DOJ Seeks to make AR Pistols NFA SBRs

[IndyDave1776]

I looked at the .gov comment page. I was going to comment but have misgivings about adding myself to the trick or treat list, especially given that the slimeballs already know that they are wrong and are not interested in listening to reason.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Simon6101]

Comment period is open. Please be professional in posting or it will be ignored. We have to stand up and fight. They will keep pushing if we don't push back. T here are a lot of big companies that are going to be forced under and more people will lose their jobs. Thanks Demorats

 

[KG1]

Comment submitted. Even though you think it might be futile and the ATF will just ignore it there still needs to be comments submitted in numbers to help any case presented in court to fight this if it ever comes to that.

If you do submit a comment make sure you include the current docket number.

Docket No. ATF 2021R-08

 

[goob469]

It sure will be interesting to see how this all ends up...

 

[IndyDave1776]

It sure will be interesting to see how this all ends up...

If my guess is right, "interesting" will be just a start.

 

[KG1]

Here is a link to the GOA advocacy group that will make it easier to submit a comment.

Stop the ATF’s Pistol-Braced Gun Ban | GOA

The ATF has officially published its pistol-brace executive action that could turn MILLIONS of law-abiding gun owners into FELONS. GOA has already committed to fighting DOJ’s unlawful regulation on pistol braces. The rule would make almost all guns equipped with popular pistol braces illegal...

www.gunowners.org

 

[KellyinAvon]

Will load up a comment later.

 

[KellyinAvon]

View attachment 143250
View attachment 143251

Thanks for the adjectives Chip! I'm verbally beating the BATFE with both of them!
Tyler! Dang it getting old sucks.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Cleared hot!

I am opposing Docket No. ATF 2021R-08 AG Order No. 5070-2021 in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons:

ATF Worksheet 4999 (Note) states: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol…” This statement alone declares the entire process arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior.)

While recognizing the impact of both US v Miller (1939) and DC v Heller (2008) for the protection of weapons “in common use for lawful purposes”, the BATFE fails to recognize the numbers of the stabilizing braces in use today. The owner of SB Tactical stated that company alone had sold between 3 and 4 million stabilizing braces. This makes the estimated 3 million stabilizing braces sold since 2013 (printed page 303028 of subject document) severely low by any standard.

Point system: the words “could” and “may” in reference to firing a weapon from the shoulder result in a different number of points. The present tense of could is “can”, which according to Merriam-Webster is sometimes used interchangeably with “may”. Arbitrary and capricious again come to mind. A point system resulting from the GCA of 1968 led to the import of the iconic Walther PPK being banned.

Section V of the subject document states, “ATF wants to assist affected persons and companies and is providing additional information to aid them in complying with Federal laws and regulations…” What has changed since 2013? Millions of individuals purchased a legal accessory, legal according to the ATF. Now through arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior) changes in the interpretation of rules (not the Constitution, not judicial precedent, not US Code, but rules from an agency) millions of law-abiding Americans could be felons overnight.

Finally, what is the compelling reason to take this action?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I gotta ask, where was this fervor with bumpstocks?

 

[KG1]

Cleared hot!

I am opposing Docket No. ATF 2021R-08 AG Order No. 5070-2021 in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons:

ATF Worksheet 4999 (Note) states: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol…” This statement alone declares the entire process arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior.)

While recognizing the impact of both US v Miller (1939) and DC v Heller (2008) for the protection of weapons “in common use for lawful purposes”, the BATFE fails to recognize the numbers of the stabilizing braces in use today. The owner of SB Tactical stated that company alone had sold between 3 and 4 million stabilizing braces. This makes the estimated 3 million stabilizing braces sold since 2013 (printed page 303028 of subject document) severely low by any standard.

Point system: the words “could” and “may” in reference to firing a weapon from the shoulder result in a different number of points. The present tense of could is “can”, which according to Merriam-Webster is sometimes used interchangeably with “may”. Arbitrary and capricious again come to mind. A point system resulting from the GCA of 1968 led to the import of the iconic Walther PPK being banned.

Section V of the subject document states, “ATF wants to assist affected persons and companies and is providing additional information to aid them in complying with Federal laws and regulations…” What has changed since 2013? Millions of individuals purchased a legal accessory, legal according to the ATF. Now through arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior) changes in the interpretation of rules (not the Constitution, not judicial precedent, not US Code, but rules from an agency) millions of law-abiding Americans could be felons overnight.

Finally, what is the compelling reason to take this action?

Good work once again Kelly. I especially like the question you posed in your last line.

The answer is there is no compelling reason. Out of the millions of pistol braces and complete pistols with braces sold they could only come up with two instances where a braced pistol was used to commit a violent multiple shooting crime.

I would say that is far from compelling.

 

[KG1]

I gotta ask, where was this fervor with bumpstocks?

Let my take a crack at reading between the lines here. I get the notion from the question you posed that there wasn’t near the fervor over bump stocks because that took place under the Trump administration and he was given a pass.

I beg to differ though. A lot of people were pissed at Trump over that and the ATF eventually lost in court over the ban.

I’m not seeing a case for inconsistency here.

 

[bwframe]

I gotta ask, where was this fervor with bumpstocks?

Go ahead and let him out of your head.

You'll feel better, and maybe learn something?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Cleared hot!

I am opposing Docket No. ATF 2021R-08 AG Order No. 5070-2021 in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons:

ATF Worksheet 4999 (Note) states: “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol…” This statement alone declares the entire process arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior.)

While recognizing the impact of both US v Miller (1939) and DC v Heller (2008) for the protection of weapons “in common use for lawful purposes”, the BATFE fails to recognize the numbers of the stabilizing braces in use today. The owner of SB Tactical stated that company alone had sold between 3 and 4 million stabilizing braces. This makes the estimated 3 million stabilizing braces sold since 2013 (printed page 303028 of subject document) severely low by any standard.

Point system: the words “could” and “may” in reference to firing a weapon from the shoulder result in a different number of points. The present tense of could is “can”, which according to Merriam-Webster is sometimes used interchangeably with “may”. Arbitrary and capricious again come to mind. A point system resulting from the GCA of 1968 led to the import of the iconic Walther PPK being banned.

Section V of the subject document states, “ATF wants to assist affected persons and companies and is providing additional information to aid them in complying with Federal laws and regulations…” What has changed since 2013? Millions of individuals purchased a legal accessory, legal according to the ATF. Now through arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior) changes in the interpretation of rules (not the Constitution, not judicial precedent, not US Code, but rules from an agency) millions of law-abiding Americans could be felons overnight.

Finally, what is the compelling reason to take this action?

I also threw in that adding a brace to a pistol in no way makes it "more concealable" in fact it makes it less concealable by increasing the size.
It also in no way makes it a "more dangerous weapon" or "more likely to be used in a crime"
All the statements made in this proposal are arbitrary and subjective and not based on reality.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Go ahead and let him out of your head.

You'll feel better, and maybe learn something?

Well, I gotta say, this whole thing is surprising. I remember when braces couldn’t be shouldered, and then during the Obama admin, it was changed and we were allowed to do so. I do not recall people heaping accolades on him for it. Then under Trump, he banned bunpstocks, and then unsuccessfully went after braces. Some members grumbled. Some others were like “well, it an accessory.” Now Biden goes after braces, and there’s a universal consensus about this being bad... and yes, I’m in agreement. I can’t help but wonder if the lukewarm opposition to Trump’s stances were due to people being reluctant to criticize him. Is that not a fair criticism? Of the 3 presidents, our 2A rights explanded only under Obama.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

 

[Nazgul]

Well, I gotta say, this whole thing is surprising. I remember when braces couldn’t be shouldered, and then during the Obama admin, it was changed and we were allowed to do so. I do not recall people heaping accolades on him for it. Then under Trump, he banned bunpstocks, and then unsuccessfully went after braces. Some members grumbled. Some others were like “well, it an accessory.” Now Biden goes after braces, and there’s a universal consensus about this being bad... and yes, I’m in agreement. I can’t help but wonder if the lukewarm opposition to Trump’s stances were due to people being reluctant to criticize him. Is that not a fair criticism? Of the 3 presidents, our 2A rights explanded only under Obama.

So, by this reasoning, we could expect our 2A rights to be more protected by biden now? He was closely associated with obama.

Don

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, by this reasoning, we could expect our 2A rights to be more protected by biden now? He was closely associated with obama.

Don

No, not at all. I think Obama was more principled than old businessman Trump or old politician Biden. I think Obama actually considered the limits of his presidential powers. I don’t think Trump nor Biden particular care. The only difference, is that something anti-2A made by Trump wouldn’t generate nearly as much unrest as something anti-2A from Biden. That’s my opinion, at least.

 

[phylodog]

The only difference, is that something anti-2A made by Trump wouldn’t generate nearly as much unrest as something anti-2A from Biden. That’s my opinion, at least.

If looked at in a vacuum I think you've got a point. When looking at the big picture, I can see why there has been a difference in the perceived responses.

If things are going well (economy, fuel prices, unemployment) and something bad happens its more of just a blip on the radar. When everything is seemingly crap, heaping another shovel full onto the pile seems like salt in an already festering wound.