ATF and pistol braces ?

[Swifty Morgan]

Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you.

[Nathan]

I don’t like the basis of that ruling. It seems based on lack of due process about changing the rule, not the fundamental infringement of rights or changing the meaning of laws with letters and rules.

The way I see it, not a legal opinion, is that the government has a law about SBR’s that was enforced once way. Then a pistol brace manufacturer came along and requested a judgement on whether their product was legal or not. Once interpreted as legal, some politician determined this was not to their liking. They surveyed the political landscape and determined a majority were accepting of this acceptance of braces. Said politicians then tried to circumvent due process by writing a rule. Opposition was high, so they rewrote it. Opposition was still high, so they just issued it. The whole problem starts at not trying to just pass a law, since it would fail. If you cannot pass a law, that is because legislators don’t want it presumably because voters don’t want it! How hard is that?

I hope I’m seeing this wrong.

[44 AMP]

I don’t like the basis of that ruling. It seems based on lack of due process about changing the rule, not the fundamental infringement of rights or changing the meaning of laws with letters and rules.

You are essentially correct, The court was not ruling on infringement of our rights, it was ruling on whether or not the ATF was playing by the Govt's own established rules.

They weren't.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Nathan
If you cannot pass a law, that is because legislators don’t want it presumably because voters don’t want it! How hard is that?

I hope I’m seeing this wrong.

You are seeing it wrong, but unfortunately the truth of the matter is even worse. Not being able to pass a law doesn't necessarily mean that the legislators don't want it, only that they'd get too much backlash from their constituents by supporting it straightforwardly. Unfortunately, they've figured out a way around this as they've written laws vaguely and left their interpretation up to unelected bureaucrats in alphabet soup agencies like the ATF. This way, the alphabet soup can do their dirty work for them and issue "rulings" which carry force of law, but when the constituents take exception to the new "rules" the legislators can claim that they didn't vote for them and pontificate about "runaway" alphabet soup agencies while not actually doing anything about them.

What we're seeing in cases like this one, Cargill v. Garland, and West Virginia v. EPA is that the courts, including SCOTUS, are beginning to say that, in spite of Congress essentially ceding some of their power to the executive branch to avoid having to have "difficult" votes, the alphabet soup agencies do not have unlimited power to change law as they see fit despite the best efforts of spineless legislators.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

Not being able to pass a law doesn't necessarily mean that the legislators don't want it, only that they'd get too much backlash from their constituents by supporting it straightforwardly. Unfortunately, they've figured out a way around this as they've written laws vaguely and left their interpretation up to unelected bureaucrats in alphabet soup agencies like the ATF. This way, the alphabet soup can do their dirty work for them and issue "rulings" which carry force of law, but when the constituents take exception to the new "rules" the legislators can claim that they didn't vote for them and pontificate about "runaway" alphabet soup agencies while not actually doing anything about them.

What we're seeing in cases like this one, Cargill v. Garland, and West Virginia v. EPA is that the courts, including SCOTUS, are beginning to say that, in spite of Congress essentially ceding some of their power to the executive branch to avoid having to have "difficult" votes, the alphabet soup agencies do not have unlimited power to change law as they see fit despite the best efforts of spineless legislators.

Have seen state statutes and codes specifically written/altered to be vague for this very reason, although not as frequently as other legitimate reasons. Often, it is simply impractical to write a statute that covers all possibility's or options. Jokingly this is what used to be referred to as "taking a file cabinet along fishing". Often the vagueness is specific to enforcement mechanisms. An example is a person taking a deer to feed his family compared to someone taking a trailer full and dumping them in the trash. They need to be treated differently, without the enforcement agency electing not to do their job.

While there is concern over legislatures wanting to protect themselves from voters, there is also serious concern over going too much "by the book"

[rickyrick]

This whole debacle caused me to convert my pistols into carbines with some form of the 16” barrel

[44 AMP]

I don't have any AR pistols or anything with a "brace" on it, but I have a long familiarity with the fickleness of ATF regulation changes.

Long ago I had a Broomhandle Mauser. For many years the ATF said if it had a stock (or a stock with it that would attach) it was an NFA item. Then, one day, a bit of joy, the ATF said it was a Curio & Relic and not an NFA item.

So, I got a stock. Really nice, almost certainly a reproduction, no marking of any kind, just the classic wooden stock/holster. THen a few years later, the ATF said that in order to qualify as a Curio & Relic (and thereby be exempt from NFA status) the stock had to be "original period manufacture".

Now, I think the stock I got was probably made in the 50s. It MIGHT have been made in the 20s, like my pistol but there was no way to prove that. SO, rather than risk it being a legal issue, I sold the stock. A decade or so later, I sold the pistol.

Point here is, like they have recently done with the pistol brace, the ATF said it was legal and NOT an NFA item, until they changed their minds some years later, and said it was an NFA item, and therefore not legal without the proper registration and taxes.

I don't know any of the people, so I don't hate them as individuals, but I sure hate the way their agency operates.

[stagpanther]

This whole debacle caused me to convert my pistols into carbines with some form of the 16” barrel

I did the same, but don't really regret it--I always thought the rules were out there in the twilight zone and just begging for trouble.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I don't have any AR pistols or anything with a "brace" on it, but I have a long familiarity with the fickleness of ATF regulation changes.

Long ago I had a Broomhandle Mauser. For many years the ATF said if it had a stock (or a stock with it that would attach) it was an NFA item. Then, one day, a bit of joy, the ATF said it was a Curio & Relic and not an NFA item.

So, I got a stock. Really nice, almost certainly a reproduction, no marking of any kind, just the classic wooden stock/holster. THen a few years later, the ATF said that in order to qualify as a Curio & Relic (and thereby be exempt from NFA status) the stock had to be "original period manufacture".

Now, I think the stock I got was probably made in the 50s. It MIGHT have been made in the 20s, like my pistol but there was no way to prove that. SO, rather than risk it being a legal issue, I sold the stock. A decade or so later, I sold the pistol.

Point here is, like they have recently done with the pistol brace, the ATF said it was legal and NOT an NFA item, until they changed their minds some years later, and said it was an NFA item, and therefore not legal without the proper registration and taxes.

I don't know any of the people, so I don't hate them as individuals, but I sure hate the way their agency operates.

The ATF is the best example I know that proves we have way more government than needed.