ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

AMV said:
I will start by saying I do not agree with any of it.

Now all you need to do is read the ATF documents, and apply the 2 part test that was ruled unconstitutional under the Bruen decision, and add a little butt hurt about it, that is the logic

don't flatter yourself you didnt make it on any of my lists
Click to expand...
Ok, so I can safely assume that you can see my further responses.

Let's do a point counter point discussion here on the merits of the very existence of the BATFE, their oppressive and illegal rulings, their murderous past behaviors and their constant demand for a greater budget.

I'll hand the floor over to you.
 
Uzi2 said:
Ok, so I can safely assume that you can see my further responses.

Let's do a point counter point discussion here on the merits of the very existence of the BATFE, their oppressive and illegal rulings, their murderous past behaviors and their constant demand for a greater budget.

I'll hand the floor over to you.
Click to expand...

How about if we don't?

Perhaps stick to "/atf-issues-rule-change-proposal-regarding-pistol-braces."
 
MAGA99 said:
I understand their reasoning. Their logic is non-existent. Rate of fire is not in the law, they’re just trying to create new law when it’s not their job.
Click to expand...
I'm using the denotation of logic, not implying that I agree with their premise or conclusions.

Correct, rate of fire is not in the law. Perfect example. However, if that's what they were targeting, it logically follows they'd target anything that increases rate of fire. Wanting to ban anything that increases rate of fire logically supports their goal, even if their goal is unconstitutional.

Ever see a totally F'd DIY job that was at least consistently wrong? In that case, the guy was operating on incorrect information and acting logically, even if completely wrong.
 
Uzi2 said:
Ok, so I can safely assume that you can see my further responses.

Let's do a point counter point discussion here on the merits of the very existence

I'll hand the floor over to you.
Click to expand...
I will start witht the first 2 The regulated the interstate commerce, taxation and production of Alcohol and Tobacco
 
AMV said:
I will start witht the first 2 The regulated the interstate commerce, taxation and production of Alcohol and Tobacco
Click to expand...

Ok, my counter point is:

None of those have anything to do with the BATFE making rules concerning guns that have the effect of law, only congress can make laws.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority solely delegated to them, to delegate its powers to any unelected bureaucracy. Either congress makes a law that passes constitutional muster or it doesn't.

Alcohol and tobacco are out of the discussion as being irrelevant to guns or their accessories.

As for "interstate commerce", if that is to be held as an iron clad feature of congress's authority, then there should be no interference by congress or any federal agency into the production or sale of guns or devices that never leave any specific state.
If they insist on enforcing such a law with the excuse that the raw materials used in such production travelled interstate, then that alone is evidence of abuse of the interstate commerce clause. That in itself is tyranny because they could extend that to everything used in every product known to man.
 
Uzi2 said:
Ok, my counter point is:

None of those have anything to do with the BATFE making rules concerning guns that have the effect of law, only congress can make laws.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority solely delegated to them, to delegate its powers to any unelected bureaucracy. Either congress makes a law that passes constitutional muster or it doesn't.

Alcohol and tobacco are out of the discussion as being irrelevant to guns or their accessories.

As for "interstate commerce", if that is to be held as an iron clad feature of congress's authority, then there should be no interference by congress or any federal agency into the production or sale of guns or devices that never leave any specific state.
If they insist on enforcing such a law with the excuse that the raw materials used in such production travelled interstate, then that alone is evidence of abuse of the interstate commerce clause. That in itself is tyranny because they could extend that to everything used in every product known to man.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing at all…… well said this time
 
240Geezer said:
I guarantee it wouldn't have gone the other way if there was a GOP majority AND a GOP POTUS.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're probably right. We had a republican house, senate and white house - and all I heard about gun law reform was "it's not the right time". Now that we have democratic senate and white house - all I hear is "we can't do anything now - wait until we have the majority". a**h***s - all of them.
 
Last edited:
allen-1 said:
I'm afraid you're probably right. We had a republican house, senate and white house - and all I heard about gun law reform was "it's not the right time". Now that we have democratic senate and white house - all I hear is "we can't do anything now - wait until we have the majority". a**h***s - all of them.
Click to expand...
The GOP doesn't serve you, and has no interest in "muh gun rightz", they report to the Uniparty....
 
Boghog1 said:
Laws only hinder those who choose to follow them.
Click to expand...
"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
~Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
 
240Geezer said:
Early and often was the old saying
Click to expand...
I think that saying was devised by democrats and specifically geared towards blacks......who, if you asked them to pick a specific black man out of a line up, they'd be wrong 9 out of ten times.
I think democrats cashed in on the issue of "They all look alike to me" and passed that strategy on to their most useful group of followers......whom they actually hate with a passion, but will always accept their vote at the polls.
 
paul73 said:
can you give a brief written synopsis of what was there?
Click to expand...

Some dude decided to ask the ATF if his small PCC-pistol with a brace would be an SBR.

ATF issued an opinion letter that while they were smacked down in the courts for their rule, they can still interpret “designed to be shouldered” in the NFA and pretty much said any and all braced pistols can be or are SBRs.

People… STOP… ASKING… THE … ATF… THEIR… OPINION!

Luckily this opinion letter will be moot in a week.
 

Similar threads

Atf
Replies
27
Views
703
paul73
paul73
Atf head
Replies
13
Views
578
In God We Trust
In God We Trust
AR15 pistol build brace + 14.5 barrel.. any maximum length legal limits?
2
Replies
32
Views
564
gas000
G
ATF
Replies
5
Views
460
Mountain
Mountain
Is ATF Using AI-Powered Facial Recognition To ID Gun Owners?
2
Replies
31
Views
568
MGnoob
MGnoob
Back
Top Bottom