No.
The penalties were assessed under current BATF interpretation of the law. BATF can carry on as it has been doing. All the comments don't affect the current interpretation.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
ATF withdraws “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’”
- Thread starter araomd
- Start date
No.
The penalties were assessed under current BATF interpretation of the law. BATF can carry on as it has been doing. All the comments don't affect the current interpretation.
They're announcing the withdrawal of their notice and their request for comments.
Thanks guys. I do not have any AR pistols....never shot them with the brace, don’t care for them. Put them in the category of the bumpstocks as far as i care.
BUT I DONT WANT THEM ASSHOLES TELLING ME I CANT !!
Reads to me like a “withdrawal of guidance” which means both the guidance and accompanying request for comments got tabled. Could be wrong, but that’s what the verbiage indicates.
All I see is them no longer asking how we feel about it. Nothing that says they have made a decision either way.
They were asking for comments on a proposed rule change, which they have to do by law. Cutting off the comments is the same as withdrawing the proposed changes.
Again, it doesn't stop them from proceeding under their current interpretation of the current law and regulations, which is what all the current penalties are based upon.
They pretty much know they'll have carte blanc in 4 weeks so they could give **** all what you plebes think.
ATF, having at first suggested that they were going to adopt a set of objective standards for evaluating the characteristics of purported arm braces that they suspect are really shoulder stocks -- wouldn't that really hamper them trying to go forward and prosecute somebody for having such a stock now that they've withdrawn their proposal to adopt these standards?
Any defendant who gets in trouble over his arm stabilization brace can now point to the agency's own actions as proof that their decision making is arbitrary and capricious and not due any deference in court --
--in other words, no ATF person would be allowed to testify as an expert witness about what is or isn't a stock on a gun.
Instead, the feds would probably be ordered by the judge not to give opinion testimony and just stick to the facts, and the judge would read to the jury the federal definitions of those terms found in the actual US Code,
and any term not defined there would be given a standard dictionary definition as common users of the English language understand it to mean.
Any defendant who gets in trouble over his arm stabilization brace can now point to the agency's own actions as proof that their decision making is arbitrary and capricious and not due any deference in court --
--in other words, no ATF person would be allowed to testify as an expert witness about what is or isn't a stock on a gun.
Instead, the feds would probably be ordered by the judge not to give opinion testimony and just stick to the facts, and the judge would read to the jury the federal definitions of those terms found in the actual US Code,
and any term not defined there would be given a standard dictionary definition as common users of the English language understand it to mean.
I think that's how it would work in a rational world. A judge legislating from the bench in accordance with political winds seems just as, if not more, likely these days.
Except the notice explicitly stated that (they felt) they didn't have to ask for comment.
Based on that, there's nothing to stop them from implementing it anyway. (Except that the whole {supposed} point was to provide guidance to the public and manufacturers.)
And, I had my comments drafted up, but never got to post them.
Similar threads
