupid to realize that “pistol braces” are such a great way to evade GCA1934 to take them all back now.

[bk1000]

When they come to take it , shoot them. Eventually they will stop coming.
*apologies to Solzhenitsyn who said it more eloquently*

[no-s]

> de facto felons

Ex post facto

[LouAvul]

All gun laws violate our Constitutional rights. The problem is the liberal whores and pimps who control our judiciary and don't punish criminals. Bring back the death penalty. Bring back hanging, and televise it. And come down on lawbreakers with an iron fist.

If we returned to common-sense law enforcement and judiciary, we would not need gun laws. But, no, we gotta placate the whores and pimps in katholic charities, etc.

[threefinger]

No, it isn’t a violation of Ex Post Facto. Ex Post Facto would be if they prosecuted you for an act you committed on 31 May that wasn’t criminalized until 1 June.

The BATFE is and always has been granted wide latitude as to how it enforces the federal code. The NFA in particular was signed into law in 1934, and even if their interpretation of the law changes in 2023, it’s still a 1934 law. NO Ex Post Facto.