Posted on 01/17/2023 6:29:55 AM PST by SeekAndFind
After years of flip-flopping, the ATF has issued a rule recharacterizing guns with pistol braces, making millions of currently owned guns subject to federal "short-barrel" rifle registration, together with a $200 tax. The effect of this rule change is particularly potent in Connecticut, where existing laws banning so-called "assault rifles" are immediately triggered. Owners there of handguns with pistol braces cannot merely remove the brace if the weapon has a "forward pistol grip" or "second hand grip"; these guns are effectively rendered instantly illegal due to the fickle federal rule change.
Prior to the rule change, Connecticut gun-owners could legally own pistols with braces that possessed features otherwise prohibited by Connecticut's 2013 ban on "assault weapons." Generally called "others," these in-between guns were classified as illegal handguns (barrel too long), not specifically banned under the state's definition of assault weapons (barrel under 16 inches, exclusive of pistol brace), and yet were long enough (when fitted with the brace, which acts as a butt extension) to evade federal classification as "short-barrel rifles" under the former ATF determination.
The State of Connecticut classified them per federal rules as legally permissible, not as prohibited short-barrel rifles. With the ATF rule change, Connecticut "others"-gun owners will overnight find themselves in possession of illegal assault weapons.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Damn scary isn’t it?
Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
“If they are concerned about gun crime, why don’t they start in democrat hellholes like Chicago and Baltimore?”
LOL. The answer is obvious. Most law abiding citizens do not vote democrat where as those in the hellholes do.
It’s a multiple win. Those being prosecuted never voted for them in the first place, thus nothing is lost. The low information people that do vote for them think taking away guns is a good thing. The the crooks that are not targeted are grateful and will continue voting for them.
No one has the genuine will to oppose these people. I do. However, life’s circumstances have not put me in the right place to obtain the right position. I would have them on video apologizing for every bad decision they made and warning others not to do the same thing.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. All of these power-hungry people have used their power in a corrupt way instead of doing good and what benefits the people. That would dramatically change.
This has been the goal the entire time. To subvert the Constitution, they created entities that can create “rules” with the force of law.
We live in a rule of man society. Never give up your weapons, folks. They will make all of us criminals one day...not just the ones with bump stocks or pistol braces.
Heard a good quote one time. Don’t know who said it first. “New laws are always ‘a good idea’ until somebody has to enforce them.”
All the AW and magazine bans passed over the years are ex post facto laws. Illinois just did it last week. I’m waiting for our useless judicial system to do the right thing.
Neat trick, charge them with a felony and they can no longer own guns.
Un-Constitutional.
USSC will look at that tax as a violation of 2nd Amendment. No other Constitutional right is taxed.
I think you may be misinterpreting ex post facto in this situation. Laws that reach back in time and make conduct punishable in a way it was not punishable for when it was done are ex post facto laws. That is not the case here. As was discussed in the article, the expectation is that prosecutions will take place for possessing (current tense) an SBR in violation of (future) current law.
It's all a steaming pile, of course. Hopefully a stay will be issued while we wait for it to be struck down.
I never liked the "pistol" brace. I have two SBRs with ATF tax stamps and real butt stocks that make them comfortable to shoot with red dot optics. I own some pistol uppers and pistol lowers. No braces. They are clumsy to shoot. The 5.56 in a 7.5" barrel is very loud as well. All were built from stripped lowers. Having experienced the configuration, I'm inclined to replace the barrels with 16.1 inch in a more interesting cartridge. It's a straight forward change.
The ATF has no authority to make laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bump stocks are protected by the 2nd Amendment, so how in the hell does the ATF or even Congress thi k this new rule is constitutional?
I know what ex-post facto laws are. And what is being proposed is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Thus, it would be an ex-post facto law because it would negate the 2nd Amendment and pretty much render useless the 4th and arguably the 9th and the 10th, as well.
“How does an unelected three letter agency make law?”
Unconstitutionally.
If anybody actually cares to know.
This sounds like a tax, which an agency rule cannot establish.
Apparently not, because in your post you say it is an ex post facto law because it would negate the 2nd amendment. A law that violates the constitution is struck down for that reason, not because faulty logic assigns it an ex post facto label.
“... already strictly controlled.”
But shouldn’t be, strictly Constitutionally speaking.
But, hey, what do I know? I’m only reading what it says.
And herein lies a substantial part of our national problem:
Some large group of so-called “conservatives” suffer from the same inability to stomach the Constitution as written as does the political left in this country. So...”A house divided” and all the consequences of that, and we’ve not yet got down to opposing the left.
Anybody wants to call themselves “Conservative” but thinks “shall not be infringed” means anything short of an absolute prohibition on legislation or regulation mitigating sale, manufacture, possession, or transport of firearms or ammunition for same — I call BS. That’s not a Constitutional “Conservative” stance; that’s surrender of rights under color of yellow-bellied cowardice.
Yes and no.
In the strictest sense, you are right, because ex-post facto laws are retro-active: They punish acts or behavior that prior to the passage of the new law were legal.
Consider this hypothetical: The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congress passes a law eliminating the 2nd Amendment, excising it completely, and the president signs it into law. There is no 2nd Amendment. There is no right under the Constitution to possess a gun. As soon as the president puts down the pen, you are automatically and immediately a criminal for possessing a gun.
That’s a bare-bones simplification.
Then, of course, there is the question of taxation of a right that is specifically protected under the Constitution.
In my hypothetical above, there is no temporary grandfather carve-out; and no qualifiers for taxation, etc.
But I get where you are coming from, and I agree with you to that extent.
Anyway, I don’t think this new law will survive judicial review.
Also, ex-post facto laws are broader than just the time element, though that is the most glaring.
However, ex-post facto laws also increase penalties and change the rules of evidence such that they would negatively affect the defendant. Those aspects are also unconstitutional.
My hope and expectation is that a stay will be issued and this will be tossed by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
In the interim, there could be some tremendous deals on gun broker for SBRs currently owned in Connecticut.
“Your hypothetical is unrealistic in order to illustrate a false point.”
I disagree. But, that’s why these exercises are so much fun, and so enlightening.
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.