BATFE update

[HiBC]

No slight to the XP -100. They shoot! I did not list it because hanging the receiver behind the hand vastly improves balance. Also,its a really skinny,light barrel. Its entirely reasonable to shoot an XP-100 one handed.

The MOA has essentially a single action revolver grip frame.Where the Single action revolver would have the frame/cylinder the MOA has a falling block action. The breech is roughly where the trigger finger joins the hand.
Imagine the hang of a Super Back Hawk wit a 14 in bull barrel approx 7/8 in at the muzzle. It can be held out there, but holding the crosshairs of a 4x LER scope on a target one handed? Probably not the design plan.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The law is clear on what a "pistol" is: it's a firearm designed and intended to be fired held in one hand. AR-15 pistols are fine ... when fired held in one hand, and generally even when held in two hands, as long as they are not braced on the shoulder.

Emphasis added. The underlined part added to the statutory framework highlights the inadequacy of the statutory definition. (Edit- I forgot the whole quote would be italicized, so I underlined it instead.)

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

I don't think the statutory definition is clear. A definition of a thing that hinges on an unidentified person's intent has the vague quality that invites misunderstanding.

Moreover, it excludes firearms that are specifically optimized to be held with two hands, firearms like 2011s that have indexing spaces for the support hand along the frame. Pistols have had shoulder stocks for more than a century.

Where the government sets forth a poorly drafted definition, it shouldn't have the benefit of its own poor work in prosecution.

The government's underlying problem is that the distinctions amongst pistol, rifle and short barreled rifle are irrational and therefore arbitrary. It's always hard to define what one means when he doesn't really know what he means himself.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The problem is people who intentionally misuse wrist braces as shoulder stocks. People who put those braces on AR-15 pistols with every intention of using the resulting firearm as a short-barreled rifle are breaking the law. It's that simple. If they want to do that in their back yard, or even at their own shooting club, that's fine. But promoting the flagrant violation of the law by posting it on Youtube is (IMHO) just plain dumb, and (as my colleague has stated) it does the rest of us a disservice.

Emphasis added.

No doubt that people who press or explore the limits of bad laws invite government action, and we very often find government action difficult to enjoy. There's a practical wisdom to your Don't poke the bear admonition.
Where the government uses a poor definition to pursue an arbitrary criminal law disguised as a tax law, it's hard for me to conclude that a kid who avoids additional taxation and federal regulation of interstate transport with an over-priced and terrible stock is the problem.

Poking the bear is a problem not because poking is bad, but because it's a bear, and bears eat people. The bear itself is a problem, and I'm happier if it's in a cage.


I'm not personally heartbroken over regulation of pistol "braces" because I think a stock is a fairly important part of a rifle, even a rifle with a stubby barrel. A bad stock, like bad sights or a bad trigger, diminishes a rifle. Yet just as with fully automatic rifles, my personal disregard for the category doesn't make the government restriction any more sound.

[BornFighting88]

While not looking to provoke an argument with the forum, can it not be said that those who follow the law in all the ways written, yet find ways to do things without openly breaking said laws are just some enterprising folks looking to allow the enjoyment of rights without openly breaking law??

At the risk of going back to the OP’s topic…. =-p

So the ATF can just arbitrarily decide to create a ruling or enforce a law that it never has before just to appease one (or the very few) angry anti gun lobby?

It doesn’t take a wise man to see that the numbers of Americans partaking in their Constitutional Right of keeping and bearing arms is surging faster than the bloated numbers by the CDC for the virus….. More and more and more citizens are practicing their rights and I am sure the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, are doing so well within the bounds of the law. Why the ATF gets it in their heads that they need to start pushing more infringements against the Constitution…??? Beyond me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BornFighting88

While not looking to provoke an argument with the forum, can it not be said that those who follow the law in all the ways written, yet find ways to do things without openly breaking said laws are just some enterprising folks looking to allow the enjoyment of rights without openly breaking law??

That goes without saying. The problem is who gets to decide whether or not the people at the ragged edge of the law are or aren't within the law. If John Doe invents some gadget that he thinks is legal and enjoys it for himself, if he's wrong (it's ultimately determined to be illegal) the only person harmed is John Doe. If he promoted his gadget as being legal and sells thousands of them to other shooters, then if the gadget is determined to be illegal any or all of those thousands of buyers are subject to harms ranging from just the loss of the money they spent up to arrest and prosecution.

So the ATF can just arbitrarily decide to create a ruling or enforce a law that it never has before just to appease one (or the very few) angry anti gun lobby?

Various administrations of both parties have chosen to enforce some laws and ignore others. That's not the way things should be done, but that's what happens.

The matter of creating rulings is much more a can of worms, and I'll defer to the attorneys.

[44 AMP]

I challenge the proponents of that one handed qualifier to shoot the 14 in +bbl versions of the Contender,Encore, XP-100,MOA Maximum,and similar guns of ,one handed, without being awkward and inaccurate.

I have 14" Contenders (.45-70 and .30-30) and an XP-100 (though only with the stock 10" barrel) and I can fire them one handed. If you can't, how is that my problem??

Awkward? oh yes. Easy to do? Nope. Accurate? If I am, they are!

THIS DOES NOT MATTER. First point to understand is that the language of the law comes from many, many years ago, before those guns, and the AR "pistols" existed or were even dreamed of.

Next point is that it does not matter how awkward or difficult they may be to fire one handed, if there is no stock (designed to be braced against the shoulder) they are handguns. And the law says handguns are guns without shoulder stocks, designed to be fired from one hand.

It does not matter to the law that firing one handed is not easy, not practical, or not the most efficient manner of using the handgun. What matters is the generally understood (at the time the law was written) fact that if it has a shoulder stock, it is designed with the intention of being fired from the shoulder, and if it does not, it is designed with the intention of being fired from one hand. And their classification of different designs proceeds from that.

With the AR pistol brace, the ATF went the only way they legally could, using the designers stated intent as the basis of their classification. IT was made to be a "brace" and not a "stock" under the currently understood definitions of each.

The fact that people can easily use it in a manner it was not designed for does not change that.

Its legally a pistol. It would be hard to argue it was designed to be fired one handed unsupported.It can be done,but its not how its done.

Same with a 14 in TC Encore or a Contender 14 .

So,if I understand AB correctly, all of those should require registration as SBR's? You can't pick and choose,lest we have anarchy.

I do not believe you are understanding AB correctly.

And we MUST "pick and choose" simply because designs are different. The framework we must use to define them (choose what legal class they are in) is THE LAW. Whether is seems logical or reasonable to you or to me is not relevant. It's the LAW. Until and unless changed, its what we have to work within.

In order for a law to be applied, there must be a definition of what the law covers. Regulations are developed as aids and guidelines to assist enforcement officers determing what clearly is and is not within the law.

When those regulations are incorrect, or incorrectly interpreted by enforcement, it is the function of the courts to rule on that, in each individual case brought before them.

When we get a consistent misinterpretation of regulatory guidelines, (or the law itself) it is the responsibility of the administering agency to correct that within their department.

If the law needs to be changed that is the responsibility of the Legislature, in accordance with both Constitutional requirements and the will of the people.

So the ATF can just arbitrarily decide to create a ruling or enforce a law that it never has before just to appease one (or the very few) angry anti gun lobby?

They can. However, the ATF, like all other govt agencies has a process they have to go through before any proposed regulatory changes can be made. this process includes having the proposed changes reviewed by other parts of the govt, and also made available to the public for comments for a set period of time. If the majority of those review comments are unfavorable, then the agency does not implement the proposed changes. IF they disreagrd that an do impliment those changes they are liable to face challenge in court.
Do note that "made available to the public" does not mean easy to find, or widely disseminated. It ought to, but it doesn't. As long as the information is available somewhere, that the public has access to, they have met their legal requirement in that regard. One paragraph buried on page 637 of a 900 page document would meet the legal requirement....

Various administrations of both parties have chosen to enforce some laws and ignore others. That's not the way things should be done, but that's what happens.

IT always has been and likely always will be. What differs is what laws are being ignored, why, and how much the public knows about what is going on, and how much (or how little) they care.

Each administration sets their own priorities, some I can agree with, some I cannot. Regarding firearm laws, one I personally saw (ok, it was on TV) irked me, though it perfectly illustrated the reality of the situation.

(Then) VP Biden was caught in a hallway by some reporters (so unplanned and unscripted). He was directly asked why the Fed govt did so little to prosecute people who broke the law attempting to buy a gun. (the context was felons/prohibited persons lying on the 4473 form).

Biden's response was a dismissive hand gesture and (I quote directly) ..
"We don't have time for that".

From his lips to govt policy or the reverse, either way, its what happened. And I'm certain is still happening...

[zukiphile]

...you and I seem to generally agree on the other points but apparently not so much for Aguila Blanca.

Almost everyone in this thread, Aguila Blanca included, are elaborating on the same basic idea with differences only on marginal issues and tone. That's why we are discussing those issues.

They should probably be more worried about offending me or "the people" if you ask me. They do work for us, right?

The last PO who pulled me over didn't work for me. If he had, I'd have fired him. I've never had the sense that the people at BATF considered their contact with me an application for their next day's employment.

The government "works for us" is one of those linguistic conventions, like calling government money "the peoples' money", that is false but points us to a value that shouldn't be forgotten. The people who govern us do so not because it is man's nature to be nannied by those who should find something better to do, but because we've a complex legal system that delegates pieces of authority to their offices. When they step outside those limits, that's a problem we should recognize.

We've a couple of suburbs here with speed enforcement and traffic court procedures of dubious validity. You can tell when you are about to enter their jurisdictions because surrounding traffic will all show brakes lights. If you get a speeding ticket in one of these places, even your innocence doesn't save you from enduring the headache of dealing with them. You can understand why the driver ahead might drive a mph under the posted limit.

[44 AMP]

I would point out that phrases like "poking the bear" or "pulling the tiger's tail" do not refer to skirting the law, directly.

They refer to waking the beast and focusing its attention on something it had previously been ignoring, and doing so in an annoying manner. And I mean annoying to the beast.

Basically, one should never correct an enemy when they are making a mistake in your favor. And I feel that intentionally antagonizing a govt agency by pointing out something they are currently overlooking in your favor is a foolish thing to do.

Frequently, when this happens the now focused bear will do something about being annoyed. This can take the form of expanded actions and redefinition of boundaries, making criminal what was legal (and ignored) before you poked he bear. IF this happens it takes court action to return to what we had before, and there is no guarantee that will happen. The court may side with the bear. It's happened before...

[Tom Servo]

President Biden is expected to make some sort of statement today involving gun control. It looks like the new ATF rule is at least part of that.