AR pistols- new proposed rule -> SBR

[Hansel&Grendel]

It doesn't matter if Texas (a large State) or Rhode Island (a small State) declares the brace proposal as unconstitutional. Legal standing isn't predicated on State size, i.e., all potential Plaintiffs are treated the same by the Courts.

Federal law is codified in the U.S. Code (USC). The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations—referred to in a broad sense in regards to administrative law—published in the Federal Register. Agencies, including ATF, get their authority to issue regulations from laws (statutes) enacted by Congress. In some cases, a President may delegate existing Presidential authority to an agency.

With the pistol brace issue, ATF has issued proposed regulations for the CFR that are the subject of this thread. The Department of Justice has already rendered its legal opinion that in turn greenlighted ATF to issue the proposed regs, albeit subject to required public input. Proposed regulations are subject to Congressional scrutiny before they become binding and legally enforceable. There is also Judicial oversight upon Motion by one or more Plaintiffs who have standing and who claim that the regs once entered into the CFR are either unconstitutional, are outside the authority of the agency issuing the regs, etc.

Here, the Dems, for the time being, control the Presidency, the Senate and the House. So, do the math as to what we can expect. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause dictates that if State and Federal laws/regulations are in conflict with one another, Federal law/regulations prevail.

We just can't wish ATF away. Congress and the Courts recognize the existence of ATF and its ability to enforce laws and regulations up to and including arrest for willful violations of said laws and regulations. There are people in prison as a result. We can characterize ATF as unconstitutional all that we want, but how often have we heard of ATF being ordered to un-arrest someone? We don't because ATF has mandated authority backed by the Courts. The same applies to the IRS and, for example, certain citizen movements that refuse to recognize the IRS amidst several Constitutional challenges, etc. All of which the Courts have rejected, i.e., the IRS is here to stay as is ATF.

What also matters is that the current Department of Justice has become weaponized, probably to a greater extent than under the Obama Administration with its FISA abuses and other gems. All of that represents a formidable challenge to legal gun owners. How do legal gun owners fight for the time being? Through elected representatives. Through Court actions. By joining Constitutionally provisioned militias (although the DOJ, the FBI and other Federal agencies are demonizing and targeting militias as we speak). Personally I believe that the ongoing attacks against the Second Amendment will take the country to civil war. Many of my fellow active/retired LE buddies feel the same way.

So, we wait for what ATF will decide to do with the proposed regs after public input and other boxes are checked. If the regs make it into the CFR and, as such, become enforceable, then we fight with the legal tools at our disposal. And, then, each person has to write his/her script as to what to do next.

[grayfox]

All true. But just to clarify, Paxton made his statements/opinion in his letter commenting on the proposed Regs, which as a citizen he is allowed to do. It presages the fight (he, probably joined by others) most likely will carry into the court. And hopefully will get an injunction to begin with, blocking its enforcement.
I also agree that this administration is weaponizing all of this, the only reason the response seems muted is that lamestream media lapdogs have taken their dentures out and aren’t even barking at the robbers as they pillage the legal landscape and citizenry.
absolute power is indeed showing its absolute corruption.

[Hansel&Grendel]

And, here we go:
The accompanying headline to the link below: "Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can’t void federal gun laws"
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-mic...SocialFlow

My thoughts: Now do sanctuary cities, DOJ.

[grayfox]

It does make me wonder, how the swampocrats so easily did nothing while federal laws about illegal aliens were flouted out west and in all of those sanctuary cities/states.
Selective enforcement. To hide or prevent a federal LE in carrying out a lawful investigation? I thought that was obstruction. Prince Newsom, princess litefoot, whatshisface in Oregon/Washington state...

[LRRPF52]

Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause dictates that if State and Federal laws/regulations are in conflict with one another, Federal law/regulations prevail.

There are no Federal Laws more supreme than the Bill of Rights.

When unconstitutional laws are written and enforced, they still are illegal and it is our duty to actively oppose them.

Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executives are not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is.

It doesn’t matter if all 3 branches agree on tyranny. They must still be opposed.

[grayfox]

MO's Attorney General and Gov have posted their response to the Feds, it is a great read combining history and current events and the law.

Missouri gov, attorney general fire back at Biden DOJ over 'federal overreach' on 2nd Amendment rights | Fox News


In one particular spot, the MO letter states that the DOJ has not identified any place where MO's act breaks or contradicts any federal law. Instead the Act limits (and they have great arguments why such limitation is both allowed and with precedent - ie, "sanctuary cities" and biden) cooperation and fulfilling of any federal law against the 2A by state or local officials. And that the Feds cannot coerce a State's officials to carry them out.

So, there is no supremacy issue to even bring up.

Matter of fact, going back into English common law for hundreds of years, the separation of rights, States, and the federal govt is well established and was precisely done to be a limitation on the King doing or forcing localities to carry out disarmament! That's what I get out of the historical references in the ltr.

ps, I love it when libs' arguments are used against them!!!

[dammitman]

There are no Federal Laws more supreme than the Bill of Rights.

When unconstitutional laws are written and enforced, they still are illegal and it is our duty to actively oppose them.

Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executives are not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is.

It doesn’t matter if all 3 branches agree on tyranny. They must still be opposed.

and thats where i stand as well,,,,,

[Hansel&Grendel]

Agreed. However, when there is a dispute between parties, then the Courts do have value. That includes Constitutional issues where, in some instances, interpretation and admonishments are required, hopefully driven by strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

At the same time, the GOP could have legislatively remedied the several issues (attacks) that exist today regarding the Second Amendment. For 6 years of the George W. Bush Presidency and for 2 years of the Trump Presidency, the GOP controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House. But the GOP did nothing to legislatively fix (undo) regulations regarding suppressors, rifle lengths and other nonsensical attacks that we face today regarding the Second Amendment. Instead, the GOP caved to purported polling on gun control along with pressure from the media and Hollywood. As if the standing of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights require approval of the aforementioned.

Those on this forum and the millions of responsible gun owners like us (aka Patriots) aren't the cause of gun related crimes in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., etc. That was readily apparent during the entirety of my LE career especially having worked in Baltimore, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The millions of us responsible gun owners are the ones who comprise the bear that has been poked once to often. Not a good thing to do.

[Hansel&Grendel]

Helpful but a ways to go:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/susan-c...nfirmation

[grayfox]

"The Party must command all the guns; that way the guns can never be used to command the Party." ~ Chairman Mao, 1938... also the legendary chairman emeritus of today's Democrat party.

[Micke]

I can't prove what the Biden regime's thinking is, but I believe the following:

The bumpstock ban caused the left to believe that they can therefore ban anything at any time without legislation. The ongoing challenge to the bumpstock ban - if it makes it to The Supremes? I expect it will be upheld. Too many RINO's among The Supremes.

It was my own personal observation in the run-up to the bumpstock ban that way, way, too many conservatives and gun owners in arfcom were saying: "It's just a piece of plastic. I don't own one. Doesn't affect me." Meanwhile I'll bet next week's groceries that the left noticed the fecklessness of MANY on the right. I'll bet they were absolutely salivating and goading Trump to go forward with it - or face severe political consequences.

The pistol braces don't really matter to the left other than: They want a relatively minor test case in case it goes before The Supremes. This way, if they lose (I don't trust The Supremes on this), they believe it won't weaken their position on eventually manufacturing a way to make all AR15s NFA and use the background checks for NFA to infringe the 2A as much as possible. (aside: I believe the left plans to make their first major confiscation effort aimed at all NFA guns. I can see a few things that might happen that may make that too easy. All it takes is one bad decision from The Supremes. And we saw some whoppers from them not long ago.)

Back to topic: The pistol brace thing is entirely to use bumpstock precedent to expand further and make it into a mechanism for de-facto confiscation and get it rubber stamped.

That is, I believe the end game. If they can get away with doing whatever they want with pistol braces, the same engineered method will be used next to NFA (with engineered abuses and many, many denials and "related" red flags) all AR15s.

During that fight, I believe anything that increases rate of fire will be used to say: "They were all, already, potentially machine guns. Look at these videos. It proves it. Some of these are 'better' than bumpstocks! The horror, the horror!"

And if anyone says: "But you approved all those triggers as NOT MG's." They'll simply say: "Well, we re-classified pistol braces that we had approved and did so after the fact. That clearly shows that we can do that with anything. Even AR15s with regular semi triggers."

So if any significant level court up to and including the Supremes rules that their duplicity with pistol braces is ok, look out. They then have the mechanism to ban entire classes of (millions of) guns at any time they please. And once an appellate court rules in their favor, I do not think they will wait - even if further appeals are pending. I believe they will do as much damage as they can in the 2 to 5 years it takes to get to The Supremes. Just in case.

I believe a lot of the danger is: It's not just many or most gun owners who think pistol braces are insignificant. Courts can easily be tricked into believing the same. They can also be tricked into believing that it can't or won't be used as an engineered mechanism to adversely affect all gun ownership. If they play this right, it can be a big step for them towards nullifying the entire 2A without having to actually strike it down.

It can and will affect it all, one way or the other.

But that's all just my opinion.

I apologize for too many edits, but: Yes, I do submit my own comments (not copy/paste) for every unconstitutional over-reach attempted by the BATFE. So I've already done that - both for the Trump BATFE attempt against braces and Biden's BATFE attempt. I do use the "anonymous" button since I don't care to be on any more watchlists.

[grayfox]

Interesting theory. While it might be possible - like you I don't know what evil/thoughts lurk in the recesses of the leftwing mind -- yet under NFA the law applies to SBR's and fully automatic weapons etc. A pistol brace arguably - ARGUABLY - could be re-defined into part of an SBR, but AR's cannot be argued into "fully automatic" regardless of what "nasty-name" they might be called by the marxist/left. That's why the bumpstock ban got rejected in court (even though it is pending appeal) - one trigger pull= 1 shot still applies to the bumpstock thus not fully auto, thus NFA cannot apply.
Of course this doesn't mean they might try as you say....
However I am heartened by the many rulings of Trump-appointed judges who are blocking hidinbidin's Rule-of-pen EO's as illegal/unconstitutional.

[MrDraco]

https://www.gunowners.org/forty-eight-se...17-sF3zirs

[Micke]

Interesting theory. While it might be possible - like you I don't know what evil/thoughts lurk in the recesses of the leftwing mind -- yet under NFA the law applies to SBR's and fully automatic weapons etc. A pistol brace arguably - ARGUABLY - could be re-defined into part of an SBR, but AR's cannot be argued into "fully automatic" regardless of what "nasty-name" they might be called by the marxist/left. That's why the bumpstock ban got rejected in court (even though it is pending appeal) - one trigger pull= 1 shot still applies to the bumpstock thus not fully auto, thus NFA cannot apply.
Of course this doesn't mean they might try as you say....
However I am heartened by the many rulings of Trump-appointed judges who are blocking hidinbidin's Rule-of-pen EO's as illegal/unconstitutional.

grayfox,

Thank you for your reply. I sincerely hope that you are right and the attacks on 2A are fended off.

[LRRPF52]

Agreed. However, when there is a dispute between parties, then the Courts do have value. That includes Constitutional issues where, in some instances, interpretation and admonishments are required, hopefully driven by strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

At the same time, the GOP could have legislatively remedied the several issues (attacks) that exist today regarding the Second Amendment. For 6 years of the George W. Bush Presidency and for 2 years of the Trump Presidency, the GOP controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House. But the GOP did nothing to legislatively fix (undo) regulations regarding suppressors, rifle lengths and other nonsensical attacks that we face today regarding the Second Amendment. Instead, the GOP caved to purported polling on gun control along with pressure from the media and Hollywood. As if the standing of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights require approval of the aforementioned.

Those on this forum and the millions of responsible gun owners like us (aka Patriots) aren't the cause of gun related crimes in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., etc. That was readily apparent during the entirety of my LE career especially having worked in Baltimore, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The millions of us responsible gun owners are the ones who comprise the bear that has been poked once to often. Not a good thing to do.

There was a surprising amount of momentum behind the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, introduced on 01/09/2017. The only opposition “expert witness” in committee was a one retired ATF Agent, David Chipman of ShotSpotter, who failed to disclose his employment with that company.

As political momentum built up for HPA in 2017 with the mandate and majorities in the House, Senate, and WH control, an event took place that pulled all the air out of any pro-freedom legislation dealing with firearms.

That event happened on October 1st, 2017. This was of course the Vegas Shooting.

Immediately afterwards, Paul Ryan shelved the HPA because it didn’t look good for the GOP to move forward in the wake of that event.

Despite the Founders intending the Constitution to not be easily amended under emotional duress, legislation for or against our freedoms often loses to the very fervor of public sentiment, as controlled by the media.

[lazyengineer]

The difference between the bumpstock ban and the pistol armbrace ban, is that one of those is a device for no other purpose than to be a firing rate enhancer, and the other is for the purpose of aiding a shooter fire a pistol.

Either could be "misused", but the arm-brace purpose, is established and proven, and still authorized even now per the new rules (At its heart at least). While on bumpstocks - here's the case they are going to make, like it or not: a bumpstock causes the rifle to fire multiple discharges with one user-initiated pull, and then uses nuances to cause the firearm to engage the trigger finger and continue firing multiple times per the one "actuation", without additional operator selected action (i.e. the subsequent shots aren't legitimate "actuation"). If you don't like what I wrote, that's nice, but that's the case the DA is going to make, and depending on the judge, he'll win easily. If it makes it the Supreme Court, they'll take 2 years to decide, fixate on some irrelevant nuance and send it back to the lower court to decide again; and then refuse to hear it in 5 years. That's what you can expect from the USSC.

But its not quite as easy for the Federal Attorney to make that same case for any plain firearm that happens to also be easy to bump-fire, since that's not the design intent nor typical. Nor can he as easily make the same case for an arm-brace, since its design intent is legitimate usage is a pistol firing enhancer; not a stock. But once the case is made that a bumpstock is a multiple-discharge device per user conscious actuation, then it becomes very easy to blanket ban them all per federal code, which requires one user actuation per fire. All they have to say, is the gun bumping against your stationary finger, is not legitimately a user actuation.

We'll see how this plays out - but that's my crystal ball. Not saying I approve of any of it.

[Fess]

a bumpstock causes the rifle to fire multiple discharges with one user-initiated pull, and then uses nuances to cause the firearm to engage the trigger finger and continue firing multiple times per the one "actuation", without additional operator selected action (i.e. the subsequent shots aren't legitimate "actuation").

I want this to be officially called "The Finger Ruling".:eek:

[grayfox]

LE that may be all well and good. I'm no fan of the bumpestock.
However, and this is a big However, if the DA or the libs, or the Soros bought-DA out there, wants to do something, then the proper way is to go to Congress and change the law. That's what rule of law is all about. The Sixth Ckt Federal judge has already ruled the bumpstock ban unconstitutional, --- but I believe the court of Appeals threw it back into play. So we'll definitely see how it plays out.
As per the law, the Federal judge found that the law says one pull, one shot, and that the bumpstock did not do anything other than make those pulls faster... still one pull of the trigger, one shot.

You could just as well invent some other way to get faster pulls of the trigger, or a faster trigger. But that does NOT make a semi-auto weapon, a full-auto weapon.

I do not in any way want to cede the libs an INCH on these things especially b/c they want to cheat when it comes to following the law.

You want to change it? Fine. Pass a law. then we will see if it passes constitutional muster.
They just want to do it by fiat. Like the (mini) tyrants they are.

[dammitman]

really havent been reading all there is on this hole fun king thing,,,,,,,,are the 80% lowers and the arm supports going to be considered illegal and no longer able to buy, make, or have? banned to have? just banned to make and sell? maybe must register (with no cost for a limited time) any already in hand short barrel rifles even though owning a short barrel rifle is no more more dangerous crime wise than a baby bottle.

[raamaudio]

Nevadan's will become felons the end of the year if they posses any finished 80 percent receivers, no serializing them, no recourse but destroy or hide them.

Not only are we being gagged all summer and fall with their smoke from the massive fires, huge numbers move here to escape then bring their politics with them, I really do not comprehend how they can be so blind.