New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Cameramonkey]

"Rule" making, by unelected bureaucrats, that have the weight of law needs to stop. If an agency believes the law should be changed, re-interpreted or otherwise amended, they should put that in writing to the legislators. The lawmakers can then take a vote. I realize the legal argument that congress created the bureaucracies to work in their stead, but it's gone too far. In this particular case the ATF has done nothing more than 'change their collective mind'. They are literally outlawing on a Monday what they said, in writing, was legal the previous Friday. You don't like it? You don't want to play along? You're a felon and the full, sometimes deadly, weight of the federal government will be used to force your compliance. That, IMO, is tyranny. A whimsical creation of law benefitting the king. It's a ****ing brace!!

This. If ATF wants something changed, they write the legislation as "experts" (like Guy Relford does) and then gives it to the legislative branch to pass it. That is how this should work. Notice the two big ones (GCA/NFA) arent rules by the NFA but actual legislation?

At best they should have nothing more than enforcement and investigation duties. And honestly, the FBI could probably handle that as well. Disband the BATFE and move the A, T, and E investigators to the FBI.

 

[Creedmoor]

Some here should maybe actually read The 1934 GCA.

 

[bwframe]

 

[nonobaddog]

Are you kidding? over an hour? TL;DL

 

[darrent]

This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock

And the AFT approved shouldering these in the past... so what's your point?

 

[Tombs]

This is called tyranny, and is the exact reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

I’m seeing a lot of “Mother, may I?” comments floating around and that’s the whole reason why we are in this predicament in first place. Last I checked, an enumerated right is an enumerated right, but we’ve cucked our way along now to our own gilded cages.

They think if they bend over hard enough and wave their fists hard enough at the rest of us, that the monster won't eat them.

But the monster has already eaten their soul, and their body is next in line.

 

[JAL]

Yet another rabbit hole . . .

Staples v. United States, SCOTUS 1994, 7-2 decision overturning conviction
Affirms the requirement that a criminal violation of the NFA (as amended) and subsequent GCA requires mens rea, legal Latin for "criminal mind", aka criminal knowledge and intent and that a reasonable and prudent person would not suspect they are doing so -- that mens actus, the act alone, is insufficient. I looked for a summary and was only able to find what some would see as too brief a summary, but everything else went down the entire decision hole which I had to read several times. A summary of it is here:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-staples-v-united-states

Keep in mind this occurred in 1994, and one of the justices voting to overturn was . . . Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Staples had been arrested for possession of an AR-15 machine gun that the ATF could make fire in full auto. Staples pleaded ignorance to this claiming he had never been able to fire it in full auto, and that he had frequent misfires requiring clearing it. The trial court disallowed lack of mens rea defense and instructed the jury that only mens actus was sufficient (i.e. merely possessing it whether he had criminal knowledge or intent or not). The 10th Circuit affirmed this. SCOTUS, however, given the NFA and GCA wording and severity of possible punishment ($250k fine + 10 years imprisonment), found that Congress did not exclude mens rea and that history and tradition generally required it for criminal convictions, the exceptions being unusual, especially for severe felonies. SCOTUS vacated the conviction and remanded it back to the Circuit Court to "do the right thing".

What the 10th Circuit did subsequent to that isn't all that relevant. What is relevant about this decision -- in combination with the Rule of Lenity, and Void for Vagueness Principle -- is those acting in Good Faith and Due Diligence cannot be held criminally liable for possession of a clearly braced pistol that was once declared by ATF to be perfectly legal, and then is declared an illegal, unregistered NFA SBR by an extraordinarily lengthy ATF rule running very nearly 300 pages that is incomprehensibly, deliberately subjectively vague, without any actual objective criteria (in spite of claiming it's objective). It reeks of Stalin's ruthless KGB Chief and Deputy, Lavrentiy Beria's remark: "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Only ATF can tell you whether an allegedly braced pistol (as claimed by its owner) is actually a braced pistol or an NFA SBR, after they examine it in their lab with expert technicians. If there is any objectivity, it's a carefully guarded secret in ATF's labs now. The proposed evaluation form is gone and ATF has stated it's null and void now. Not the first time ATF has done this. The "Max Length of Pull" they used at the time dribbled out in the 2018 Wright v. United States, which had been unpublished before that, known only to the ATF (Wright was acquitted at trial).

In summary, it's my assessment that the combination of the SCOTUS Staples, Heller, McDonald, Caetano, & Bruen decisions will render the ATF rule unenforceable.

P.S.
If you want another rabbit hole, look up and read the 1992 SCOTUS Thompson Center Arms v. United States decision.

 

[tackdriver]

After they destroy your front door and trash your whole house looking for it and shoot your dog, you can ask them if they would be nice enough to give you a statement that you don't have one.

If you ask nicely, they still will not give you the note. They will maintain the position that you Do have one somewhere, they just haven't been able to find it yet!

Once they create the argument for probable cause, and they are "certain" enough to break down your door, they will never admit that they are idiots and were wrong, at your expense. They'll double down that You are just far craftier than they realized, and you need a closer watch until you screw up!

 

[tackdriver]

Abolishing the NFA would be better but this is a good start.


“The continued existence of the ATF is increasingly unwarranted based on the actions they're taking to convert otherwise law-abiding people into felons," he said. "My bill would abolish the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to try defunding the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to target the individual bureaucrats at the top of the ATF who have exceeded their authority in rulemaking. And if that doesn't work, we're going to take a meat cleaver to the statutes that the ATF believes broadly authorize their actions."”

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the "Abolish the ATF Act" on Tuesday following a controversial ruling by the agency that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.

www.foxnews.com

I applaud the effort, and hope he succeeds. I think he has the order backwards.

Unfortunately, abolishing the ATF doesn't abolish bad law. An SBR is still and SBR. I'm not so sure I want the FBI to take on this role in the vacuum.

Start by taking a meat cleaver to bad law. Next, go after bad bureaucrats (and send a message to the others) that exceed their authority OR act with malicious political predjudice. Then, maybe be more explicit on how the funds may be used (like speed up the paperwork process).

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I applaud the effort, and hope he succeeds. I think he has the order backwards.

Unfortunately, abolishing the ATF doesn't abolish bad law. An SBR is still and SBR. I'm not so sure I want the FBI to take on this role in the vacuum.

Start by taking a meat cleaver to bad law. Next, go after bad bureaucrats (and send a message to the others) that exceed their authority OR act with malicious political predjudice. Then, maybe be more explicit on how the funds may be used (like speed up the paperwork process).

At its core the NFA is a tax law, so the IRS would be the most logical agency to take over.

 

[tackdriver]

Yet another rabbit hole . . .

Staples v. United States, SCOTUS 1994, 7-2 decision overturning conviction
Affirms the requirement that a criminal violation of the NFA (as amended) and subsequent GCA requires mens rea, legal Latin for "criminal mind", aka criminal knowledge and intent and that a reasonable and prudent person would not suspect they are doing so -- that mens actus, the act alone, is insufficient. I looked for a summary and was only able to find what some would see as too brief a summary, but everything else went down the entire decision hole which I had to read several times. A summary of it is here:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-staples-v-united-states

Keep in mind this occurred in 1994, and one of the justices voting to overturn was . . . Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Staples had been arrested for possession of an AR-15 machine gun that the ATF could make fire in full auto. Staples pleaded ignorance to this claiming he had never been able to fire it in full auto, and that he had frequent misfires requiring clearing it. The trial court disallowed lack of mens rea defense and instructed the jury that only mens actus was sufficient (i.e. merely possessing it whether he had criminal knowledge or intent or not). The 10th Circuit affirmed this. SCOTUS, however, given the NFA and GCA wording and severity of possible punishment ($250k fine + 10 years imprisonment), found that Congress did not exclude mens rea and that history and tradition generally required it for criminal convictions, the exceptions being unusual, especially for severe felonies. SCOTUS vacated the conviction and remanded it back to the Circuit Court to "do the right thing".

What the 10th Circuit did subsequent to that isn't all that relevant. What is relevant about this decision -- in combination with the Rule of Lenity, and Void for Vagueness Principle -- is those acting in Good Faith and Due Diligence cannot be held criminally liable for possession of a clearly braced pistol that was once declared by ATF to be perfectly legal, and then is declared an illegal, unregistered NFA SBR by an extraordinarily lengthy ATF rule running very nearly 300 pages that is incomprehensibly, deliberately subjectively vague, without any actual objective criteria (in spite of claiming it's objective). It reeks of Stalin's ruthless KGB Chief and Deputy, Lavrentiy Beria's remark: "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Only ATF can tell you whether an allegedly braced pistol (as claimed by its owner) is actually a braced pistol or an NFA SBR, after they examine it in their lab with expert technicians. If there is any objectivity, it's a carefully guarded secret in ATF's labs now. The proposed evaluation form is gone and ATF has stated it's null and void now. Not the first time ATF has done this. The "Max Length of Pull" they used at the time dribbled out in the 2018 Wright v. United States, which had been unpublished before that, known only to the ATF (Wright was acquitted at trial).

In summary, it's my assessment that the combination of the SCOTUS Staples, Heller, McDonald, Caetano, & Bruen decisions will render the ATF rule unenforceable.

P.S.
If you want another rabbit hole, look up and read the 1992 SCOTUS Thompson Center Arms v. United States decision.

Thanks for putting more meat on the plate!

 

[snorko]

So is it published yet? Coming up on a week since it was released.

 

[Cameramonkey]

At its core the NFA is a tax law, so the IRS would be the most logical agency to take over.

I guess that would give those 87,000 new agents something to do... LOL

 

[shootersix]

I can see it now

Atf knocks on my door

“Mr shootersix, we need to see your pistol braces”

Me “I don’t have any pistol braces”

Meanwhile in the kitchen

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Enjoy with your morning 2nd cup of Covfefe...

 

[snorko]

I can see it now

Atf knocks on my door

“Mr shootersix, we need to see your pistol braces”

Me “I don’t have any pistol braces”

Meanwhile in the kitchen
View attachment 249033

GAS STOVE! GAS STOVE!

 

[Ingomike]

I applaud the effort, and hope he succeeds. I think he has the order backwards.

Unfortunately, abolishing the ATF doesn't abolish bad law. An SBR is still and SBR. I'm not so sure I want the FBI to take on this role in the vacuum.

Start by taking a meat cleaver to bad law. Next, go after bad bureaucrats (and send a message to the others) that exceed their authority OR act with malicious political predjudice. Then, maybe be more explicit on how the funds may be used (like speed up the paperwork process).

THIS!

 

[bobzilla]

GAS STOVE! GAS STOVE!

Oh yeah, he's getting tazed and locked up for sure.

 

[MikeDVB]

Forgotten Weapons did a great job giving the history of this and also why the NFA barrel length requirements are different between rifles and shotguns (spoiler it’s because the government was accidentally selling SBR’S)

Very interesting video. Basically everything I found out in my research... Would have been great to find this - would have saved me a ton of work!

 

[nonobaddog]

Enjoy with your morning 2nd cup of Covfefe...

Good Lord that guy is wordy.