Posted on 01/14/2023 7:19:09 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
So they can’t waive a tax because it’s the law, but they can make a “rule change” (which is NOt the same as a law) affecting millions that has the weight of law?
This is the mentality they are working off of...
For decades, short-barreled rifles have been subject to strict regulations, including additional taxes, background checks for private transfers and other provisions. “But stabilizing braces, which effectively transform pistols into short-barreled rifles”, had not been affected by those rules.
“Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to stricter legal requirements,” Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters. “Policymakers understood then what we know is still true today. Short-barreled rifles present a deadly combination: They are easier to conceal than rifles, but they are more powerful and lethal than pistols.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/13/biden-administration-announces-new-regulations-pis/
Yes, good point.
The NRA was silent about the bumpstock ban. Gun Owners Of America was not. So the NRA no longer gets my money. They are for 2A limitations.
The old leadership would have never supported bumpstock ban.
The old leadership supported the 1986 bmachine gun ban and then 1968 GCA.
And the ATF still has their stupid “myths about the ATF” page claiming the ATF does not make laws.
....just “rules” that must be followed by rule of law.....
Bunch of lying murderers.
Braces on rifles are a recent (2012 - first SB Tactical brace) innovation. A loophole to take a short barrelled rifle and call it is pistol. It was great while it lasted, but was guaranteed to end in a legal dispute.
I think a more reasonable stance for gun owners and gun rights activists is not that rifles with braces should be considered pistols, but that it is unreasonable and unconstitutional to regulate short barreled rifles.
AFT has been slow walking NFA applications for years. Given current technology even waiting a week for approval is too long. The quickest approval I have gotten is 5 months, using e-file for a Form 1 SBR, which was supposed to speed up the process. I waited nearly 11 months for my first can on a Form 4.
Supposedly proof of filing will be sufficient while waiting for approval.
A regulation is not supposed to carry criminal penalties for its breach. Only a fine or loss of license - civil penalties.
Obviously a law carries criminal penalties.
But federal law does make it a crime to intentionally violate a rule - effectively giving administrative rules the force of law.
This is all called Delegation and it has no basis in the Constitution where it is nowhere mentioned. In the past the Judiciary has tacitly tolerated it but with the comment that at some point the Code of Federal Regulation should be incorporated somehow into the United States Code. But that would require a vote of Congress, and it would be insane to simply vote on the entirety of the CFR instead of individual reulatory chapters. So..they dont do it.
And we are left being ruled by federal employees who make it up as they go.
For those already in the NFA world this is just a way to get free SBRs. I have a Ruger Charger (10-22 pistol) with a nice folding brace that will get stamped. Now, there are some good reasons why someone might want a pistol with a brace. Many states prohibit loaded rifles from being carried in vehicles but loaded pistols are allowed. And there are many who do not want any firearms registered with the feral government.
“For those already in the NFA world this is just a way to get free SBRs.”
Except for the poor folks in states like CA, NY, NJ, Hawaii, DC, where SBRs are illegal.
This doesn’t change the fact that their reasoning is daft. Adding a brace does not turn a low power 9mm pistol into a high power 7.62x39 SBR.
But that is exactly what they are trying to claim to justify this new restriction. It is based on a deceptive uneducated ignorant concept for banning all braces.
If I bought a pistol brace but haven’t installed it on anything yet, can I register it now?
It is bizarre, and impossible to know, from what they say.
Essentially, they seem to be saying: we will know it when we see it.
I am trying to figure out if their are any "safe harbors", absolutes, which you can be certain are braces or not?
Very difficult to know.
The ATF having reached the conclusion that since shoes
give added traction and that since 100 percent of mass
shooters wore shoes...the use of shoes will be banned
by regulation... /S
Agreed, just because you CAN put it up to your shoulder doesn’t make it more lethal or dangerous.
“I think a more reasonable stance for gun owners and gun rights activists is not that rifles with braces should be considered pistols, but that it is unreasonable and unconstitutional to regulate short barreled rifles.”
Exactly.
So here is a curious question... Since the rule is so open and broad stating “Any firearm” how is this going to impact common pistols which can receive an aftermarket brace designed to fit it without any alterations to the firearm. Will those also have to have a 16” barrel installed or be illegal also just because a brace CAN be put on one?
What I find hilarious about this is they think there’s some logic in making handguns with a stock illegal when the upshot is the stock doesn’t make the bullet it fires any more lethal but because it can be fired should-mounted, you’re more likely to hit what you intend to (and less likely to hit an innocent bystander).
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.