So multiple ATF agents will ignore evidence ? They will spend the extra confiscation budget on donuts ?
ATF Rule on Braces Published Jan 31, 2023
- Thread starter Pat Riot
- Start date
- Status
So multiple ATF agents will ignore evidence ? They will spend the extra confiscation budget on donuts ?
Elkins45
Member
Would you care to make a cash bet?
OK, If anyone is charged with violating the NFA because of possession of a pistol with a brace that was ruled to be an SBR within one year of the end of the 120 day grace period You will make a $100 donation to your choice of FPC, GOA, NRA or SAF. If no one is charged with violating the NFA under those same circumstances I will make a similar donation. This gets around your 100,000 people quibbling.
BTW, if the rule never goes into effect, you win and I will gladly make my donation
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
Nope, I’m not betting against one guy in possession of a brace. There’s always one guy out there whose industrial-level stupidity cannot be predicted or restrained. And by the bet you’re proposing I lose when any one guy deliberately chooses to ignore the law and does nothing. If it’s really an ATF trap then it it should catch a bunch of people, right? Not just some random hapless tool.
It has to be a significant quantity of people who otherwise correctly submit a Form 1 for a braced pistol and subsequently are convicted of a felony NFA violation. That’s what this discussion and all the hand waving is about—the application being a mass trap.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Disapprovals for an incomplete FBI NICS check can be resubmitted. Which is a good reason to submit your eForm 1 ASAP.
They can't. It's federal law.
When FBI NICS examiners do not receive the necessary information to complete a delayed transaction, it remains unresolved and in NICS for 88 days.
After 88 days, the FBI purges the transaction data to comply with Federal law, which requires destruction no later than 90 days.
Unlike a NICS check on a Title I firearm, where the Brady Law does not prohibit the transfer after three business days, beginning the next business day. A NICS check on Title II (NFA) requires a "proceed".
So your very narrow premise is that they did not allocate resources or plan to arrest 100,000 or more people but if only 10 or 100 or 1000 people are wrongfully charged under this rule it's not a big deal even if intentional. I missed that clause in the Constitution.
dogtown tom
Member
You know, maybe you should ask Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler if they would take that bet.
When Kansas passed a "Second Amendment Protection Act" Cox and Kettler didn't think ATF would charge them for making homemade silencers without paying for a tax stamp. They were wrong and now will never own a gun again.
Cox and Kettler were made to be an example. Do you really think ATF is going to ignore violations? History says you are wrong.
Attachments
You know, maybe you should ask Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler if they would take that bet.
When Kansas passed a "Second Amendment Protection Act" Cox and Kettler didn't think ATF would charge them for making homemade silencers without paying for a tax stamp. They were wrong and now will never own a gun again.
Cox and Kettler were made to be an example. Do you really think ATF is going to ignore violations? History says you are wrong.
You did read the bet right ? I am saying that people WILL be charged (but hopefully the rule will be struck down).
Elkins45
Member
So your very narrow premise is that it’s just a teeny weeny little trap? You think they went to all the trouble of invoking a federal rule making and expended all those man-hours responding to thousands of comments just to convict 3-4 guys?
It’s either a trap or it’s not; and if it’s a trap then it’s a huge one. I’m betting it’s not a trap. Besides, if what you believe is true they don’t even need a form 1 to convict. They can convict thousands based on 4473 forms alone.
Which they will do. It's just saving them time and money for you to mail them the evidence against you rather than have to track it down.
dogtown tom
Member
To be clear, there is a difference between:
Those who are in the application process with an unresolved NICS check and may exceed the forbearance period due to the 88 day rule.
vs
Those in possession who have no intention of taking advantage of the forbearance and choose not to comply with the rule.
In the first example, the possessor has made a bonafide attempt at registration. In the second they have not.
What is that difference ? Is there a rule explaining that ?
Elkins45
Member
I disagree. I think the only people convicted of anything will be the ones who made no effort to comply and then get caught after the fact.
Do you remember how wild firearm blogs were in the early days of widespread internet access during the beginning of the Clinton administration? Remember the reports of black helicopters and marking on the back of road signs to direct NATO troops to the temporary civilian death camps? Remember the scanners that could detect the little plastic strips in the new $100 bills? That’s what this reminds me of. It’s hand-waving hysterics.
If ATF really wanted to fix their problem in the easiest possible way they would just treat the braced guns like bump stocks and tell everyone to saw them into pieces. Frankly I am surprised they even gave people the option to put a pistol tube on them.
dogtown tom
Member
If this rule survives court challenges, I don't see ATF lurking around gun shows or gun ranges eagerly waiting to pounce on some dude with an arm brace.
I do see ATF using a violation of this rule as leverage for other crimes a person may have committed. ATF can't get US Attorneys to prosecute firearm law violations as it is.
dogtown tom
Member
One is attempting to comply with the rule, the other is not.
Nope.
But good luck getting a US Attorney to file charges on some poor sap because the FBI was tardy in completing his background check. Thats a door no one in .gov wants to open.
Well, I'm disagreeing with you both. I'm not sure if you have seen the corruption in all federal agencies in the last 6 or 8 years but they have all been weaponized.
Your premise seems to be that the BATFE is a benign agency that strives to serve US citizens. My premise is that it is just another weaponized three-letter agency and it strives to remove as many firearms from the public as it can get away with.
We shall see.
BTW the bump-stock decision has been reversed in the fifth circuit.
Elkins45
Member
A steady diet of outrage porn has weaponized a lot of people’s paranoia. ATF is first and foremost a Bureau and the primary purpose of any Bureau employee is job preservation.
And I don’t live in the 5th Circuit so that decision is not relevant to me until such time as as SCOTUS weighs in to resolve a split.
Just wondering who you think they work for ... What is the opinion of their boss on firearms possession?
The Mott v. Garland suit I linked above ^^^ makes the same case for braces. If it is decided then the bump stock ban may also be repealed.
Elkins45
Member
They work for the person who fills out their evaluation form every year, and for 99%+ of them it’s not the President or the Director. The document examiners in the NFA branch could not give less of a damn whether you own a pistol brace.
You are apparently right and there is no way agencies can be weaponized by the top-level leaders.
OK, good on you, you have the last word. Have a great nite.
dogtown tom
Member
6 or 8 years?
Please. ATF has been out of contol for decades. so out of control that even Congress recognized their abuses in 1986 whit FOPA.
Baloney. Not one word of that resembles anything Ive written.
That isn't a premise its literally the mission statement of ATF.
.
Old news and is meaningless until the USSC agrees.
Not exactly true. If Mott wins then the bump stock ban restraining order wins as well.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Thats a pretty trite response.You are apparently right and there is no way agencies can be weaponized by the top-level leaders.
OK, good on you, you have the last word. Have a great nite.
ATF, like any government agency, works for US. If enough of is don't like it, well.......change the law. Its really that simple. No enabling law= no ATF to enforce such law. Just be aware that it isn't likely to happen because not everyone views the Second Amendment as do the members of this forum.
It shows the importance of lobbying and electing bonafide Second Amendment advocates to legislative and executive offices. We fail terribly in that respect. We elect representatives who talk a good game, pandering to their constituents yet when needed aren't the 2A person they promised to be. I'm looking at you Donald Trump and Dan Crenshaw.
Thats a pretty trite response.
ATF, like any government agency, works for US. If enough of is don't like it, well.......change the law. Its really that simple. No enabling law= no ATF to enforce such law. Just be aware that it isn't likely to happen because not everyone views the Second Amendment as do the members of this forum.
It shows the importance of lobbying and electing bonafide Second Amendment advocates to legislative and executive offices. We fail terribly in that respect. We elect representatives who talk a good game, pandering to their constituents yet when needed aren't the 2A person they promised to be. I'm looking at you Donald Trump and Dan Crenshaw.
And I cannot respond according to the rules of this forum. If you want to take this outside ...
dogtown tom
Member
And thats a shame.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
