National Pistol Brace Rule Compliance - How to

[Yarome]

It's really not them instigating it believe it or not. These are orders from on high. They might have received a 13% budget increase but at least on the NFA side their workload was increased exponentially

I realize that. But I still believe they deserve no pity. I don't buy into the whole... "deep down they are really a great agency, full of good people only performing illegal activitys against the citizens of the U.S. because they were told to... and like it or not... they have no choice."

Boo-bubblegummin-hoo.

Maybe take a lesson from officials across the U.S. that take a stand and openly say, "I will not support or enforce my state governments illegal laws"(?)

 

[wired]

I realize that. But I still believe they deserve no pity. I don't buy into the whole... "deep down they are really a great agency, full of good people only performing illegal activitys against the citizens of the U.S. because they were told to... and like it or not... they have no choice."

Boo-bubblegummin-hoo.

Maybe take a lesson from officials across the U.S. that take a stand and openly say, "I will not support or enforce my state governments illegal laws"(?)

Take a unregistered mg to a sheriffs range in a 2nd amendment sanctuary state. Report back

 

[Yarome]

Take a unregistered mg to a sheriffs range in a 2nd amendment sanctuary state. Report back

Come on. Seriously??

Now you're just trolling, again. Not enforcing laws legally enacted by congress... like illegal possession of a firearm... is hardly what I was talking about. If you can't figure that out on you own... I can't help ya.

 

[wired]

Come on. Seriously??

Now you're just trolling, again. Not enforcing laws legally enacted by congress... like illegal possession of a firearm... is hardly what I was talking about. If you can't figure that out on you own... I can't help ya.

So sheriffs decide what is unconstitutional now? I must have missed that day in civics class. Or is it that sheriffs decide what is a valid law and isn't a law and what should apply to the people in their county? You were talking about NFA classified title 2 SBRs . Same basic rules as MGs or maybe you were talking about something else. You keep things vague enough to wonder sometimes.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So sheriffs decide what is unconstitutional now? I must have missed that day in civics class. Or is it that sheriffs decide what is a valid law and isn't a law and what should apply to the people in their county?

You mean like certain States not enforcing certain Federal drug laws, and also not enforcing Federal immigrant laws? although; none of that stops the Feds themselves from going after people for violating Fed laws


Edit. The relevant case is Printz v. USA. Basically says Fed Govt cannot compel, nor commandeer State &local enforcement and officials in enforcing Federal laws and regulations.

The crux is the pistol brace "rule" that was not enacted by Congress... Sheriff's can legally choose to ignore it if that rule isn't part of laws and bills passed by Congress.... at least to my understanding in the light of Cargill and EPA rulings. But nothing of that prevents the Federal agencies from choosing to go after people anyhow.

 

[wired]

You mean like certain States not enforcing certain Federal drug laws, and also not enforcing Federal immigrant laws? although; none of that stops the Feds themselves from going after people for violating Fed laws


The crux is the pistol brace "rule" that was not enacted by Congress... Sheriff's can legally choose to ignore it if that rule isn't part of laws and bills passed by Congress.... at least to my understanding in the light of Cargill and EPA rulings. But nothing of that prevents the Federal agencies from choosing to go after people anyhow.

It is wholly debatable as to whether the ATF ever had the legal authority to rule that braces were not buttstocks in the first place. Just because they did for a few samples doesn't mean they ever actually had the legal authority to do it at all. Since that is the gist of their argument and here we are two months into it without an injunction, I'm starting to think the judiciary agrees. It's not as cut and dry as it seems despite all the overwhelming case history a few recent scotus rulings MIGHT suggest. Yes, none of that has been tested in cases like this.

 

[Yarome]

It is wholly debatable as to whether the ATF ever had the legal authority to rule that braces were not buttstocks in the first place.

I know they didn't in your own opinion, however, by the rule of deference they very arguably did. When there is an ambigious issue then deference is allowed in favor of "the people". They did what they were supposed to do. When they reverse it, adding the affect of law and legal penalty, then deference no longer applies. It then requires an act of congress.

Obviously, compounded greatly by the fact that they are now "in common use" and protected. The argument "today" must be decided on the merits of how things "currently" exist and can't be negated or argued based on what conditions or usage may have existed a decade or more ago.

It's a moot argument.... as is your continued argument that the pistol brace rule is "good law" because that's how it always "should" have been. It wasn't how you wanted it to be, time machines haven't been invented yet and things simply "are" how they are "now"... so... what's the point?

Philisophically, maybe it makes for an interesting discussion, but has no merit in discussions about the pistol brace rule we currently face.

 

[wired]

I know they didn't in your own opinion, however, by the rule of deference they very arguably did. When there is an ambigious issue then deference is allowed in favor of "the people". They did what they were supposed to do. When they reverse it, adding the affect of law and legal penalty, then deference no longer applies. It then requires an act of congress.

Obviously, compounded greatly by the fact that they are now "in common use" and protected. The argument "today" must be decided on the merits of how things "currently" exist and can't be negated or argued based on what conditions or usage may have existed a decade or more ago.

It's a moot argument.... as is your continued argument that the pistol brace rule is "good law" because that's how it always "should" have been. It wasn't how you wanted it to be, time machines haven't been invented yet and things simply "are" how they are "now"... so... what's the point?

Philisophically, maybe it makes for an interesting discussion, but has no merit in discussions about the pistol brace rule we currently face.

I suppose that will be for the courts to decide.The ATFs position is as I've stated

 

[CamoDeafie]

I know they didn't in your own opinion, however, by the rule of deference they very arguably did. When there is an ambigious issue then deference is allowed in favor of "the people". They did what they were supposed to do. When they reverse it, adding the affect of law and legal penalty, then deference no longer applies. It then requires an act of congress.

Rule of Lenity.-if ambiguous, must rule or decide in favor of the People not the Agency or Govt.

Obviously, compounded greatly by the fact that they are now "in common use" and protected. The argument "today" must be decided on the merits of how things "currently" exist and can't be negated or argued based on what conditions or usage may have existed a decade or more ago.

Bruen plus EPA plus Cargill plus Heller plus Caitano; logically whole of NFA/GCA1968/etc and existence of ATF should be repealed and abolished but..... will that ever happen in this century?

It's a moot argument.... as is your continued argument that the pistol brace rule is "good law" because that's how it always "should" have been. It wasn't how you wanted it to be, time machines haven't been invented yet and things simply "are" how they are "now"... so... what's the point?

Philisophically, maybe it makes for an interesting discussion, but has no merit in discussions about the pistol brace rule we currently face.

 

[wired]

Rule of Lenity.-if ambiguous, must rule or decide in favor of the People not the Agency or Govt.


Bruen plus EPA plus Cargill plus Heller plus Caitano; logically whole of NFA/GCA1968/etc and existence of ATF should be repealed and abolished but..... will that ever happen in this century?

Good luck with all that. When the law changes my talking points will change. Wishful thinking doesn't pay the bills

 

[CamoDeafie]

Good luck with all that. When the law changes my talking points will change. Wishful thinking doesn't pay the bills

That's why I'm asking if it would ever happen at least in this century (2000-2100) there's a lot of talk that it could but... given the trend of people voting for the letter by the name and little else...

 

[Yarome]

...and here we are two months into it without an injunction, I'm starting to think the judiciary agrees.

No meaning can be inferred by that. Both parties are allowed time to submit arguments and counters. The courts are fully aware there is time before any legal repercussions will be in effect and likely not pushing anything through on an immediate emergency basis.

You can keep hoping for a win for your side though!

 

[wired]

No meaning can be inferred by that. Both parties are allowed time to submit arguments and counters. The courts are fully aware there is time before any legal repercussions will be in effect and likely not pushing anything through on an immediate emergency basis.

You can keep hoping for a win for your side though!

If I had my way truck guns would all be machine guns. My opinion is much like yours, the outer part of my rectum.

 

[CamoDeafie]

@wired How long has it taken for Duncan v. Bonta to go up to SCOTUS, and then get knocked back down to 9th District and then to Benitez himself? from 2020 to now, and it's still in litigation? And that's just for mag bans. Give it time, it'll eventually wind up before the SCOTUS depending on who appeals.

 

[wired]

@wired How long has it taken for Duncan v. Bonta to go up to SCOTUS, and then get knocked back down to 9th District and then to Benitez himself? from 2020 to now, and it's still in litigation? And that's just for mag bans. Give it time, it'll eventually wind up before the SCOTUS depending on who appeals.

All I see is a bunch of slow paper shuffling. Lawsuits, counter suits etc. Nothing of substance happening and the same old NFA not changing.

 

[wired]

FWIW I saw a 20 qty batch approval on one owners free form 1 stamps come in today .

 

[CamoDeafie]

I don't see anything other than "political optics" stopping Congress from amending NFA and GCA to make the "final ruling" lawsuits essentially moot by way of actually adding the subjective "objective" criteria to the definitions of rifles and pistols for both NFA and GCA

 

[wired]

I don't see anything other than "political optics" stopping Congress from amending NFA and GCA to make the "final ruling" lawsuits essentially moot by way of actually adding the subjective "objective" criteria to the definitions of rifles and pistols for both NFA and GCA

When you are a member of Congress and your job depends on your getting re-elected not just for the money but for the power you can posture pro gun all day long but when some jackass goes on a shooting spree with whatever device you just championed it makes keeping that seat and moving up a little bit harder. Easier to say youre pro gun and not do anything about it. We , and I mean party Republicans, held all the power and lost it all because of foolishness but at no time were pro gun policies codified.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Anyways back on topic. Have anyone on here in the PNW gotten approvals yet?

 

[Yarome]

Rule of Lenity.-if ambiguous, must rule or decide in favor of the People not the Agency or Govt.

There is a distinction, but have similar effects. Deference dealing with administrative law and the interpretation of a statute/law... within certain criteria... and lenity being a criminal law rule when judicating for the people.

In the original determination made by the alphabet, it was adminitrative and would be deference, given toward the people, not the government.

Just geek'n out...