ATF's Proposed Rule posted with no announcement/not listed

[Woodlanddude]

Found this looking for information on Biden's ordered further constitutional infringements on AR Pistols:

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...

www.atf.gov

Still reading, but it appears having any sort of sight at all puts you half way to sbr. (4 point system on arbitrary and asinine factors).
This "worksheet" and guidance appears to be a landmine for law abiding citizens, and a clusterfk for any agents trying to follow the law.

 

[PolarisBreach]

Heads up:
This proposed rule is a separate action from the Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” published on December 18, 2020 and withdrawn on December 31, 2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were considered for this proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to that notice will be considered as part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this proposed rule.

Can we get SCOTUS to finally nut up and tell the ATF that it is not their job to classify firearms? If they want to change the law - which is exactly what this is - it needs to go through the legislative branch.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I think one of the key takeaways is:

If the AR pistol is over 7.5 pounds it's done.
If you put a scope on it, pretty much done
Backup sights and a QD sling mount, pretty much done

On their proposed remedies, I see a problem if you bought one that was originally sold that way, since it doesn't clearly list that you can simply remove the attachment from one that was sold that way.

 

[Srgt. Hulka]

Can we get SCOTUS to finally nut up and tell the ATF that it is not their job to classify firearms? If they want to change the law - which is exactly what this is - it needs to go through the legislative branch.

No. Never gonna happen. Not as long as "Nutless" John Roberts is there.

 

[Woodlanddude]

They still have included the "we know it if we see it" catch phrase that allows them to declare any otherwise legal ar pistol an SBR at will at the top of the proposed worksheet. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT LEGAL FOR LE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN THE USA? In other words if our arbitrary standards say your ar is a pistol, we still reserve the right to imprison you, just because, for reasons......

 

[KZP]

How does it work when someone is prosecuted for this type of stuff. Do the courts cite the ATF guidance as the violation or actual law?

 

[slowworm]

How does it work when someone is prosecuted for this type of stuff. Do the courts cite the ATF guidance as the violation or actual law?

Yes, they do cite the ATF.

Here's the actual definition of Frame or receiver:

Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

Neither the upper or lower of an AR-15 fit that definition. The same is true of the FN-FAL. Note the commas and language carefully. The frame or receiver must contain all of:

1. The hammer
2. The bolt or breechblock
3. The firing mechanism

In both cases the hammer and firing mechanism is housed in the lower, and the bolt or breechblock in the upper. In the case of the FN-FAL the upper is the serialized part, and the AR-15 the lower is the serialized part, despite them being functionally identical. The only difference between the FAL and AR is tilting bolt instead of rotation bolt.

The ATF did lose a somewhat notorious case on this, and they didn't appeal because they knew that would open pandoras box for them. Because I don't want to link to CNN, I'll link to Dave Hardy at Arms and the Law instead:

Of Arms and the Law: ATF drops case over manufacture of "80% receivers"

armsandthelaw.com

I disagree with Dave Hardy in that he says the upper should be the registered part. My interpretation is that neither part fully meets the legal definition. The fact that the ATF walked away from that case is very telling.

 

[Gommer]

They still have included the "we know it if we see it" catch phrase that allows them to declare any otherwise legal ar pistol an SBR at will at the top of the proposed worksheet. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT LEGAL FOR LE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN THE USA? In other words if our arbitrary standards say your ar is a pistol, we still reserve the right to imprison you, just because, for reasons......

It's legal because law enforcement is an executive function, the actual application of law is done by the judicial. The problem you have is that the judicial has delegated their responsibility to the executive, thereby subverting the Constitution and separation of powers entirely.

So, in short, it's not legal. But it's legal because the people who enforce the rules are choosing to allow it. Thus, no law has meaning anymore so long as the judicial continues to delegate it's responsibility.

That, I think, is swiftly coming to an end. Which direction that end goes remains to be seen.

 

[nrn]

Nut up, surrender your 4th amendment, and pay the tax for the SBR you poors.

I was under the impression that's how you guys felt about pistol braces.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Nut up, surrender your 4th amendment, and pay the tax for the SBR you poors.

I was under the impression that's how you guys felt about pistol braces.

I'm guessing everybody will wait to see exactly what the final published rule is, what the specifics of it are and what the details on remedies are and then decide which way is best going forward. The courts probably won't hear it until it's a final rule, but perhaps congress and the senate can express their opinion to the ATF on what should be done, however the Democrats control that by a razor thin majority.

 

[Choid]

No. Never gonna happen. Not as long as "Nutless" John Roberts is there.

I'm confused as to why people think John Roberts matters at this point. I see it a lot, like he is the bogeyman. He is no longer the median vote.

 

[skipjack]

Looks like it’s time to move to a better state. No sbr or cans in New York. Unless you are law enforcement. Which includes meter maids and dog wardens. There sure are some fucked up laws.

 

[UKDslayer]

Looks like it’s time to move to a better state. No sbr or cans in New York. Unless you are law enforcement. Which includes meter maids and dog wardens. There sure are some fucked up laws.

Not to gloat, but:

To the Governor: Texas Passes “Suppressor Freedom” Act | Tenth Amendment Center

On Friday, the Texas Senate gave final approval to a bill that would take the first two steps against National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on firearm sound suppressors. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk.

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

Now if we could just run over protestors like they can in Florida...

 

[Doc68]

Nut up, surrender your 4th amendment, and pay the tax for the SBR you poors.

I was under the impression that's how you guys felt about pistol braces.

Back from Twitter, faggot.

Doc

 

[Charger442]

Not to gloat, but:

To the Governor: Texas Passes “Suppressor Freedom” Act | Tenth Amendment Center

On Friday, the Texas Senate gave final approval to a bill that would take the first two steps against National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on firearm sound suppressors. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk.

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

Now if we could just run over protestors like they can in Florida...

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals basically make this a worthless law, in that ATF still convicted two Kansas men on Federal charges for having silencers manufactured in that state. and the SC rejected the case.

Its encouraging to see the states try and stand up for their rights, but Federal law is still trumping state law. its sad but true.

 

[W54/XM-388]

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals basically make this a worthless law, in that ATF still convicted two Kansas men on Federal charges for having silencers manufactured in that state. and the SC rejected the case.

Its encouraging to see the states try and stand up for their rights, but Federal law is still trumping state law. its sad but true.

Not really.

It means that if the ATF wants to go after folks they have to do all the work themselves.
As has been shown with certain plants as well as undocumented immigration, if a state says we refuse to help you do your stuff, it greatly cuts down the application of that Federal law & eventually it's mostly only if the Feds really want to go after someone badly.

My advice of course would be to pay your $200 and have peace of mind.

That being said, after this passes, the chances of somebody having a problem for something they built, if they keep their head down and their nose out of trouble becomes vanishingly small.

 

[Choid]

Not really.

It means that if the ATF wants to go after folks they have to do all the work themselves.
As has been shown with certain plants as well as undocumented immigration, if a state says we refuse to help you do your stuff, it greatly cuts down the application of that Federal law & eventually it's mostly only if the Feds really want to go after someone badly.

My advice of course would be to pay your $200 and have peace of mind.

That being said, after this passes, the chances of somebody having a problem for something they built, if they keep their head down and their nose out of trouble becomes vanishingly small.

Just know that most of the sanctuary laws specifically allow for state and local assistance with gun laws passed before the day of enactment, so even in a state with one, there may not be a general refusal to assist.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Read the bill as passed by the Texas legislature.
It's pretty clear.

 

[Choid]

Read the bill as passed by the Texas legislature.
It's pretty clear.

Oh, I understand. I am making a general statement about a lot of the sanctuary bills. TX has the unfortunate status of having a large number of ATF agents too...

 

[...]

Nut up, surrender your 4th amendment, and pay the tax for the SBR you poors.

I was under the impression that's how you guys felt about pistol braces.

are you an autist from twitter?.....my spidey senses are tingling.....

 

[SilentStalkr]

I'm guessing everybody will wait to see exactly what the final published rule is, what the specifics of it are and what the details on remedies are and then decide which way is best going forward. The courts probably won't hear it until it's a final rule, but perhaps congress and the senate can express their opinion to the ATF on what should be done, however the Democrats control that by a razor thin majority.

No. I suspect nobody will give a shit and go on about their business. People are tired of the BS rules especially when they are enforced so arbitrarily and the laws written are ambiguous as hell. Perhaps when all that have committed high crimes are in jail people might consider somewhat following the rules, but I’m hoping there is a major pushback.

 

[nagantguy]

But surly no little blue suit hero’s would ruin someone’s life and lively good and family on a 10 year rap for some nonsense such as this- they'd probably just steal it and then claim it as lost or better yet civil asset forfeiture.

 

[Charger442]

are you an autist from twitter?.....my spidey senses are tingling.....

He's probably making fun of people who thought pistol braces were stupid and figured this day would come. Much sarcasm he has

 

[Nik H]

I decline to comply...they can suck my 1 inch dick

 

[NoDopes]

I decline to comply...they can suck my 1 inch dick

I thought we all measured in mills here.

 

[Steel head]

Back from Twitter, faggot.

Doc

Looks like Dorsey’s butt plugs fell out again!

 

[atepointer]

Has there been any more movement from either side on this ATF re-write of the brace definition?

 

[clcustom1911]

Nut up, surrender your 4th amendment, and pay the tax for the SBR you poors.

I was under the impression that's how you guys felt about pistol braces.

I've always been sketch about braces. I'm gonna do like 4 lowers SBR'd when I get back stateside just to avoid the hassle. But already have 2 cans, so I'm in the NFA registration system anyway.

 

[Gommer]

Has there been any more movement from either side on this ATF re-write of the brace definition?

Not really. Last I checked there was around 110k comments. That's been a bit so I have no idea what it is now.

48, I believe, Senators wrote a letter to the ATF. Basically a cease and desist letter. A smaller percentage of the House sent a similar letter. Both used pretty strong language. Not sure if that's 'news' that was known a month ago when this thread was going or if it happened since.

I think if Chipman gets pushed through by the senate, this and the redefinition of a firearm with both be published regardless of public comment. Then it will be open legal warfare with the ATF from a lot of directions.

Both rule changes the ATF is attempting to make are unlikely to hold up under judicial scrutiny -- not because courts are actually going to uphold the constitution but because the rules are stupid and look like a nightmare for the courts to try to work with. Plus, the rules only have weight under Chevron and many districts have already set precedent dismantling Chevron specifically in relation to the ATF.

Despite what some have said in this thread, the actual law is very clear and specific with regards to these definitions. The definitions are imperfect, for sure, but they are clearly written. The ATF, however, likes to interpret those definitions ambiguously -- but they are not the courts. That doesn't mean they can't jam you up and ruin your life, that's how tyrannical governments work and the ATF is absolutely an instrument of tyranny.

If Chipman heads the ATF I'd expect these rules to get published, regardless of public comment, pushback from politicians, pushback from states, or even pushback from courts. In addition, I'd expect to see Chipman push to reclassify all semi-auto handguns as NFA items, arguing they were designed to be fired using two hands.

That would lead to some interesting times.

 

[atepointer]

Not really. Last I checked there was around 110k comments. That's been a bit so I have no idea what it is now.

48, I believe, Senators wrote a letter to the ATF. Basically a cease and desist letter. A smaller percentage of the House sent a similar letter. Both used pretty strong language. Not sure if that's 'news' that was known a month ago when this thread was going or if it happened since.

I think if Chipman gets pushed through by the senate, this and the redefinition of a firearm with both be published regardless of public comment. Then it will be open legal warfare with the ATF from a lot of directions.

Both rule changes the ATF is attempting to make are unlikely to hold up under judicial scrutiny -- not because courts are actually going to uphold the constitution but because the rules are stupid and look like a nightmare for the courts to try to work with. Plus, the rules only have weight under Chevron and many districts have already set precedent dismantling Chevron specifically in relation to the ATF.

Despite what some have said in this thread, the actual law is very clear and specific with regards to these definitions. The definitions are imperfect, for sure, but they are clearly written. The ATF, however, likes to interpret those definitions ambiguously -- but they are not the courts. That doesn't mean they can't jam you up and ruin your life, that's how tyrannical governments work and the ATF is absolutely an instrument of tyranny.

If Chipman heads the ATF I'd expect these rules to get published, regardless of public comment, pushback from politicians, pushback from states, or even pushback from courts. In addition, I'd expect to see Chipman push to reclassify all semi-auto handguns as NFA items, arguing they were designed to be fired using two hands.

That would lead to some interesting times.

thanks for that detailed response. will be interdasting for sure

 

[SilentStalkr]

thanks for that detailed response. will be interdasting for sure

The outcome will fully come from how many people will comply with whatever BS laws they make.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Under the ATF news proposal the Fin brace and Cuff brace are talked about. That said the Tail hook brace is a leverage base brace and that's not mention. The letter they have from the ATF mentions leverage. Interesting that the ATF would miss that.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Do not comply. If everyone that owns these things doesn’t comply then this will likely just go away, maybe!