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

Woodlanddude

Woodlanddude

Professional Hillbilly
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 26, 2007
501
303
51
Beckley, WV
#1
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

Due to challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, Final Rule 2021R-08F was set aside nationwide and has not been enforced. This page is provided for informational purposes pending further action consistent with Executive Order14206 entitled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 90 Fed...
www.atf.gov 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.
 
#2
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Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” published on December 18, 2020 and withdrawn on December 31, 2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were considered for this proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to that notice will be considered as part of this proposed rule.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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95, mudpig, Edgecrusher and 5 others
#3
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.
 
#5
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......
 
#6
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?
 
#7
KZP said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stefan73, mudpig, Edgecrusher and 1 other person
#8
Woodlanddude said:
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......
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mudpig, Edgecrusher, camocorvette and 1 other person
#9
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.
 
#10
nrn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#12
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxwell
#13
skipjack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to gloat, but:
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

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 blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

Now if we could just run over protestors like they can in Florida...
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: MCSO1357, mudpig, Edgecrusher and 6 others
#15
UKDslayer said:
Not to gloat, but:
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

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 blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

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

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edgecrusher
#16
Charger442 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#17
W54/XM-388 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#20
nrn said:
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.
Click to expand...
are you an autist from twitter?.....my spidey senses are tingling.....
 
#21
W54/XM-388 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumper, Sandhog308 and mudpig
#22
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.
 
#28
nrn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#29
8pointer said:
Has there been any more movement from either side on this ATF re-write of the brace definition?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomic41 and 10ring'r
#30
Gommer said:
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.
Click to expand...
thanks for that detailed response. will be interdasting for sure
 
#32
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Srgt. Hulka
The ATF Backed Down.
Replies
40
Views
3K
Shootin Stuff
Shootin Stuff
Bender
The last hope, Brunson v. Adams
Replies
62
Views
6K
SilentStalkr
SilentStalkr
GTOJOSH
ATF Pistol Brace Comments
Replies
70
Views
6K
Blutroop
B
PatMiles
Will the Supreme Court put a stake through the heart of gun control?
Replies
19
Views
3K
acudaowner
acudaowner
"HeysKSFirefighter
ATF Proposal 2020R-10
Replies
34
Views
3K
ToddM
T
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts