LRRPF52 Wrote:Check out Clean Up ATF.org sometime if you want to peek under ATF’s skirt some more.

They’ve had major problems for decades. When they threaten one of their main agents who was UC with the motorcycle gangs, by saying they will get cartel informants/assets to film his wife being raped before they kill her and his kids, burn his house down, and stick the murder/arson charges on him, you know they went off the deep end long ago.

Their whole focus on the motorcycle gangs is based on the interstate commerce argument the AG and Asst AG made in 1934 before Congress. In addition to weaponizing Congress’s power to tax as a way around the Bill of Rights and Constitution, they also suggested using Interstate Commerce laws to charge hardened criminal gangsters and bank-robbers from transporting firearms across State lines was another legal tool to be enacted.

The thinking behind AG Cummings and Asst AG Keenan’s arguments in 1934 were entirely unconstitutional, and created a weird set of regulations about interstate transport that only hurt the people. The idea was to make it easier to arrest and prosecute suspects who were traveling over State lines in possession of firearms, which is part of the right to keep and bear. They didn’t like it because some of the cases built against gangsters (who were moving from one safe house to another across State lines) were pretty flimsy and didn’t result in the convictions they wanted.

It criminalizes the conduct of the entire citizenry just to catch a tiny gaggle of gangsters and bank-robbers in early 1930s America.

Interstate Commerce clauses are meant to promote, unify, and standardize trade between the States, not bottleneck or restrict it. That whole argument is fundamentally flawed and openly so.

ATF and BoN/DEA were big on that back in the 1970s and 1980s since DOJ could use the same provisions to prosecute gangs for smuggling.

The problem is, it’s a tempting tool for LEOs and DAs to use to penalize the citizens for normal and lawful conduct protected by the Constitution, since we don’t have a criminal standard of law like in other countries, despite ATF’s and DOJ’s attempts to change that into more of a police state.

Hansel&Grendel' Wrote:This is an interesting development regarding the ATF pistol brace ruling:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/01/30/rep-andrew-clyde-to-use-congressional-review-act-to-override-atf-stabilizer-brace-rule/

lazyengineer Wrote:I don't know how that works. Will that require support from the Senate, as well? I'm guessing so, since it's not House Review Act...

Hansel&Grendel' Wrote:Under the CRA, before a rule can take effect, an agency must submit a report to each house of Congress and the comptroller general containing a copy of the rule; a concise general statement describing the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and the proposed effective date of the rule. After receiving the report, Members of Congress have specified time periods during which they must submit and act on a joint resolution of disapproval to take advantage of the CRA’s special “fast track” procedures. If both houses pass the resolution, it is sent to the President for signature or veto. If the President were to veto the resolution, Congress could vote to override the veto. Since its enactment in 1996, the CRA has been used to overturn a total of 20 rules: 1 in the 107th Congress (2001-2002), 16 in the 115th Congress (2017-2018), and 3 in the 117th Congress (2021-2022).

Since the Democrats control the Senate, it's unlikely that the CRA will work on this issue.

LRRPF52 Wrote:There are so many problems the ATF faces from a legal standpoint with this “ruling”, that they would be decimated in court:

Any judge ruling in their favor would have to ignore:

Article 1, Section 9 regarding ex post facto laws. Not only does ATF not have law-making authority, but Congress isn’t even allowed to make ex post facto laws. ATF loses doubly on that one.

2A is self explanatory and this is the main pillar multiple Sheriffs are already citing, namely that ATF has no authority to violate the people’s rights to keep and bear arms, and Sheriffs being sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution will not allow ATF to come into their jurisdictions to attempt to enforce said “rulings”.

4A applies to everyone who now lives in fear of threat of force of ATF violating their person, places, and effects. ATF is violating this every day they assert that this “ruling” is valid and will go into effect.

5A applies to protection from self incrimination, which their forms and demands in the ruling violate. ATF is saying ex post facto that these firearms they and the Treasury deemed to be Title I firearms are now Title II, and always have been Title II. By getting you to apply for registration, you are agreeing to their claim these were always NFA items in your possession, even with all their determination letters saying otherwise dating back to Nov 26, 2012.

9A favors the people with regard to any rights not mentioned in the BoR.

10A favors the People and States

CFR 26 covers Federal Excise Taxes on Title I firearms, which these 10-40 million samples fall under. ATF and Treasury have classified, accepted FET taxes on, and monitored the manufacturer and transfer of these firearms under Title I since 2013. Any judge even not familiar with the law will ask, “Why did you officially classify, accept FET, and process these millions of firearms under Title I if you now saw they were never Title I firearms? The CFR and FET seems pretty clear on this.”

CFR 27 covers Federal Excise Taxes and duties collected on imported Title I firearms. Think Striborgs, Hk, B&T, Cz, and other European companies who paid all the duties and excise taxes under the US CFR by the book, now are being told those were actually all NFA items (NFA items aren’t able to be imported). Judge will ask the same question. “What the hell are you guys doing here? None of this makes sense to me.”

That then triggers 922®, so even if people try to incriminate themselves according to ATF’s registration scheme, they now are harmed financially with burdensome parts compliance and no remedies.

A judge would also have to rule in favor of ATF in violation of Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, where the government or any entity is forbidden from keepings ownership records on firearms possessed by the people, so a judge would have to ignore that actual law passed by Congress.

1934 NFA. Interestingly, if ATF’s technical claims are true, ATF is incriminating themselves by declaring that they supervised, encouraged, and authored the distribution of millions of NFA firearms into the market in violation of the 1934 NFA itself, while defrauding the Treasury of NFA taxes, and are now arbitrarily deciding to enact a massive enforcement measure in some sort of gotcha scheme. Imagine trying to explain that to a judge.

Then a judge would have to side with the ATF against the Supreme Court of the United States in the following court cases:

DC vs Heller
NY State Pistol and Rifle Assoc. vs Bruen
McDonald vs Chicago
West Virginia vs EPA

That new ATF Director just admitted on TV that they (ATF) passed a new rule to ban ghost guns. ATF has no authority to pass anything.

This would be a great piece of evidence to use in court, to emphasize and document before the judge how this Prohibition-era unconstitutional agency has really been out of control, and doesn’t understand how our laws work in the United States.

“Your honor, I think this is a great opportunity for the judicial branch to remind an unelected Federal bureaucracy that was formed to bypass due process with gangsters like Dillinger in the early 1930s, that they don’t have the power to make laws and harm millions of Americans who are freely exercising their rights."

LRRPF52 Wrote:There are so many problems the ATF faces from a legal standpoint with this “ruling”, that they would be decimated in court:

Any judge ruling in their favor would have to ignore:

Article 1, Section 9 regarding ex post facto laws. Not only does ATF not have law-making authority, but Congress isn’t even allowed to make ex post facto laws. ATF loses doubly on that one.

2A is self explanatory and this is the main pillar multiple Sheriffs are already citing, namely that ATF has no authority to violate the people’s rights to keep and bear arms, and Sheriffs being sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution will not allow ATF to come into their jurisdictions to attempt to enforce said “rulings”.

4A applies to everyone who now lives in fear of threat of force of ATF violating their person, places, and effects. ATF is violating this every day they assert that this “ruling” is valid and will go into effect.

5A applies to protection from self incrimination, which their forms and demands in the ruling violate. ATF is saying ex post facto that these firearms they and the Treasury deemed to be Title I firearms are now Title II, and always have been Title II. By getting you to apply for registration, you are agreeing to their claim these were always NFA items in your possession, even with all their determination letters saying otherwise dating back to Nov 26, 2012.

9A favors the people with regard to any rights not mentioned in the BoR.

10A favors the People and States

CFR 26 covers Federal Excise Taxes on Title I firearms, which these 10-40 million samples fall under. ATF and Treasury have classified, accepted FET taxes on, and monitored the manufacturer and transfer of these firearms under Title I since 2013. Any judge even not familiar with the law will ask, “Why did you officially classify, accept FET, and process these millions of firearms under Title I if you now saw they were never Title I firearms? The CFR and FET seems pretty clear on this.”

CFR 27 covers Federal Excise Taxes and duties collected on imported Title I firearms. Think Striborgs, Hk, B&T, Cz, and other European companies who paid all the duties and excise taxes under the US CFR by the book, now are being told those were actually all NFA items (NFA items aren’t able to be imported). Judge will ask the same question. “What the hell are you guys doing here? None of this makes sense to me.”

That then triggers 922®, so even if people try to incriminate themselves according to ATF’s registration scheme, they now are harmed financially with burdensome parts compliance and no remedies.

A judge would also have to rule in favor of ATF in violation of Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, where the government or any entity is forbidden from keepings ownership records on firearms possessed by the people, so a judge would have to ignore that actual law passed by Congress.

1934 NFA. Interestingly, if ATF’s technical claims are true, ATF is incriminating themselves by declaring that they supervised, encouraged, and authored the distribution of millions of NFA firearms into the market in violation of the 1934 NFA itself, while defrauding the Treasury of NFA taxes, and are now arbitrarily deciding to enact a massive enforcement measure in some sort of gotcha scheme. Imagine trying to explain that to a judge.

Then a judge would have to side with the ATF against the Supreme Court of the United States in the following court cases:

DC vs Heller
NY State Pistol and Rifle Assoc. vs Bruen
McDonald vs Chicago
West Virginia vs EPA

That new ATF Director just admitted on TV that they (ATF) passed a new rule to ban ghost guns. ATF has no authority to pass anything.

This would be a great piece of evidence to use in court, to emphasize and document before the judge how this Prohibition-era unconstitutional agency has really been out of control, and doesn’t understand how our laws work in the United States.

“Your honor, I think this is a great opportunity for the judicial branch to remind an unelected Federal bureaucracy that was formed to bypass due process with gangsters like Dillinger in the early 1930s, that they don’t have the power to make laws and harm millions of Americans who are freely exercising their rights."

Quote:Gun rights groups are setting their sights on the Biden administration rule that forces firearm owners to register any weapons with "stabling braces," calling it a "war against lawful gun owners," according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

At least two lawsuits from separate Texas-based policy groups have been filed since the 98-page rule went into effect on Jan. 31, which requires gun owners that use stabling braces to register their weapons within 120 days or face potential felony charges. The rule is being enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and sparked backlash from Republican lawmakers and Second Amendment advocates.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the ATF in the 5th Circuit.

A veteran’s group (WILL), Firearms Policy Council, and Texas Public Policy Foundation have all filed suit.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/lawsuit-atf-ban-pistol-braces-war-on-gun-owners