Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen

Status
Not open for further replies.
LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
32,950
Location
Northwest Coast
Firearms Policy Coalition attorney discuss Congress demand letter to ATF to appear before House Judiciary Committee to explain why the Pistol Brace Rule doesn't violate the Second Amendment in light of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling - https://rumble.com/v2cqew1-short-ba...ce-rule-defies-supreme-court-decision-an.html
  • In the Final Rule, ATF expanded the regulatory definition of "rifle" to make pistols with braces now as SBR, which are regulated under the NFA restrictions
Dear Director Dettelbach:

The Committee on the Judiciary continues to conduct oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). We have written the ATF with several requests for information and documents regarding the agency’s efforts to regulate firearms through the rulemaking process. We have additional questions, for which we write to request testimony from relevant ATF employees.

The ATF’s lack of transparency comes after the agency issued a final rule banning stabilizing pistol braces, and as the agency continues to shut down lawful businesses through the “zero-tolerance” policy for federal firearms dealers (FFLs). Just last year, the United States Supreme Court held in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that under the major questions doctrine, “given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims.” This ruling raises serious doubts about ATF’s ability to regulate pistol braces absent a clear mandate from Congress.

To advance the Committee’s oversight, we would invite you to testify during a hearing of the Committee on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. This hearing will be an opportunity for the Committee to hear directly from you, as the head of the agency, about the decisions that led the ATF to implement these controversial policies. In addition, this hearing will allow Members to learn more about the reversal of years of previous ATF opinions in regulating firearms with stabilizing braces.

Additionally, in order to advance the Committee’s ongoing oversight responsibilities, we require testimony from ATF employees. We ask that you please make the following ATF employees available for transcribed interviews:

1. Daniel Board, Chief of Staff;
2. Justin O’Connell, Acting Assistant Director, Public & Government Affairs; and
3. Megan Bennett, Deputy Assistant Director.
​
Please direct your staff to confirm your appearance before the Committee and begin to schedule these interviews as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 2023.

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to conduct oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives. If you have any questions and to schedule these requests, please contact Committee staff at (202) 225-6906. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan/Thomas Massie - Chairman, Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust​
 
Short barreled rifles should not even be a NFA firearm. Because it was only added to the NFA items when the people were going around the pistols that were made NFA firearms at the time. They took the pistols from the NFA so they need to remove the SBRs from the NFA too.
 
Noise from one branch of government, nothing more. I’ve been told for over 50 years that the gun control system in my state, Illinois, is unconstitutional. Well
I’ve gone from the age of 20 to 72 and it’s still in place with folks saying the same thing. When we had all the power in DC a while back we got exactly a big nothing out of that. As has been discussed elsewhere here the Bruen decision is not the be all and end all savior of our gun rights. It sure has got some hopes up but I’m still not convinced we’re are anywhere yet.
 
lilguy said:
Noise from one branch of government, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Do you remember the Supreme Court's ruling in WV v EPA? ;)
LiveLife said:
Just last year, the United States Supreme Court held in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that under the major questions doctrine, “given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims.” This ruling raises serious doubts about ATF’s ability to regulate pistol braces absent a clear mandate from Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Doc Samson said:
"Congress demands..."

And yet, they allow those called before them to give ongoing, never-ending "non" answers. Zero accountability? Zero answers...
Click to expand...
Instead of bemoaning what happened before (or not happened), let's give this House Judiciary Committee investigation/hearing a chance and see what develops post Bruen ruling and WV v EPA.

Last year's Bruen ruling eliminated the two step approach to 2A cases and now courts must use "text and history" approach only and find analogous case rulings/regulations that existed at the time of ratification of Bill of Rights to 14th Amendment.

And WV v EPA ruling is crucial as Supreme Court has not shown much interest for Chevron deference regarding 2A cases and there are many active lawsuits pending. For Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule), plaintiffs cite WV v EPA - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12551291
  • In WV v EPA, for extraordinary cases, agency like ATF must point to clear congressional authorization for the authority it claims. Regulation of pistol brace as SBR is of great political significance so ATF must show clear congressional authorization of their actions, which they cannot
And for VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule), federal district court judge just issued a second preliminary injunction against ATF stating the following - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12572466

To summarize: the Final Rule purports to regulate firearm parts—including incomplete, non-functional receivers and weapon parts kits—contrary to the plain language of the GCA, which confined ATF’s authority to regulation of “firearms,” a term clearly defined by the statute. Moreover, the Final Rule’s expanded definition of “frame or receiver” to include partially manufactured, non-functional receivers within the meaning of “firearms”—contrary to the GCA’s clear statutory definition—is facially unlawful.
​
For TX/GOA v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule), plaintiffs stated the following - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12546278
  • Under the APA, a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”
  • Congress did not authorize ATF to, decades after the law was passed and at least a decade after the first stabilizing brace was permissively classified, reverse its longstanding policy, materially revise definitions, and alter the classification of millions of lawfullypurchased firearms to bring them under the NFA’s control.
  • Final Rule is in excess of the authority Congress granted ATF and is therefore in violation of the APA
I have a feeling that in the end, Supreme Court's Bruen ruling and WV v EPA will lead to Congress finding ATF in violation of 2A/Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and conclude that ATF unlawfully exceeded authority that belongs to Congress.
 
Last edited:
AK Hunter said:
Short barreled rifles should not even be a NFA firearm. Because it was only added to the NFA items when the people were going around the pistols that were made NFA firearms at the time. They took the pistols from the NFA so they need to remove the SBRs from the NFA too.
Click to expand...
Not exactly how it happened.
The NFA originally prohibited all concealable firearms less than 26" OAL or with a barrel length less than 18". All meant all, and that included handguns.

Lobbying by S&W, Colt and others led to the removal of handguns specifically. That left in place other concealable firearms like AOW's, SBR's, SBS. Later the law was amended to allow 16" barrels on rifles.
 
I’m sure one could rattle off a few more court cases that were going to stop gun control in its tracks.Looks good, probably will get us there, moving in the right direction and on and on. Well, where we are in my world is an AWB, registration and other regulations that are “clearly unconstitutional”. Maybe, just maybe these regulations are not, in the modern world.
 
Doc Samson said:
Sorry, man, but the older I get, the more I find our system is corrupt and broken. The fact that the 2A is very clear cut but has become so mired with legalese and semantic gobbledy gook brings out my natural cynicism.
Click to expand...
Same thing existed back in 1776 as larger coastal city states mob majority wanted to impose on the minority rights of the smaller rural states and why the founders chose Constitutional Republic with Electoral College instead of pure Democracy with Popular Vote. ;)

Remember that the Bill of Rights was added later because it was necessary to ensure certain rights.

And just as there are today law makers and executives/governors who write and pass unconstitutional laws, same happened back in the founding days and why the founders separated the government powers into three branches with the Supreme Court having the final say to overrule when other two branches violate our rights.

What about enforcement of Supreme Court rulings? That depends on "We the People".

Just as law makers and executives/governors wrote and passed unconstitutional laws to violate the First Amendment, Supreme Court kept ruling them unconstitutional until permanent enforcement took place by state/federal laws written and passed by law makers and executives/governors elected by "We the People".

And same will happen for the Second Amendment as Supreme Court will keep ruling anti-2A state laws unconstitutional until permanent enforcement takes place by state/federal laws written and passed by law makers and executives/governors elected by "We the People" ... Guess what happened in 2022? "We the People" elected law makers to the House who are more pro-2A.

And we now have a Supreme Court bench make up with more "Originalist" justices who are pro-2A and I anticipate more pro-2A rulings in the future - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...r-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-9#post-12421616

Doc Samson said:
I admire your optimism!
Click to expand...
This nation once supported slavery and kept women from voting.

"We the People" corrected the injustices of the past and I have faith "We the People" will honor the Bill of Rights amendments to protect the right of the people to defend themselves, especially the weak, frail and disabled elderly and women from criminals/attackers/intruders/home invaders/murderers/rapists.

Just as "We the People" acted to protect minority slaves and women, I believe "We the People" will act to protect minority gun owners who do not want to be victims ... As already expressed by 2022 election and anticipated 2024 election and we will see what happens in 2026.

In the words of justice Gorsuch, "We the people can do this ... We can govern ourselves."

Long live the Republic.
 
Last edited:
I’ve said before, we need a law that allows legislators to be personally held liable and open to being sued if they sponsor or support bills that are clearly in contradiction to the Constitution.

Not going to hold my breath for that, but it is clearly needed since we have to use personal funds to fight unconstitutional laws supported from taxpayer dollars.
 
Buzznrose said:
we need a law that allows legislators to be personally held liable and open to being sued if they sponsor or support bills that are clearly in contradiction to the Constitution
Click to expand...
No. We need state/federal laws that permanently enforce Second Amendment rights just as it happened for First Amendment rights.

lilguy said:
I’m sure one could rattle off a few more court cases that were going to stop gun control in its tracks.Looks good, probably will get us there, moving in the right direction and on and on.
Click to expand...
For this thread discussion, it's about Congress telling an executive branch agency who ultimately has the authority and that's Congress, not ATF.

ATF will lose this as already indicated by various court rulings against ATF.
 
LiveLife said:
No. We need state/federal laws that permanently enforce Second Amendment rights just as it happened for First Amendment rights.


For this thread discussion, it's about Congress telling an executive branch agency who ultimately has the authority and that's Congress, not ATF.

ATF will lose this as already indicated by various court rulings against ATF.
Click to expand...

Got to be able to get past the “Supremacy Clause” in order for states to push back. Missouri law was recently rejected albeit Missouri DA planning an appeal:


“A Missouri law that would have penalized police for enforcing federal gun laws was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge Tuesday, handing a win to the Biden administration Department of Justice that filed suit against the law last year.

The DOJ alleged the law was undermining federal drug and weapons investigators by placing heavy fines of up to $50,000 on police departments if they “infringed” on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights by following any federal laws.

The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) was ruled “invalid, null, void and of no effect” by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Wimes, an Obama appointee.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement on social media he plans to appeal the court’s ruling at the Eighth Circuit Court and expects a “better result” there.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/feder..._5105989.html?utm_source=ai&utm_medium=search
 
If the intent of Congress meant anything, SBR and SBS (concealable weapons made from long guns) were included in the NFA to allow states to regulate Handguns as they saw fit by making evasions (sawed off long guns) federally registered items.

Pistols with or without braces are sold under federal law as handguns,as concealable weapons. Nobody buys a handgun legally and then adds a brace with intent to evade the additional restrictions federal and state laws place on concealable weapons.

Yes, definitions on the verbiage of the law are what is enforced, but you would think the original intent of Congress in restricting sawed off long guns would matter.
 
In the Missouri case, the judge ruled that the law will stay in effect during the appeals process.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws remains in effect as a lawsuit against it is appealed.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes earlier this week struck down the law as an unconstitutional overstep by the state on the federal government. After Missouri's Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey appealed, Wimes ruled the law can remain in effect until an appeals court takes up the case.
Click to expand...

https://www.komu.com/news/state/mis...cle_a21f3a65-857e-57ff-94b1-a39ca511c9f9.html
 
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws.

And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

So similarly, states will keep trying to violate the Supreme Court rulings but unconstitutional rulings will prevail and permanent enforcement will come in the way of state/federal laws.

Permanent enforcement happened for the First Amendment, and since justice Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment.
 
LiveLife said:
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled for the First Amendment then states kept violating the Supreme Court rulings?

States kept getting sued with unconstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court and permanent enforcements were put in place by legislative and executive branches as state/federal laws. Here's a long list of First Amendment cases where Supreme Court ruled state laws were unconstitutional - https://www.legalmetro.com/library/supreme-court-cases-regarding-the-first-amendment

What's been the fallout of these Supreme Court rulings? Permanent enforcement by state/federal laws.

And the Second Amendment is not a second class right.

So similarly, states will keep trying to violate the Supreme Court rulings but unconstitutional rulings will prevail and permanent enforcement will come in the way of state/federal laws.

Permanent enforcement happened for the First Amendment, and since justice Thomas ruled that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

LiveLife,

I am NOT disagreeing with what you are saying in theory and based on laws as written. But my point is legislators continue to push bills they KNOW are unconstitutional, forcing litigation at We the People’s expense. We financially support 2A advocacy groups to fight these laws in court, while we also financially support the government lawyers who defend unconstitutional laws.

My point is if legislators were held personally liable for sponsoring and implementing unconstitutional laws, they should be held financially liable for ALL LEGAL FEES for both plaintiffs and defendants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
citizenconn
  • Locked
ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
20K
Capybara
Capybara
LiveLife
17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
10K
LiveLife
LiveLife
hso
  • Locked
Oppose the Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule through the Federal Budget
Replies
5
Views
726
hso
hso
Airborne Falcon
  • Locked
Time to light up the phone lines over this Chipman ATF vote ...
Replies
11
Views
658
bear166
bear166
Back
Top