Well.. that just happened. ATF classification ruling that ArmBrace = SBR

[Hansel&Grendel]

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.

Several criminal statutes involving interstate commerce are valuable tools for LE. We used the Mann Act appropriately to shutdown and prosecute the human trafficking of women from foreign countries. The majority were lured into prostitution often under the guise of masseuses at purported massage parlors. Six or seven women were crammed into one or two bedroom apartments and worked 6 12-hour days with all of their movements controlled. Local LE had misdemeanors whereas we had felonies including money laundering statutes to seize real and personal property, i.e., going after the fruits of the crime. Conversely, the use of the Mann Act had its moments of misuse and abuse in years prior.

I was well-established Federal LE when the Title 18 USC §§ 1956 and 1957 money laundering statutes were enacted to better deal with criminals and their illicit proceeds. Title 31 of the USC was used prior to §§ 1956 and 1957 but had issues associated with it. I witnessed some investigations, especially drug related, that were motivated by how many assets were subject to criminal forfeiture, thus taking precedence over how bad the criminals were. This was especially so with local LE who brought in the Feds because they could participate in Federal asset sharing programs. Many smaller local police jurisdictions that were paupers via poor funding received millions of dollars in asset forfeiture sharing (post-adjudication) and thereby supplemented their departments quite nicely. I tended to view that with a jaundice eye.

The previously mentioned Title 31 statutes commonly targeted individuals for "structuring" financial transactions to avoid and evade Federal currency reporting requirements. It was abused at times because proven structuring led to the forfeiture of entire bank accounts that became "tainted" by mere structuring but absent any underlying criminal conduct. The DOJ (I don't recall which AG) issued guidelines to stop using Title 31 without predicate criminal conduct. Why? Because innocent civilians who didn't like or trust the banking system lost tens of thousands of dollars to government seizure and forfeiture under Title 31. Or, shall I say (rhetorically) under the abuse of Title 31?

I must have viewed thousands of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) promulgated within the banking industry by Title 31 (The Bank Secrecy Act). The gatekeeper for the SARs is the Financial Intelligence Center (FinCEN). Great leads came from those SARs that led to the discovery of criminal conduct along with providing extensive previously unknown evidence for use in already active criminal investigations. The vast majority of agents across numerous Federal and local LE agencies that I worked with didn't abuse the system; however, the Treasury Department is partitioning SARs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars related to Hunter Biden, thereby preventing Congress from seeing the SARs. So, yes, right there is an example of abuse and politicization.

And, yes, I saw corruption first-hand at the Federal level during Joint Terrorism Tasks Force investigations. You can guess which Presidential Administration that was under. I and several other agents had 5 years of our careers thrown under the bus on a major JTTF investigation against some really bad actors; because a certain Presidential Administration (actually Administrations) wanted to protect foreign nationals (Middle Eastern) at all costs. I did something about it and was targeted for retribution, but survived. America was made safer and also more dangerous - the later based on politics and warped ideologies that are anti-U.S. at their core.

I won't even touch upon the illegal use of FISA wiretaps by certain FBI other than to give an honorable mention (actually, nothing honorable about it).

So, here we are today with a 294 page ATF ruling dealing with pistol braced guns. It's exhausting to read. As time goes along, I personally believe that the Federal government is going to have a difficult time in proving its case (the regulation) before the Federal Courts.

Federal statutes (and many State statutes) become problematic when they're unnecessarily created to begin with, or are politicized by a warped ideology against a law-abiding citizenry that already has enough to contend with. Combine that with a liberal wave of New Centurions in Federal LE, and it results in, "Houston, we have a problem."

May the Constitution and freedom prevail.

[ARMYEOD]

Good legal analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIsYTh65KQ

[dpete]

What a lot of people think!

https://gatdaily.com/goa-raises-alarms-t...paign=1_28

[Hansel&Grendel]

This is an interesting development regarding the ATF pistol brace ruling:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/...race-rule/

[lazyengineer]

This is an interesting development regarding the ATF pistol brace ruling:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/...race-rule/

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...

[LRRPF52]

I love this sheriff:

[video=youtube_share;aT-DH4Zx54k]https://youtu.be/aT-DH4Zx54k[/video]

[Hansel&Grendel]

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...

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.

[lazyengineer]

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.

Thanks for the Clarification.

On a positive note, the lawsuits are showing up in 5th circuit courtrooms now, and going into courtrooms where ATF has a rather difficult uphill road. At this point, my advise continues to be - just wait. There is a very real chance this will not stand, or at least not as written. Knowing where these cases are going, there's a non-trivial chance NFA may end up with some erosion from this. One of the judges actually already has tossed some parts of GCA '68. He got overruled by appeals court, but the 5th circuit appeals court is different today than it was half a decade ago.

This one is going to be an interesting one to watch.

So if you are potentially affected by this - for now, DO NOTHING and carry on carrying on Don't change/sell/register - just keep shooting it per normal, for now. You have plenty of time to act before May 31, if your personal setting is such that registering or modifying is what you need to do. If I may be so bold to say, of course.

[LRRPF52]

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]

Here’s the clip of the ATF Director saying they passed the rule on "ghost guns” (which is also a violation and direct contradiction to another recent SCOTUS actual ruling):

[video=youtube_share;2ZgsURpCMSQ]https://youtu.be/2ZgsURpCMSQ[/video]

[lazyengineer]

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."

TBH, I sat down and read their full 100 page ruling. The majority of those pages are basically filler addressing many of those very line items. And they do a better job at that, than people give credit. If this were going to a NY courtroom, they'd win. But I live in 5th circuit - not far from the courthouse these are going to. I might actually go watch. And ATF is going to get tore up, and appeals will back thr district judge on it, if it is going to the courtroom I think it is.

[1075 tech]

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."

Unfortunately, we have a lot of history with judges ignoring law.

[LRRPF52]

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.

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.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polic...gun-owners

[Hansel&Grendel]

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/polic...gun-owners

All well and good regarding the law suits. However, as noted in the video below (GOP House lawmakers speaking in opposition to the ATF rule), Rep. Thomas Massie R-KY recollected a meeting that he had with Justice Scalia during the Obama Presidency (see 18:38 - 21:56 video time stamp). Rep. Massie paraphrased what Justice Scalia said during a breakfast meeting with GOP House Representatives who were complaining about President Obama, specifically regarding a lack of Constitutional balance of government. Justice Scalia said (as paraphrased by Rep. Massie): "This is not my job to referee fights between you and the Executive Branch." In a cloaked way of expressing a remedy, Justice Scalia said (as again paraphrased by Rep. Massie), "You are funding everything you complain about."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ncSq6dINE

A significant concern here is that the Courts may use the Scalia lens and view this issue in need of a legislative remedy; not a Judicial remedy. Here, ATF, through the DOJ, is claiming that the Rule out of necessity more narrowly defines what constitutes a "rifle", because pistol braces have been used as a workaround the NFA (existing law). This is where it looks like the Rule has merit. It's not creating new law but clarifying existing law (the NFA) because pistol braces are being used by millions of non-handicapped individuals to shoulder "pistols" beyond what the pistol brace was intended for.

But, as mentioned in an earlier post, the first 6 years of the George W. Bush Presidency and the first 2 years of the Trump Presidency, where the GOP had the trifecta majority, could have put many gun and suppressor issues to bed once and for all. I believe that is what Justice Scalia was referring to along with funding cuts. Although, for the latter, the Dems still control the Senate.

[LRRPF52]

But any judge will again ask, “If this was such a problem, why did the ATF determine it wasn’t, not only with the initial brace determination letter in 2012, but with the determination letter about use not changing the classification that was sent to the Law Enforcement inquiry in 2014?”

It’s ex post facto, which goes back to Article 1, Section 9.

Many judges would also ask, “Why was this ok for 10 years and millions of firearms later, but now it’s not all of a sudden?”

I agree that most courts want to defer, especially in matters of Constitutional law, but we’ve also seen a string of Constitutional originalist rulings smack-down States in their violation of people’s rights.

[montana]

The Babylon Bee nails it..Hilarious..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZV9ZV5kHs0

[LRRPF52]

It’s at least 26 States now that have filed lawsuit against the ATF over this:

[video=youtube_share;ExSC4ctwRn0]https://youtu.be/ExSC4ctwRn0[/video]

[LRRPF52]

[video]https://youtube.com/shorts/HY8PWi7uEvA?feature=share[/video]

[montana]

Our Montanan governor said he would not enforce these unconstitutional gun laws..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZo4At-b...m7qWx3bIwx

[kmon]