- Messages
- 2,155
- Reactions
- 5,880
And the fight goes on while stupid continues rearing it's ugly head with illegal actions by un-elected morons paid with OUR tax dollars. I hope to he]] Clyde follows through. Maybe we could get congress to not eliminate the ATF but just defund them in their entirety? IE: Flat broke with no way to pay any employee, rent, power bills, water bills, retirement, no vehicles, no airplanes, no fuel, no computers, no phones, buy ANYTHING work related etc. etc.? 
Dan
Rep. Clyde to Newsmax: ATF Does 'Not Have Authority to Make New Law'
Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde decried on Newsmax the ATF's changing of a definition related to guns, saying that changing a definition is, by consequence, changing a law, and that's Congress's job.
Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland and ATF director Steve Dettelbach announced new regulations that would subject pistol-stabilizing braces to new rules, including higher taxes, longer waiting periods, and registration. Adding a stabilizing brace to a pistol turns it into a short-barreled rifle, gun control proponents argue. Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), rifles are heavily regulated.
Speaking with "Wake Up America," Clyde says, "it's very troubling ... when the ATF decides to redefine a definition, then they are truly making new law, and the ATF does not have the authority to make [a] new law, that is ... the legislative branch — that's Congress."
Once the rule is published in the Federal Register, the congressman says he will introduce legislation so that it "will never be able to come back."
"It's just unacceptable that the ATF, tries to create new law," Clyde continued.
Information on the rule change can be found in the ATF's 293-page "Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces.'"
And from the 293 pages...
As explained in this rule, because a majority of these firearms with an attached "stabilizing brace" are configured as rifles and have a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, they fall under the purview of the NFA. Therefore, under the statute and regulations, individuals who attach a "stabilizing brace" to a firearm could find themselves making an NFA firearm without abiding by the registration and taxation requirements of the NFA.
Furthermore, ATF has made clear to makers and manufacturers that despite their purported intent with respect to the use or design of an accessory, the requirements of the NFA cannot be circumvented by attempting to configure a firearm with a purported "stabilizing brace" when the affixed device and configuration of the firearm includes features inherent in shoulder-fired weapons.
For these reasons, it is necessary for the Department to amend the regulatory definition of "rifle" to make clear to the public the objective design features and other factors that must be considered when determining whether a firearm equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a "stabilizing brace") is a rifle designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Although ATF will consider a manufacturer's stated intent as reflected in direct and indirect marketing materials or other information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community in assessing whether the firearm is or is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, the objective design features of the weapon may support or undermine that intent, and the stated intent will not necessarily be dispositive.
Dan
Rep. Clyde to Newsmax: ATF Does 'Not Have Authority to Make New Law'
Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde decried on Newsmax the ATF's changing of a definition related to guns, saying that changing a definition is, by consequence, changing a law, and that's Congress's job.
Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland and ATF director Steve Dettelbach announced new regulations that would subject pistol-stabilizing braces to new rules, including higher taxes, longer waiting periods, and registration. Adding a stabilizing brace to a pistol turns it into a short-barreled rifle, gun control proponents argue. Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), rifles are heavily regulated.
Speaking with "Wake Up America," Clyde says, "it's very troubling ... when the ATF decides to redefine a definition, then they are truly making new law, and the ATF does not have the authority to make [a] new law, that is ... the legislative branch — that's Congress."
Once the rule is published in the Federal Register, the congressman says he will introduce legislation so that it "will never be able to come back."
"It's just unacceptable that the ATF, tries to create new law," Clyde continued.
Information on the rule change can be found in the ATF's 293-page "Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces.'"
And from the 293 pages...
As explained in this rule, because a majority of these firearms with an attached "stabilizing brace" are configured as rifles and have a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, they fall under the purview of the NFA. Therefore, under the statute and regulations, individuals who attach a "stabilizing brace" to a firearm could find themselves making an NFA firearm without abiding by the registration and taxation requirements of the NFA.
Furthermore, ATF has made clear to makers and manufacturers that despite their purported intent with respect to the use or design of an accessory, the requirements of the NFA cannot be circumvented by attempting to configure a firearm with a purported "stabilizing brace" when the affixed device and configuration of the firearm includes features inherent in shoulder-fired weapons.
For these reasons, it is necessary for the Department to amend the regulatory definition of "rifle" to make clear to the public
the objective design features and other factors that must be considered when determining whether a firearm equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a "stabilizing brace") is a rifle designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Although ATF will consider a manufacturer's stated intent as reflected in direct and indirect marketing materials or other information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community in assessing whether the firearm is or is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, the objective design features of the weapon may support or undermine that intent, and the stated intent will not necessarily be dispositive.
