Well Now Look At What the ATF Dumped On A Friday

[Ringel05]

Each man must choose his own path.

For me it wouldn't matter anyway as I have no braces or blades on any of my AR pistols. I never had the need for a brace or blade.

 

[Missourian]

Sounds like you need to write the ATF a letter.

No thanks.

 

[1srelluc]

No thanks.

LOL.....I bet a thousand of them hit the mail this morning.

 

[Missourian]

For me it wouldn't matter anyway as I have no braces or blades on any of my AR pistols. I never had the need for a brace or blade.

Me either. Just a mental exercise.

Most gun laws are ridiculously dumb...and not just from my ideological perspective...from a logical perspective.

If I wanted a concealable magazine fed semi auto...why not an AK with a folding stock? Even with a legal rifle length, it's shorter than an AR pistol.

What exactly is the ATF "saving" us from?

 

[Missourian]

What about this kind of brace?

Recover Tactical's 20/20 Glock Stabilizer Kit and Brace -

Recover Tactical just released their new 20/20 Pistol Stabilizer Kit and Brace for 9mm and 40SW Glock pistols for just $99.95.

www.thefirearmblog.com

 

[task0778]

My question is about enforcement. The ATF or any other LE agency cannot enter my home without my consent unless they have a warrant to search and seize something that is specified in the warrant. They may be able to find out that I bought an AR-15 pistol with a barrel that is less than 16", but how would they know that I did or didn't buy a stabilizing brace for it? Absent it's use in a crime, what can they do about it? If they come to my door and ask to see my AR-15 and I say no, what then?

 

[Missourian]

​

​

States That Don’t Allow SBRs​

The states that don’t allow SBRs include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just remenber:
Once registered, always registered.

 

[task0778]

This move is entirely political, to play to the gun lobby crowd and the gun grabbers out there. The Biden Administration knows this new rule is going to get struck down by the courts, but it makes them look like they're trying to do something about gun control since they can't and won't get any GC legislation through Congress. Count your blessings, America. If the democrats had abolished the filibuster back in 2021, they would've passed an assault rifle ban and a 10-cartridge limit for magazines and God only knows what else.

 

[Ringel05]

There appears to be a lot of confusion over this new rule so I did some investigating. I just read through the DOJ's notification on this, it specifically states the new rule has been "submitted" to the Federal Registry. Technically it has not been "published" yet so until or if it is it yet has the power of law behind it. So essentially the new rule cannot be enforced. I also know of at least one person who has searched the registry for the new rule and it is not in the registry........ yet.

 

[task0778]

There appears to be a lot of confusion over this new rule so I did some investigating. I just read through the DOJ's notification on this, it specifically states the new rule has been "submitted" to the Federal Registry. Technically it has not been "published" yet so until or if it is it yet has the power of law behind it. So essentially the new rule cannot be enforced. I also know of at least one person who has searched the registry for the new rule and it is not in the registry........ yet.

I have not read anything about lawsuits that challenge this new rule, probably because it ain't in effect yet until it gets published. But there's lots of promises though, various gun groups vowing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

My own opinion is that it'll get shot down in court as an overreach on the part of the ATF. Unlike previous courts, the current SC appears to be tougher on executive agencies stretching the law a little too far beyond what it says.

 

[Ringel05]

I have not read anything about lawsuits that challenge this new rule, probably because it ain't in effect yet until it gets published. But there's lots of promises though, various gun groups vowing to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

My own opinion is that it'll get shot down in court as an overreach on the part of the ATF. Unlike previous courts, the current SC appears to be tougher on executive agencies stretching the law a little too far beyond what it says.

I agree but there is an argument the DOJ & ATF might possibly use is that after Congress passes a bill and the President signs it into law, it is assigned to the appropriate Executive Branch agency to implement. That agency develops implementing policy and procedure, and neither is subject to review by Congress. If the agency misinterprets the will of the Legislative Branch, the only thing that Congress can do is pass another bill and send it to the President. If that's what the BATF is doing then Congress must pass corrective legislation. This means if the courts see it that way then the ruling will be for the Government, if not it will be for the people. Here's hoping the courts rule against it.

 

[task0778]

Didn't know that, thanks. In any event, the rule itself will be challenged in Court and probably go all the way to the SC. That's assuming the Biden Administration doesn't kill it first due to public pressure. That's doubtful though, IMHO this whole exercise is a political ploy to appease the anti-gun crowd. For Biden, it's all about the optics. The current SC has not ruled favorably for gun control, or for executive agencies attempts to modify existing law for political purposes.