National Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block?

[CamoDeafie]

To paraphrase @Alexx1401 ; the voters long ago agreed that rights were just privilieges

So... my position has always been... abolish the ATF/BATFE, repeal the NFA1934, GCA1968,FOPA1986 laws, in part or whole (preferably whole). But until then; follow the laws best one can... letter of the NFA laws notably do not include LOP, OAL(except AOWs), or precisely what constitutes a "shoulder stock" other than "designed to be fired from the shoulder"

Looking at CO, MA, CT, where recent laws were passed and certain classes of guns and magazines became "illegal", and the amazingly low compliance with lax enforcement... civil disobedience is indeed a legal tactic and strategy to undermine such odious regulations and laws. Honestly; "defunding the police" may work well in our favor; as long as police are not replaced by organizations similar to the Nazi era Brownshirts why may it work in our favor as gun owners? If they can't raise the funds to pay police officers to enforce their laws, and if the Fed Agents have to get the permission from County Sheriffs to go onto their jurisdictions (see Second Amendment Protection/ Sanctuary Ordinances); then that leaves them in a pickle and it gets punted to Federal District Courts or SCOTUS eventually to decide a 10thA Amendment issue of States/County rights vs Federal Jurisdictions.

 

[The Resister]

To paraphrase @Alexx1401 ; the voters long ago agreed that rights were just privilieges

So... my position has always been... abolish the ATF/BATFE, repeal the NFA1934, GCA1968,FOPA1986 laws, in part or whole (preferably whole). But until then; follow the laws best one can... letter of the NFA laws notably do not include LOP, OAL(except AOWs), or precisely what constitutes a "shoulder stock" other than "designed to be fired from the shoulder"

Looking at CO, MA, CT, where recent laws were passed and certain classes of guns and magazines became "illegal", and the amazingly low compliance with lax enforcement... civil disobedience is indeed a legal tactic and strategy to undermine such odious regulations and laws. Honestly; "defunding the police" may work well in our favor; as long as police are not replaced by organizations similar to the Nazi era Brownshirts why may it work in our favor as gun owners? If they can't raise the funds to pay police officers to enforce their laws, and if the Fed Agents have to get the permission from County Sheriffs to go onto their jurisdictions (see Second Amendment Protection/ Sanctuary Ordinances); then that leaves them in a pickle and it gets punted to Federal District Courts or SCOTUS eventually to decide a 10thA Amendment issue of States/County rights vs Federal Jurisdictions.

You are entering a very complex subject and one in which 99 out of 100 people that even study law have been misled on. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I want you to note that these unalienable Rights were bestowed upon you by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be). Allow me to use the words of the founders and framers to describe these Rights:

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe. " John Adams

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson

"all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. George Mason

Of these Rights, the earliest courts ruled:

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. " BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, it is easily established that unalienable Rights are given by a Creator; that they are natural, inherent, absolute, God given, irrevocable Rights that the government did not grant nor create. Now follow with me to the holding in the Heller case:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

Wait. What? The Second Amendment is not an unlimited Right? How about I post at least a half dozen cases that dispute the Heller ruling, including United States Supreme Court decisions? Would you like that OR would you want to skip those and read the easy truth?

When the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, it created two classes of citizens: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens. And, so, Preamble Citizens retained their Rights while this new class of citizens had only "privileges and immunities." So, slowly the courts chipped away at your unalienable Rights. Since the word inalienable had not been defined, the courts slowly dropped the word unalienable and replaced it with the word inalienable.

For brevity, I'll just give you one example:

Inalienable Rights are defined as: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Grammarists will tell you the two words mean the same thing, but in an unalienable Right, there is NO way to give up a Right even with consent. There are no caveats.

Even grammarists acknowledge a difference even though they get the facts wrong:

"Unalienable" vs. "Inalienable": Is There A Difference?

You know those rights we are so proud of here, are they unalienable or inalienable? Find out what these words mean and how we ended up using each one.

www.dictionary.com

The courts, having abolished the use of he word unalienable, went with inalienable and they tied it to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. THEN they slowly changed the laws until in Heller, they said ""Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." So, that means there are Rights that ARE unlimited. Which ones? That would be those that the GOVERNMENT gives you and says they are unlimited. You cannot find a legal case that refers to inalienable rights as God given, absolute, irrevocable, natural or inherent. They are not. Inalienable rights are granted by government and subject to any rule, statute, regulation that the tyrants so desire. And I can guarantee you that if you argued any differently, the courts will rule against you. Of course they will NOT rule either way, but find another way to pursue you if you bring this distinction up in court. I argue my Preamble status and never give the court any cause to subject me to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment... whose sole reason for existing was to nullify the Bill of Rights and reduce them to privileges and immunities.

The real deal is that you be apprised of your Rights and understand what, exactly, is going on.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Indeed. Like I referred to... voters long ago agreed to this and now we are essentially seeing the results of paying mere lip service to the founding laws. So. What do you propose?

Might it be easier to just plain wish for a meteor to hit D.C.?

 

[arakboss]

 

[The Resister]

Indeed. Like I referred to... voters long ago agreed to this and now we are essentially seeing the results of paying mere lip service to the founding laws. So. What do you propose?

Might it be easier to just plain wish for a meteor to hit D.C.?

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever." John Adams, second President of the United States, founder and framer

We can choose to live under the delusion that we have unalienable Rights OR we can come to grips with the fact that we no longer have a Constitution AND there is not one, single, solitary swinging soul in Washington Wonderland that will not sell out gun owners on one issue or another involving firearms. Name me the politician that wants to repeal the Brady Bill, Lautenberg Amendment, and get rid of BATFE.

Background checks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment and do not prevent crimes or firearm deaths. The Lautenberg Amendment is ex post facto and totally ridiculous. This SBR nonsense is unconstitutional as well. We could dismantle BATFE giving all alcohol and tobacco violations to the DEA and gun laws would be taken over by the FBI (who would be required to reduce the regulations by 50 percent). Nobody is going to do it. So my REAL proposal is this:

You need the equivalent of a Magna Charta / Declaration of Independence. You cannot fix the Constitution. Besides, NOBODY (even you) believes in the principles that our forefathers did when that document was ratified. So, step 1 is to draft our version of a Charter of the Rights of Man (that is what Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as).

Within that document, EVERYBODY that signs it will have to agree to support to the death any other signer - just as those men who signed the Declaration of Independence did. Then you present it to the President of the United States, the House of Representatives and the the United States Senate.

 

[The Resister]

If Biden wins the election, a lot of you will regret abandoning this thread.

 

[arakboss]

https://www.tacticalbubblegum.com/d...454072&utm_campaign=TS 10/15 News Master #DOJ

 

[CamoDeafie]

https://www.tacticalbubblegum.com/d...454072&utm_campaign=TS 10/15 News Master #DOJ

Annnnd your linky broken because of filter.

 

[arakboss]

Annnnd your linky broken because of filter.

What the bubblegum, what bubblegum filter wouldn't like my link. Try reading this:


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has delayed a local field office's attempt to resurrect an Obama-era rule that threatens to turn millions of legal gun owners into criminals.


On Wednesday, the agency informed New Hampshire gun company Q LLC that it will not enforce a cease-and-desist order issued by its Boston branch. The Department of Justice is now reviewing the field office's decision to label an AR-15 featuring a specialized arm brace illegal.


"The purpose of this suspension is to allow the United States Department of Justice to further review the applicability of the National Firearms Act to the manufacture and transfer of the model 'Honey Badger Pistol' firearm," ATF chief counsel Joel Roessner said in a letter. The move gave the gun company and owners of such weapons—which have been legal since 2012—a 60-day reprieve.


Gun-rights activists have been pressing the White House to rein in the agency since the Boston order became public. The controversy emerged three months before Election Day and could alienate a key Republican ally in the 2020 election. The National Rifle Association, which has pledged to spend millions on President Donald Trump's reelection, said the suspension does not go far enough.


"The ATF's letter is a weak attempt to placate gun owners and does not resolve this issue," NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter told the Washington Free Beacon. "The NRA will continue to fight to get a speedy and fair resolution from DOJ on this important matter."


Some gun-rights activists are now threatening to sue the federal government if the proposed ban is not completely revoked. Adam Kraut, director of legal strategy at the Firearms Policy Coalition, accused "rogue elements" at the ATF of trying to implement an "anti-gun owner agenda." He asked President Trump to fire or reassign the agents and lawyers involved in the cease-and-desist letter.


"I strongly suggest the reassignment of all offending rogue officers, attorneys, agents, and/or employees to areas of the Agency where they may not run wild with personal or prior administration's agendas," Kraut said in a letter sent to the White House and Justice Department.

 

[Tony617]

 

[kbf64]

So if now 5.56 and 7.62 are considered rifle ammo, then does that also mean that AP rounds are now legal for civilians? Isn't that the standard, they can't be a "pistol" round?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So if now 5.56 and 7.62 are considered rifle ammo, then does that also mean that AP rounds are now legal for civilians? Isn't that the standard, they can't be a "pistol" round?

Depends.

 

[Provincial]

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all."

We have all passed "Trough the Looking Glass!"

 

[WaWoody]

So why are you posting about it instead of going out there to do your thing? Put that keyboard down and get out there.

Our founding fathers didn't face people with weapons greater than theirs, thermal, helicopters, armored vehicles, law enforcement databases, and news outlets that would instantly plaster your face everywhere as a terrorist with a 100K reward for your location for every ANTIFA and low income person to collect their beer and scratch ticket money by turning you in while you're on the run, etc.

They fought on foot and horses with muskets against people on foot and horses also armed with muskets. They also lived a hard life fending for themselves, not shopping at Safeway then popping home to their AC and Netflix. BIG difference.

Don't forget the whole slave owning thing. Makes it difficult to take the whole "Liberty and Justice (they meant Just-us) for All" seriously...much less literally. You think they would have seen their hypocrisy and just added a little addendum in there. Long story short, invoking the founders views in the modern world of 2020 doesn't do much for me.

 

[wired]

Don't forget the whole slave owning thing. Makes it difficult to take the whole "Liberty and Justice (they meant Just-us) for All" seriously...much less literally. You think they would have seen their hypocrisy and just added a little addendum in there. Long story short, invoking the founders views in the modern world of 2020 doesn't do much for me.

Your'e going to make a lot of friends here .

 

[rednek80]

The older I get, the less of a deterrent "life in prison" becomes.

 

[Aero Denezol]

I did a little searching online and there is no concrete information. It's all just speculation at this point.

 

[JRapRobert]

Sb tactical posted on their Instagram that the braces in question are related to those coming IN from outside the US, not those already here.
If true, sounds more like erosion than full blown infringement, but that's splitting hairs I guess.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[The Resister]

I did a little searching online and there is no concrete information. It's all just speculation at this point.

You're just looking in the wrong places then.