Very well said. Much better than mine.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Contact the ATF to keep pistol braces legal (merged threads)
- Thread starter randomreader
- Start date
Anyone who wants, feel free to plagiarize all or part of my comment. This may not be your fight, but if you fail to speak out for your brothers and sisters now there may be no one left to speak for you when it is your fight (paraphrasing Martin Niemöller)
<<<break>>>
A multitude of factors render the proposed rule(s) unreasonable and illegal. The unreasonably short comment period and the timing (spanning the Christmas and New Year’s Day holidays) when many commenters will be preoccupied with holiday preparations reveals ATF’s intent to circumvent the legislative process and violate U.S. citizen rights to promote a political agenda.
“The Attorney General (AG) has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing [NFA, GCA, etc.] to the Director of ATF,” however the proposal applies ATF definitions in derogation of the above mentioned NFA, GCA, etc., bypassing the legislative process. ATF publishes what it asserts are objective criteria for determining whether a pistol braced weapon is a pistol or an SBR. Only congress may decide what characteristics make a weapon an SBR.
ATF proposes “FATD's classifications of a particular firearm allows industry members to plan, develop, and distribute products in compliance with the law…” however criteria listed comprise arbitrary factors considered against the subjective threshold of ATF officials. This contrasts with relevant legislation that contemplates fixed measurements (e.g. barrel shorter than 16”) and is an attempt to replace the legislative process with executive agency whim.
The ATF states “[t]he GCA and NFA generally regulate “firearms” and not individual components and…ATF does not classify unregulated components or accessories alone.” ATF has engaged in exactly that manner of witch hunt in the past.” See US v. Drasen, 665 F. Supp. 598 (1988).
ATF violates its own classification scheme regarding relevant criteria. “When an accessory and a weapon's objective design features, taken together, are not consistent with use of the accessory as an arm brace, that is, not to stabilize a handgun when being operated with one hand, such weapon…may fall within the scope of the NFA…” Every braced weapon is consistent with being operated by one hand or two. It may not be the weak hands the ATF contemplates, but if the weapon can be used as a pistol at all, it is consistent with use as a pistol.
ATF statement that “[n]o classification will depend upon the physical attributes of a particular FEO including…whether a firearm is too heavy to be held and fired in a single hand by the individual examiner” in unconvincing. If ATF were being truthful and transparent, they would find a representative sample of able bodied and disabled gun owners and ask them.
ATF acknowledges the purpose of the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes…” citing U.S. v. Thompson/Center, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), however ATF has failed to cite or even allude to uniform crime data of the incidence of crimes committed with braced weapons. The purpose of the NFA when written, 86 years ago, was to regulate firearms that “pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Aside from the outdated pole star in the legislative intent, the failure of ATF to correlate “frequent use in crime” with the proposed rule is inapposite and in derogation of US citizen’s rights.
ATF proposes subjective criteria and FATD opinion will determine whether a person commits a felony by possessing a braced weapon. ATF asserts it is “publishing this notice to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the objective design features that FATD considers when evaluating firearm samples submitted with a stabilizing brace or similar attachment” but goes on to list multiple subjective (and some objective) factors. ATF contradicts itself by following the arbitrary list with the statement “[n]o single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.” This is the definition of subjective. ATF proposes that the agency will figure it out as they go.
ATF asserts that it is possible to determine the intent of one individual through the use employed by another. ATF states “[a]lthough not a determinative factor, the actual use by members of the firearms industry, firearm writers, and the general public may provide further indication of the design and intent.” Intent may be proven through corroborating acts of the designer/manufacturer, however proving intent by the actions of another is patently absurd.
ATF wants to classify anything subject to FATD officials’ whim, which may change. “if FATD classified a firearm with an arm brace as a “pistol,” that classification would be subject to FATD's review if the manufacturer sold the product with the instruction that the weapon is actually designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The ATF wants to decide whether millions of US citizens are felons and reserves the right to change its mind at any time.
<<<break>>>
A multitude of factors render the proposed rule(s) unreasonable and illegal. The unreasonably short comment period and the timing (spanning the Christmas and New Year’s Day holidays) when many commenters will be preoccupied with holiday preparations reveals ATF’s intent to circumvent the legislative process and violate U.S. citizen rights to promote a political agenda.
“The Attorney General (AG) has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing [NFA, GCA, etc.] to the Director of ATF,” however the proposal applies ATF definitions in derogation of the above mentioned NFA, GCA, etc., bypassing the legislative process. ATF publishes what it asserts are objective criteria for determining whether a pistol braced weapon is a pistol or an SBR. Only congress may decide what characteristics make a weapon an SBR.
ATF proposes “FATD's classifications of a particular firearm allows industry members to plan, develop, and distribute products in compliance with the law…” however criteria listed comprise arbitrary factors considered against the subjective threshold of ATF officials. This contrasts with relevant legislation that contemplates fixed measurements (e.g. barrel shorter than 16”) and is an attempt to replace the legislative process with executive agency whim.
The ATF states “[t]he GCA and NFA generally regulate “firearms” and not individual components and…ATF does not classify unregulated components or accessories alone.” ATF has engaged in exactly that manner of witch hunt in the past.” See US v. Drasen, 665 F. Supp. 598 (1988).
ATF violates its own classification scheme regarding relevant criteria. “When an accessory and a weapon's objective design features, taken together, are not consistent with use of the accessory as an arm brace, that is, not to stabilize a handgun when being operated with one hand, such weapon…may fall within the scope of the NFA…” Every braced weapon is consistent with being operated by one hand or two. It may not be the weak hands the ATF contemplates, but if the weapon can be used as a pistol at all, it is consistent with use as a pistol.
ATF statement that “[n]o classification will depend upon the physical attributes of a particular FEO including…whether a firearm is too heavy to be held and fired in a single hand by the individual examiner” in unconvincing. If ATF were being truthful and transparent, they would find a representative sample of able bodied and disabled gun owners and ask them.
ATF acknowledges the purpose of the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes…” citing U.S. v. Thompson/Center, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), however ATF has failed to cite or even allude to uniform crime data of the incidence of crimes committed with braced weapons. The purpose of the NFA when written, 86 years ago, was to regulate firearms that “pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Aside from the outdated pole star in the legislative intent, the failure of ATF to correlate “frequent use in crime” with the proposed rule is inapposite and in derogation of US citizen’s rights.
ATF proposes subjective criteria and FATD opinion will determine whether a person commits a felony by possessing a braced weapon. ATF asserts it is “publishing this notice to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the objective design features that FATD considers when evaluating firearm samples submitted with a stabilizing brace or similar attachment” but goes on to list multiple subjective (and some objective) factors. ATF contradicts itself by following the arbitrary list with the statement “[n]o single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.” This is the definition of subjective. ATF proposes that the agency will figure it out as they go.
ATF asserts that it is possible to determine the intent of one individual through the use employed by another. ATF states “[a]lthough not a determinative factor, the actual use by members of the firearms industry, firearm writers, and the general public may provide further indication of the design and intent.” Intent may be proven through corroborating acts of the designer/manufacturer, however proving intent by the actions of another is patently absurd.
ATF wants to classify anything subject to FATD officials’ whim, which may change. “if FATD classified a firearm with an arm brace as a “pistol,” that classification would be subject to FATD's review if the manufacturer sold the product with the instruction that the weapon is actually designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The ATF wants to decide whether millions of US citizens are felons and reserves the right to change its mind at any time.
thanks
someone else needs to comment on the fact it helps the handicap and weaker people as well. also making a gun more accurate lends itself to safety. less chance of a stray bullet hitting someone.
someone else needs to comment on the fact it helps the handicap and weaker people as well. also making a gun more accurate lends itself to safety. less chance of a stray bullet hitting someone.
The alphabet bois do not need to see FFL records. Your internet and social media history when coupled with your credit card data would be all they need for a search warrant. Of course you may just be reported by a friend, family member or paid snitch.
You can be certain that once universal background checks are in place they will have to register a gun to an individual. If they don’t they cannot confirm compliance.
took yours and added a few comments..thanks.
Regarding the recent overreach in attempting to reclassify braces as another reach around of the current laws we have in this country. No item put on a firearm can change it into something else. The idea of a government agency that can, without oversight, change laws regarding a right is not only silly, but unconstitutional. Try focusing on things that are harming Americans; alcohol and tobacco come to mind. Of all the guns in the country I’d imagine that only 15-20% of said guns are illegal. Of those 15-20% I wonder how many are pistols, actual true pistols since they’re easy to conceal. The length of a brace has zero bearing on whether said firearm should be classified as a pistol or rifle, concealable or out in the open. Ive never seen anyone concealing a rifle with a brace on it.. The atf’s generous offer of waving the 200 dollar tax stamp is proof that they do think so as well.
Millions of these pistol braces have been sold; your actions stand to make millions of law abiding gun owner’s felons overnight. Maybe this is in an attempt to show the end game of a gun registration. IM not sure of your intent other than what we are told as law abiding Americans who still enjoy the rights we currently have. No one has proof that any harm using a pistol brace was the actual cause of commitment of crime, and criminals don't follow the law.
I do imagine it is far easier to pass laws on people who will follow them...but maybe focus on illegal activities instead of creating illegal activities.
Also it should be mentioned that the 2nd amendment which has been here since the beginning is a constitutional right, although we have foolishly allowed some infringement on that right in the past. This attempted overreach will only force the law abiding people of America to rally together and look at ways to get back to what this country was founded upon.
What was allowed in the past will no longer be tolerated. For the last 50 years the demographic of gun ownership has changed. No longer is it limited more to one class, gender, race, or location. The new gun owners are white, black, brown, and tan...they are men, women, and every new gender.
Focus on things that help keep guns away from criminals, don't focus on making criminals.
On a final note, the AR15 is America's new musket, the most common firearm in use today.
It is used for target shooting, competition shooting, hunting, and it is used for home defense. Particularly a braced pistol is far easier for a woman, one that has a handicap, or someone of small stature to use. That alone should be enough of a reason not to infringe on them. Unless you feel women and smaller people should not have the right to safely bear arms.
In closing, stop trying to legislate things that are in common use by the American people. There is very little “new” legislation pertaining to alcohol and tobacco which collectively kill more people illegally than firearms yearly.
These braces that are attempted to be deemed illegal have seen millions in the marketplace over the last few years, and used responsibly by millions, and harmed none. I hope you will rethink your status on this particular item that will do nothing regarding criminal use and will make many Americans who are following the letter of the law appropriately criminals quickly.
Respectfully,
ZB
Regarding the recent overreach in attempting to reclassify braces as another reach around of the current laws we have in this country. No item put on a firearm can change it into something else. The idea of a government agency that can, without oversight, change laws regarding a right is not only silly, but unconstitutional. Try focusing on things that are harming Americans; alcohol and tobacco come to mind. Of all the guns in the country I’d imagine that only 15-20% of said guns are illegal. Of those 15-20% I wonder how many are pistols, actual true pistols since they’re easy to conceal. The length of a brace has zero bearing on whether said firearm should be classified as a pistol or rifle, concealable or out in the open. Ive never seen anyone concealing a rifle with a brace on it.. The atf’s generous offer of waving the 200 dollar tax stamp is proof that they do think so as well.
Millions of these pistol braces have been sold; your actions stand to make millions of law abiding gun owner’s felons overnight. Maybe this is in an attempt to show the end game of a gun registration. IM not sure of your intent other than what we are told as law abiding Americans who still enjoy the rights we currently have. No one has proof that any harm using a pistol brace was the actual cause of commitment of crime, and criminals don't follow the law.
I do imagine it is far easier to pass laws on people who will follow them...but maybe focus on illegal activities instead of creating illegal activities.
Also it should be mentioned that the 2nd amendment which has been here since the beginning is a constitutional right, although we have foolishly allowed some infringement on that right in the past. This attempted overreach will only force the law abiding people of America to rally together and look at ways to get back to what this country was founded upon.
What was allowed in the past will no longer be tolerated. For the last 50 years the demographic of gun ownership has changed. No longer is it limited more to one class, gender, race, or location. The new gun owners are white, black, brown, and tan...they are men, women, and every new gender.
Focus on things that help keep guns away from criminals, don't focus on making criminals.
On a final note, the AR15 is America's new musket, the most common firearm in use today.
It is used for target shooting, competition shooting, hunting, and it is used for home defense. Particularly a braced pistol is far easier for a woman, one that has a handicap, or someone of small stature to use. That alone should be enough of a reason not to infringe on them. Unless you feel women and smaller people should not have the right to safely bear arms.
In closing, stop trying to legislate things that are in common use by the American people. There is very little “new” legislation pertaining to alcohol and tobacco which collectively kill more people illegally than firearms yearly.
These braces that are attempted to be deemed illegal have seen millions in the marketplace over the last few years, and used responsibly by millions, and harmed none. I hope you will rethink your status on this particular item that will do nothing regarding criminal use and will make many Americans who are following the letter of the law appropriately criminals quickly.
Respectfully,
ZB
Actually, they need a search warrant for your credit card data and any non-public social media content. This is exactly why everyone who has a social media account should limit it to friends only.
Do really think social media ( who were developed in partnership with with government agencies) doesn’t share anything they want anytime they want?
If we are at the point where the government wants to take guns the 4th won’t mean anything.
The 4th already doesn’t mean anything. Thanks to the republicans and the patriot act.
Did same. Thanks!
Gabbard and Massie have introduced a bill to repeal the Patriot act. Just saw it today. We need to get them all the support we can. I would like to ask Purdue and Loffller what their position is. Purdue voted against an amendment last time around that would require a search warrant to see your search history.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/530498-massie-gabbard-team-up-on-bill-to-repeal-the-patriot-act
