Posted on 01/31/2023 8:11:08 AM PST by Yo-Yo
An absolute must read (free on line) = “Unintended Consequences”. It’s a long book but we’ll worth the reading.
I made the mistake of actually reading through the rule. Okay, fast scan but noticed in the “Comments” section ATF disagreed with the VAST MAJORITY of the comments received. There was one State Attorney General calling the rule vague and incomplete and ATF just said, We Disagree. ATF was making this rule come hell or high water. Comments be damned. The only comments they seemed to accept were ones related to how bad their form was to use and comprehend.
Personally I wouldn’t want to strap a pistol to my forearm, but some disabled Americans may need to do that. Oh, forgot to mention ATF said that since they are a Federal Agency, ADA compliance does not apply to them. There are 10 years worth of braces in the public arena. There is no chance in hell AFT knows where even a tiny fraction of them are.
Based on number of comments alone, lawsuits will quickly follow. A number of Constitutional Amendments were cited and simply dismissed by ATF.
Question for ATF, How many times was a pistol with a brace used in a mass shooting? Name One, just One.
Take it off. Turn it into a decorative lamp for the parlor that can be quickly slapped onto the pistol. ATF does not have jurisdiction over decorative lamps. Great project for the home work shop. Ridiculous that something with such a short barrel can now be called a “rifle” under any circumstances.
The hell it doesn't. But in this particular case, the BATFE is correct. ADA calls for reasonable accessibility to buildings and facilities, not consumer products. So, the store selling the AR pistol must be accommodating under the law, but the pistol itself is not required to be, thus, the brace is a non-issue under the ADA.
So, if a friend has a Thomson/Contender pistol.
And a long barrel.
And a shoulder stock.
Not assembled.
What trouble is he in?
Or what to do to stay out of trouble?
I sent that meme to a friend who manages a gun store.
Now, they have a clear and consistent policy of not selling things their legal team thinks could get them in legal trouble. Things like bump stocks, wrist braces, 80% frames, etc.
He joked to me that this meme is a possible desired outcome of the rule. Force people into more extreme steps to justify mass confiscation.
“pound sand”
Then they’ll shred you, your wife, your whole family and your home with machine guns.
There is nothing extreme about adhering to the Constitution, which clearly says “shall not be infringed.”
But when you get stuck with thousands of dollars of inventory that you now have to destroy, it can end your business.
So they decided to not stock them or order them.
And a long barrel.
And a shoulder stock.
Not assembled.
What trouble is he in?
Or what to do to stay out of trouble?
All your friend has to do is to make sure that if he has a shoulder stock for his Thompson/Center Contender, that he also has a 16" barrel for the T/C, and that he only puts on the stock when he also puts on the 16" barrel.
If he uses any barrels shorter than 16", he removes the stock.
Or he can pay $200 to SBR the T/C, then forever after have to live with the limitations of owning an NFA item (keeping a copy of the paperwork with the firearm at all times, asking permission from the ATF to transport it across state lines, etc.)
If you have a braced lamp, and you have a carbine buffer tube on your pistol, you have what the ATF calls "constructive possession."
The ATF rule published today also requires that the pistol be permanently modified so that the brace cannot be easily reattached.
This usually means putting on a dedicated pistol buffer tube (the kind without the stops for an adjustable stock) on the pistol.
There was a guy on Glenn Beck’s radio show this morning who said a lawsuit has already been filed in Amarillo, Texas...a favorable venue.
I’m tired of these unelected bureaucrats making laws.
I ask again: Did they comply with the mandatory notice and public comment period under the APA before making this change?
Sue them. This is a violation of the Second Amendment.
They did have a comment period, and replied to those comments in this final rule.
However, this final rule differs so much from the proposed rule that was released for comments that I'd say no, they did not follow the public comment period law properly.
Well, f@#$ ‘em.
They just can’t stop disarming
The American people!
An earlier decision, United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., that said the TC kit isn't an SBR because there are legal configurations using all parts provided. As long as he doesn't assemble it into an SBR...
As for the brace, I don't think it would be legal with the T/C. I'm not a lawyer, but I would not want to be the test case trying to prove the brace is a "useful" part in a legal configuration. The BATF would try to claim "constructive possession" of an SBR.
They’re working on making it happen.
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.