ATF and pistol braces ?

[stagpanther]

Once again, I'm trying to play by the rules.
Looking through the document, among the "factors" were some pictures of the Nimrod firing a braced AR Pistol/SBR

One of the pictures showed our Nimrod with a cheek weld on the buffer tube. The Brace/Buttstock was clearly a few inches off his shoulder. Clearly the brace was not being used as a shoulder stock.

Our Friends at the BATF said "NO! You can't do that! Go to jail!!

HMMM. This gives me the heebie-Jeebies. I don't want to go to jail. Does this mean if I contact the buffer tube with my face as I look through the sights I go to jail?

One fact that may be critical is in the BATF picture our Nimrod (gasp) has a brace attached to to his buffer tube,so it might be an SBR.

My buffer tube is naked. No brace or attachment. My gun is a pistol to the best of my knowledge. "I wouldn't have it any other way"

Do I have to go to jail for a cheek weld??? Its kind of important to me.

I'm in the same boat as you--my AR pistols have a bare buffer tube but I do use it against my cheek. My personal opinion is that there is no way you can can leverage the buffer tube in such a way to get the equivalent of shoulder support you do with any kind of brace/stock--so the ruling is still irrelevant to me. Well, not entirely--because I think they are ultimately going after "small AR's" of any configuration, and probably some manufacturer will quickly come up with a "cheekpad brace." That should at least make the dentists happy. I've already decided to simply pull the short barrels and convert to rifles--while I still have the time. I did take pictures of my pistols on their "born on" dates but do not have official birth certificates from a hospital's attending physician, so I figure I better do the long-barrel conversion now to be on the safe side.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

1. He says in reference to a post that does not contain substance.
2. He says as he once again calls attention to a post I didn't address to his satisfaction.

Here you confuse a post from which you have failed to draw substance with a post that lacks it.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The point of rules is that they can deal with new situations without having to amend legislation.

The prominent defect in your analysis is its focus on what you think the rule is for rather than what it reads.

What you think the point of a regulation is doesn't bear on what the regulation actually reads, a topic you've avoided assiduously. Whether an item is regulated under the NFA precedes and is distinguishable from a determination of the legality of possession. Your analysis is confused because you resist discreet analysis if the issue presented by a change in the agency standard for inclusion of an item in the NFA.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

And yes, of course it is whether the rule creates illegal/regulated firearms that were legal/unregulated under the NFA .

I'm glad to see the recognition here that whether an item is regulated is the issue.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The original SIG brace on a pistol still isn't regulated under the NFA unless...

Unless it falls within the new test, which it may.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

...unless other factors indicating that the resulting firearm is intended to be shouldered are present.

That would be a departure from the prior determination. Since the six regulatory considerations lack sufficient specificity to allow a reader to confidently apply them for his own forecast of agency treatment, he can't rule out inclusion of his sig braced AR pistol with a scope. Your exception, "unless", concedes the issue of the expansion of the class of weapons described.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The two factors, a scope that is intended to be used when the gun is fired from the shoulder, plus provisions for shouldering the gun would certainly indicate that the firearm fits the definition of rifle under the NFA since the resulting firearm would certainly be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”.

Nothing is 100% certain, if certainty is the standard, then it's impossible to attain.

Indeed.


A provision will be void for vagueness where men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Because the six considerations lack the specificity that would drive a clear and common understanding and consistent application, they should draw that challenge.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I'm willing to concede that it only meets the standard of being "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Where the issue is a reg under which an agency can exercise undue discretion in classification, that it leaves you without doubt you assess as reasonable isn't a pertinent standard in construing it.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You can stop right there, because that's all that needs to be said. You are correct. I'm doing that because the law is the basis on which the ruling will be judged.

Here, you conflate “the narrow lens of your understanding of the law” with “the law”. To assert that the law is the basis on which the ruling will be judged is tautological. What various courts find over the course of various challenges will be the law on this point.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It will not be judged on the basis of what might have been allowed for a time under two, now invalidated rulings.

Because you don’t know the basis on which the regs will be challenged, you don’t know the basis on which the challenges will be adjudicated. This is an epistemic limit not apparent in the lens of your understanding of the law as you've presented it. An assertion based on what you don’t and can't know is not a step in the direction of a well reasoned conclusion.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

And now they've invalidated those rulings so what they said means nothing. Furthermore, it's moot anyway because rulings are not judged on the basis of other rulings, they are judged on the law on which they are based..

A challenge to a reg can be for variation from the code on which it is based, but that is not the only ground for challenge. An agency can have enforcement discretion, but it lacks the ability to enforce on litigants or courts a fiction that its prior history didn’t happen. The agency doesn’t control the parts of regulatory history on which a challenge can be brought.

That has been explained for you previously at posts 172 and 176, and at post 181 I asked whether you understood that.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

As far as the damage done by the confusion generated by the invalidated rulings--that's why there's an amnesty. Where things that are illegal can be made legal. If there weren't things that are currently illegal out there, it would make no sense to have an amnesty--which is a HUGE hint that it's not possible to make headway on judging this ruling on the basis of past rulings.

Do the regs contain the word “amnesty”? I understand that we are using the term loosely, but the regs certainly don’t describe an amnesty. The SOL on violations of revenue code is three years, or six years if the code was violated for the purpose of evasion. The regs don’t require the granting of a license, and we’ve an indication from the agency that the 88day rule will leave amnesty applicants subject to enforcement when their applications are rejected for failure to pass the background check in a timely manner.*

The observation of the agency’s muddled history on the definition of rifle is not an argument in favor of its interpretation du jour, but does serve as evidence of the vague quality of that portion of the NFA. We may one day thank Merrick Garland for that one.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You can call them technicalities as long as you understand that these technicalities could potentially send someone to federal prison if they dismiss them.

As far as there being a change in the law, it's not a matter of convincing people--there clearly hasn't been a change in federal law.

There hasn’t been a change in the text of the US code because the reg isn’t an act of Congress. My fifth edition of Black’s indicates “That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is law.” In that sense every federal regulation that can be enforced against an citizens is a law.

The law is not only the US code. It also includes regs, case law and the doctrine developed within it, and will be influenced by interpretive doctrine. If I’m translating the point into laymanese, a reg that changes so as to land me in prison is a change in the law.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The existence of the amnesty strongly implies that at least some of them are illegal.

It's important to note that one can end up with "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" even if one puts a legal brace on it.

That conclusion is correct, but the explanation is muddied by bringing in illegality. An issue is whether a weapon can be determined to fall within NFA regulation using the six considerations without guessing about application of those considerations. Where a weapon with a Joe’s Brace Inc brace is submitted and determined not to be within the NFA because it isn’t "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder", then a later determination that it is within the NFA appears capricious and arbitrary and may subject the determination to challenge under the Administrative Procedures Act for that very reason.


______________________
*I believe there are limits on revenue enforcement where a return has been filed, and I'm not confident the 88 day "rule" will be applied against applicants. That an agency representative indicated a position on enforcement may not accurately reflect the agency position in future - a recurring theme.

[stagpanther]

Can't you two just go settle this in the mud wrestling pit?

[jrinne0430]

So, if we are to register braced pistols as an SBRs (BATF expectations), is it exempt from the required markings? Do you mark the brace too?

ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED, AM I REQUIRED TO MARK THE FIREARM SINCE I MANUFACTURED
A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR)?
• If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered within the 120-day tax forbearance
period, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm. The maker’s marking
exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule. If the
firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92
& 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1

[HiBC]

I've been skipping over it.

[JohnKSa]

Yeah. It's really not that complicated, in spite of concerted attempts to make it so.

Let's look at what we know for certain.

1. The BATF has the authority and responsibility to change regulations within the bounds of the applicable federal code. That authority certainly extends to changing existing definitions. Therefore the initial claim that they overstepped their authority by changing definitions is obviously incorrect.

2. The BATF has not altered federal code with this rule. Therefore the initial implication that they are making new law (legislating) and therefore overstepping their authority is obviously incorrect.

3. Invalidated opinion letters are not the standard under which new rules are judged. Therefore, the idea that inconsistencies between this rule and the two invalidated opinion letters can provide grounds for challenging the validity of the new rule is incorrect.

4. The new rule will be judged based on whether or not it is consistent with the NFA, specifically if it tries to regulate/outlaw items that are legal/unregulated under the NFA.

That's four very simple concepts. Easy to understand, logical, easily verified, stated in clear terms without the need to resort to any $5 words, legal jargon or volumes of verbiage.

All that remains to determine is whether the result of #4 will show that the rule is or isn't consistent with the NFA. So far the attempt to find an example of something that is regulated/outlawed by the rule but that would have been legal/unregulated under the NFA has been unsuccessful.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Sharkbite]

So, is it understood that simply removing the “brace” makes this rule moot? At that point dont you have just an AR pistol? And not a braced handgun?

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

So, is it understood that simply removing the “brace” makes this rule moot? At that point dont you have just an AR pistol? And not a braced handgun?

Only in some ones' opinion, and no one here knows anything "for certain". Nothing is "verified". Imo, and experience in participating in changing/using state codes/statutes/guidances, the substantial changing of the definition (using a differing definition than the enabling statute) changes the code. Especially how the definition of rifle is so convoluted.

The only thing "for certain", "incorrect" or "correct" is there are differing opinions.

As always, time will tell. And just to be informative, after 11 days the final rule has not been published in the Federal Register yet. For some this may indicate some serious problem have arisen, which is conjecture also.

[Aguila Blanca]

To put this into some sort of perpsective, I work with the wife of a municipal police officer. Her husband owns a couple of these :"other" AR-15s, which he built. As a police officer, he has access to the town's attorney and also to the state police firearms unit and their in-house attorney.

He asked his wife to ask ME what the new rule means. That means the officers in his department don't understand it, and the attorneys they have consulted either all admit they don't understand it or (more likely) disagree on what it means.

It's a can of worms. That's the only thing that's certain.

[JohnKSa]

The problem is more in accepting what it says. It's really not that confusing.

The NFA says a rifle is " a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". That's a very broad definition. The official definition of a rifle in the NFA does not say a rifle has a shoulder stock, nor does it define what a shoulder stock is. The only mention of a gun stock in the NFA refers to the grip of a pistol.

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Question 1. If one holds a rifle exactly as they would normally hold and shoot it, with the sole exception of holding it away from their shoulder so that the stock doesn't make contact with the shoulder, does the weapon cease to be a rifle under the NFA definition?

Question 2. If one holds an AR pistol with any sort of rearward projection exactly as they would normally hold and shoot a rifle, with the sole exception of holding the rearward protection away from their shoulder so that it doesn't make contact with the shoulder, what makes it different from the rifle in Question 1?

For years, everyone was happy with the simple interpretation that you made an SBR out of a pistol when you added a shoulder stock.

Then came "pistols" (e.g. AR and AK pistols) that are basically rifles with short barrels and no stocks. Not a problem because everyone knew what a shoulder stock was and these guns didn't have them.

Then came rearward projections for such guns that weren't called stocks and now suddenly it was no longer clear if these pistols had shoulder stocks or not--or even what was a shoulder stock and what wasn't. Maybe the problem can be solved by looking at the law--but remember there's no definition for shoulder stock in the NFA and besides, the presence of a shoulder stock isn't explicitly required for a firearm to be a rifle under the NFA.

If it was your job to straighten out the resulting confusion, using the definitions and text of the NFA as a basis to distinguish between an AR SBR and an AR pistol, how would you do it? Could you do it?

[44 AMP]

So, is it understood that simply removing the “brace” makes this rule moot? At that point dont you have just an AR pistol? And not a braced handgun?

Pardon me for again beating what ought to be a dead horse, but one of the big points of this discussion is that words and how we understand them matter.

Under the old system and, as far as I can tell, under the new rules, a BRACED handgun is not an NFA item. A STOCKED handgun is.

When is a brace a stock?? When the ATF says it is. Period. IF you disagree, your options are go to court or to the legislature to see if you can get a ruling or a law in your favor.

Is there another option? I don't know any.

As to JohnKSa's questions, I'd say that not shouldering the gun doesn't change the design intent, and since the law says "intended to be fired from the shoulder" then it is still a rifle. OR a pistol if that's its classification.

Back when I was in the service, we called the minutiae obsessed self appointed experts "barracks lawyers". You can find them in every field of endeavor. Once in a while they are right. Most of the time, they're not.

I will admit to a degree of that myself, the difference being, most of the time, I'm right!

[JohnKSa]

The second question didn't ask if the gun was still a pistol, it asked how it is different from the rifle in the first question.

[HiBC]

Coming up with the question is not the problem. I've asked the question about a no-brace pistol and cheek weld several times.

What is a problem is no one seems to be able to give an answer.

When a Citizen is making an honest effort to comply with the law, it should not be this hard to find out exactly what the law is.

Considering the penalties are quite harsh, IMO the agencies imposing the law have a duty to write clearly or at least explain.

It would be nice if the BATF would host a Q+A or post an FAQ to cover these questions.

In the BATF's own words,the 2017 letter said "How it is used does not redesign the part or accesory"

Now,before Captain Obvious informs me (again) that all previous letters are obsolete, nevertheless it demonstrates a "Reasonable Person" interpretation of the text of the law. Thats how at least SOME of the BATF read it.

I'm not interested in arguing with the BATF. "A Cockroach who argues with a Chicken is always wrong !"

I also don't want to basket case and rebuild my current pistol if its legal.

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it. Whether the BATF "likes" an AR pistol is not the issue. For years the AR pistol (no brace) has been a lawful pistol. However the "brace" has been managed or mismanaged, the Citizen who lawfully owns an AR pistol should not pay a penalty,be harassed,persecuted or prosecuted for the ineptness or frustration of those who write the rules.

The AR platform has to have a buffer tube to function. The sights are customarily attached to the flat top rail. Looking through the sights would place the cheek on the buffer tube. How else are you supposed to shoot it?
And lets deal with the reality, aside from Bullseye Competition,almost no one with the option to shoot any pistol two handed shoots with only one hand. The "one handed" rule is archaic and obsolete. It has no basis.

Referring to the now obsolete 2017 letter again, specific mention was made that a buffer tube cheek piece was acceptable and placing the cheek on the buffer tube was acceptable.That tells me at least one BATF person was reasonable and considered the rights of the Citizen.

If you don't have a brace,none of this BS should apply.

[stagpanther]

If you don't have a brace, none of this BS should apply.

That's the way I see it--more specifically I use completely bare buffer tubes with no attachments of any kind on them or any way they could be attached. I have a friend that works in my state's ATF field office (the office in my state generally tends to be non-draconian and gives the benefit of the doubt to the lawful citizen if they trip up on regs inadvertently, contrary to the jack-booted break down your door in the middle of the night image you often get on forums) I'll put in an inquiry and say what they say.

[44 AMP]

A couple points to consider...

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it.

The Judicial has always "said that". The way its done is WHEN a bad law comes before them, they can toss it out. What they can't do, under our system is tell Congress what they can and can't put in a law. That would be beyond their legal scope of authority, as telling (requiring) Congress to do or not do something isn't their job, nor, should it be.

Literally, the courts do not write the laws. IF Congress is too stupid to write a good law, the courts can toss it out, but they can't instruct Congress, as that could be considered "writing" the law.

And lets deal with the reality, aside from Bullseye Competition,almost no one with the option to shoot any pistol two handed shoots with only one hand. The "one handed" rule is archaic and obsolete. It has no basis.

What people choose to do today has no impact on the historical basis of the law. Handguns are guns you can fire with one hand. No one ever required ONLY one hand (outside of certain games and outdated training ideals. The point is that when the law was written, the general idea was that if it could be used with only one hand, it was a handgun and if you needed both hands to use it, its wasn't a handgun.

Choosing to use two hands (as most people do today) didn't make it anything but a handgun used with both hands. NEEDING to use both hands meant it wasn't a handgun. It was a pretty simple concept back then, and I think still is.

If you don't have a brace,none of this BS should apply.

I agree completely, and as far as I can tell if you don't have a brace, none of this BS DOES apply.

I also think the people who are saying that an unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol is now going to be an NFA Item are talking out their backsides and just trying to scare people.

Note that the ATF didn't say "if you have an AR pistol send it in for evaluation" they said "If you have a brace on your AR pistol....."

The point is that CERTAIN combinations of "brace" and pistol MIGHT now be reclassified as a stock which then makes the gun an NFA item. They didn't say every brace/pistol combination IS a stocked pistol, so obviously there are some that will not be and some that are.

If you don't have a brace, I can't see where any of that applies, at all.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...outdated training ideals

I resemble that remark.

Originally Posted by HiBC

When a Citizen is making an honest effort to comply with the law, it should not be this hard to find out exactly what the law is.

Considering the penalties are quite harsh, IMO the agencies imposing the law have a duty to write clearly or at least explain.

It would be nice if the BATF would host a Q+A or post an FAQ to cover these questions.

In the BATF's own words,the 2017 letter said "How it is used does not redesign the part or accesory"

Now,before Captain Obvious informs me (again) that all previous letters are obsolete, nevertheless it demonstrates a "Reasonable Person" interpretation of the text of the law. Thats how at least SOME of the BATF read it.

I'm not interested in arguing with the BATF. "A Cockroach who argues with a Chicken is always wrong !"

I also don't want to basket case and rebuild my current pistol if its legal.

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it. Whether the BATF "likes" an AR pistol is not the issue. For years the AR pistol (no brace) has been a lawful pistol. However the "brace" has been managed or mismanaged, the Citizen who lawfully owns an AR pistol should not pay a penalty,be harassed,persecuted or prosecuted for the ineptness or frustration of those who write the rules.

You're correct; you shouldn't have to take a stab at what the agency wants and hope your dog lives. That's why a too vague code or reg can be voided for vagueness.

You may get resolution on that from a court for the reason you've described, but it isn't likely to be quick just because that system isn't arranged for speed.

In the meantime, your specific risk might not be zero, but I believe you are unlikely to be the test case. In the game of litigation chicken, I'd see them more likely to press a claim against someone with youtube video of himself shooting his braced pistol from the shoulder.

None of the above is me telling you what to do.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The problem is more in accepting what it says. It's really not that confusing.

The NFA says a rifle is " a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". That's a very broad definition. The official definition of a rifle in the NFA does not say a rifle has a shoulder stock, nor does it define what a shoulder stock is. The only mention of a gun stock in the NFA refers to the grip of a pistol.

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Question 1. If one holds a rifle exactly as they would normally hold and shoot it, with the sole exception of holding it away from their shoulder so that the stock doesn't make contact with the shoulder, does the weapon cease to be a rifle under the NFA definition?

Question 2. If one holds an AR pistol with any sort of rearward projection exactly as they would normally hold and shoot a rifle, with the sole exception of holding the rearward protection away from their shoulder so that it doesn't make contact with the shoulder, what makes it different from the rifle in Question 1?

For years, everyone was happy with the simple interpretation that you made an SBR out of a pistol when you added a shoulder stock.

Then came "pistols" (e.g. AR and AK pistols) that are basically rifles with short barrels and no stocks. Not a problem because everyone knew what a shoulder stock was and these guns didn't have them.

Then came rearward projections for such guns that weren't called stocks and now suddenly it was no longer clear if these pistols had shoulder stocks or not--or even what was a shoulder stock and what wasn't. Maybe the problem can be solved by looking at the law--but remember there's no definition for shoulder stock in the NFA and besides, the presence of a shoulder stock isn't explicitly required for a firearm to be a rifle under the NFA.

If it was your job to straighten out the resulting confusion, using the definitions and text of the NFA as a basis to distinguish between an AR SBR and an AR pistol, how would you do it? Could you do it?

I guess there are those that might be willing to assist atf in writing a rule that they don't believe in, but i ain't one of em. Granted atf is likely just doing what it's told to do by some political appointee, and they have always been very helpful/reasonable in my applications. Doesn't mean am going to help the people running the deal.

If you want to do the work of helping atf write a decent rule, please feel free to go through all the concerns repeatedly expressed, and address them. Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.

[stagpanther]

There's a potential silver lining flip side to listing all kinds of different "quals"--I think that gives industry more specific data points to come up with in making a "next gen" pistol that meets the ratings and by virtue of the specificity of the new rule will be more "secure" from future scrutiny like this.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zeke

Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.

Conceptually, the simplest way to resolve the problems with this part of the NFA could be to void it.

The sources I see offered all put the number of braced pistols in the millions, with a low estimate of 3 million and a high estimate of 40 million.

Stun guns enjoy constitutional protection in part because they are in common use with "hundreds of thousands" having been sold.

Originally Posted by Caetano, Alito and Thomas concurring in the judgment

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078

Caetano is distinguishable in that the issue presented was a ban, but it was the numerosity that lead to a conclusion that they were "in common use".

If Congress were not entitled to burden unduly the possession of either short barreled rifles (which can raise 922r compliance issues) or pistols with stocks so as to remove them from NFA regulation, the happy result would be to remove the compliance issues we've discussed, and prevent agency reclassification of pistols from triggering violations of state laws. (Yes, incorporation should solve the problem of state bans of non-NFA items in common use, but if you've an AR pistol because you live in a state that prohibits possession of NFA items, you might prefer not to have the fight rather than have it and be right.)

That sort of conceptually simple path may be frustrated by a doctrine that a challenge should be resolved on a narrower basis if that's available, judicial minimalism. Unfortunately, the 2d Am. is hardly the only possible basis for a challenge.

[stagpanther]

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

[zukiphile]

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

[stagpanther]

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

Bad boy, go to your room.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

True.

Look where it got Al Capone.

[HiBC]

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

I'm not 100% sure...I may be wrong but one may have been used in the Boulder,Colorado King Soopers supermarket shootings.

On another topic:

The Judicial has always "said that". The way its done is WHEN a bad law comes before them, they can toss it out. What they can't do, under our system is tell Congress what they can and can't put in a law. That would be beyond their legal scope of authority, as telling (requiring) Congress to do or not do something isn't their job, nor, should it be.

Literally, the courts do not write the laws. IF Congress is too stupid to write a good law, the courts can toss it out, but they can't instruct Congress, as that could be considered "writing" the law.

I understand and agree. Basic Constututional Separation of Powers. Ther would be several steps to getting it before the court.

I doubt the "Original Intent" included unelected bureaucrats writing regs with force of law to include felony incarceration. But yeah, the Constitution seems to be "Cafeteria Style" sometimes.
How long has it been since a budget was passed? Do you think Congress could even get that done today? Has the 2A RTKBA been "infringed?"