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

[I6turbo]

 

[LiveLife]

View attachment 1153020

Yes, it's true that's how ATF has operated pre-Bruen.

Pistol brace just maybe the thing that changes how executive branch agencies operate/define/regulate moving forward post-EPA ruling where SCOTUS is not favoring Chevron deference.

Keep in mind 5th/6th Circuits just kicked ATF's butt regarding the bump stock. I have a feeling Circuit courts may have revealed how they would rule for Pistol Brace, especially since it's a modern "arm" to accommodate "physical disability".

Anyways, we should find out in about a week what ATF will do and how Congress will respond in light of recent Bruen/federal/circuit court rulings.

Godspeed for our "Republic"

 

[dogtown tom]

Keep in mind 5th/6th Circuits just kicked ATF's butt regarding the bump stock.

ATF ain't gonna budge until SCOTUS rules.
Even then...........remember US vs Thompson Center? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co. That case was decided in 1992.

In 2011, ATF issued Ruling 2011-4 - Pistols Configured from Rifles; Rifles Configured from Pistols https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

Nineteen years. I'll write that again, NINETEEN YEARS. From Bush through eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush Jr until Obama for ATF to issue that ruling.
Four Presidents and their administrations, untold thousands of Congressmen and it took NINETEEN YEARS.

And you really think ATF is worried about May 31st?

I have a feeling Circuit courts may have revealed how they would rule for Pistol Brace, especially since it's a modern "arm" to accommodate "physical disability".

I have a feeling you don't know the first thing about physical disabilities and how they impact federal firearms law. If you think the Americans with Disabilities Act applies.....you ain't read a shred of the ADA.

Anyways, we should find out in about a week what ATF will do and how Congress will respond in light of recent Bruen/federal/circuit court rulings.

1. ATF won't do a damn thing.
2. Some members of Congress will pontificate and bluster.
3. Congress will do nothing.

 

[LiveLife]

ATF ain't gonna budge until SCOTUS rules.

SCOTUS already ruled for Bruen in June of 2022 by eliminating the TWO-STEP approach used for decades by courts/states and now REQUIRED to only use "TEXT and HISTORY" approach. I do believe that's what's driving much of what IS TO COME moving forward in coming years.

At this point, pressure/ball is in the ATF director's lap as to how to respond/clarify demand made by Congress as he was not able to demonstrate post-Bruen "text and history" analysis which WAS NOT DONE for the Pistol Brace FINAL RULE.

And we get to see HISTORY in the making in about a week as to how ATF director will respond to Congress' demand to "clarify" his recent statements made before Congress while being REPEATEDLY TOLD, "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY" OF CONGRESS.

So because SCOTUS already ruled, ATF (Along with all the other executive agencies) was SUPPOSED TO conduct the post-Bruen analysis BEFORE publishing the Final Rule. If post-Bruen analysis was done, as mandated by the SCOTUS, the Pistol Brace FINAL RULE would be very different.

Any guess as to what may happen moving forward post-Bruen?

 

[dogtown tom]

SCOTUS already ruled for Bruen in June of 2022 by ELIMINATING the TWO-STEP approach used for decades by courts/states and now REQUIRED TO ONLY USE "TEXT and HISTORY" APPROACH. I do believe that's what's driving much of what IS TO COME moving forward in coming years.

Yeah, well, SCOTUS ruled in US vs Thompson Center nineteen years before ATF issued their ruling.

At this point,pressure/ball is in the ATF director's lap as to how to respond/clarify demand made by Congress as he was not able to demonstrate post-Bruen "text and history" analysis WAS NOT DONE for the Pistol Brace FINAL RULE.

You really think the ATF Director feels "pressured"? I don't. He'll continue with business as usual.

And we get to see HISTORY in the making in about a week as to how ATF director will respond to Congress' demand to "clarify" his recent statements made before Congress while being REPEATEDLY TOLD, "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY" OF CONGRESS.

"History in the making"?

Do you really think this is the first time a Congressman has raised his voice at a government bureaucrat? Where you been the last two hundred plus years?

Any guess as to what may happen moving forward post-Bruen?

A lot of pontificating. A lot of pandering to constituents. A lot of hearings where Congressmen threaten stuff that never gets done.
Same as always.

 

[LiveLife]

I have a feeling you don't know the first thing about physical disabilities and how they impact federal firearms law. If you think the Americans with Disabilities Act applies.....you ain't read a shred of the ADA.

One of many jobs I performed during 26 years working for the state of CA was Standards Compliance Coordinator position (Later as federally certified and state licensed surveyor of healthcare facilities) where I had to coordinate/verify compliance to all applicable county/state/federal codes, laws and regulations for different projects/agencies/facilities including ADA requirements to such things as wheelchair ramp approach angle/ramp distance and landing size for turning, location of toilet away from walls to be accessible by wheelchair, amount of force required to actuate the flushing of toilet, etc. etc. (But let's not go too far into details of ADA as I am not a FFL and know little about firearms sale/registration requirements and convey that to your expertise)

And believe me, we are on the same side of wanting Congress rein in ATF's overreach impeding on our 2A rights ... So let's wait and see what ATF's response is and what Congress/courts do in coming weeks/months/year.

Peace.

 

[LiveLife]

5th/6th Circuits just kicked ATF's butt regarding the bump stock. I have a feeling Circuit courts may have revealed how they would rule for Pistol Brace, especially since it's a modern "arm" to accommodate "physical disability".

Any guess as to what may happen moving forward post-Bruen? ... So let's wait and see what ... Congress/courts do

Great news!

This just happened today - 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-12633434

Fifth Circuit Issues Injunction on ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Ban ​

 

[LiveLife]

5th Circuit granting preliminary injunction for Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace rule) case is significant as the case is centered around ATF violation of APA and agency overreach not authorized by Congress (The focus of this thread) - 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-12633716

• "Final Rule ... promulgated (published) by ... [ATF] to regulate 'braced pistols' as 'short-barreled rifles' ... violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"
  
• "Final Rule, by re-writing and significantly expanding the definition of 'rifle,' exercised legislative powers. A violation of the Constitution is always a violation of the APA. Thus, agencies violate the APA by exercising legislative powers."
• "Final Rule is not merely a regulatory change that allows the Agencies to enforce the NFA and GCA. The Final Rule would give the Agencies new power over new items that are not contemplated nor regulated under federal law. This rulemaking constitutes an executive branch agency making new law, bearing potential criminal penalties, in violation of the Delegation Doctrine as established by the structure of the U.S. Constitution and elucidated by the U.S. Supreme Court."
• "The Supreme Court has 'reaffirm[ed] the core administrative-law principle that an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.' (Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA)"
• "Final Rule fails to adequately consider the Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller, Caetano, and Bruen ... [ATF] should have engaged in the court-mandated text and history analysis."

And the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Loper v. Raimondo case could be certain death of Chevron deference and executive agency/ATF overreach - 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-12633715

 

[I6turbo]

1. ATF won't do a damn thing.
2. Some members of Congress will pontificate and bluster.
3. Congress will do nothing.

And substitute any and all of the big institutions in place of ATF when they run both overt and covert operations on Americans, including political foes, parents of school children, whistle blowers, journalists, or anyone else the regime would like to target. This includes all of them; DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF... all of them.

 

[LiveLife]

And substitute any and all of the big institutions in place of ATF when they run both overt and covert operations on Americans, including political foes, parents of school children, whistle blowers, journalists, or anyone else the regime would like to target. This includes all of them; DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF... all of them.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

But let's focus on "one thing" of OP's objective ... TIA

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

 

[Balrog]

Do you know, how we know, you've never been a gun dealer?
A "Distributor" is just an 01FFL Dealer who doesn't sell to the public.
Right now, today, there are distributors that don't want dealers who aren't ordering $1Mil a year. Or refuse to open accounts with FFL's who don't have a retail storefront. Their salesmen want 20-40 accounts buying $5Mil a year, instead of a thousand plus accounts buying $10K per year.......and you really expect those distributors to deal directly with you for your next gun?

So.....you think you are going to get better pricing buying direct from a "distributor" or from a dealer who does $1Mil + a year with that distributor? Think about why buying from the dealer may be cheaper for you.

Palmetto, KY Gun, Primary, Bud's often offer retail pricing less than my wholesale price from a distributor......guess how that happens?

Want the newest SIG P365XQG fifty rounder? Think you'll be able to get it from one of those distributors? Think again. High demand items are allocated to a distributors best customers.

Well, you are still missing the point I was trying to make….

If an FFL was not required to sell firearms, then other retailers could sell firearms, like they did before dealer licensing was the law. I am not saying distributors would sell to the public.

 

[LiveLife]

Well, you are still missing the point I was trying to make….

If an FFL was not required to sell firearms, then other retailers could sell firearms, like they did before dealer licensing was the law. I am not saying distributors would sell to the public.

Once again, please keep "off topic" discussion out of the thread and stay "focused" on the OP ... Thanks.

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

 

[dogtown tom]

One of many jobs I performed during 26 years working for the state of CA was Standards Compliance Coordinator position (Later as federally certified and state licensed surveyor of healthcare facilities) where I had to coordinate/verify compliance to all applicable county/state/federal codes, laws and regulations for different projects/agencies/facilities including ADA requirements to such things as wheelchair ramp approach angle/ramp distance and landing size for turning, location of toilet away from walls to be accessible by wheelchair, amount of force required to actuate the flushing of toilet, etc. etc. ......

So......with all that expertise in the ADA, tell me what part of the ADA addresses firearms. One doesn't need to be an FFL to know the answer.

 

[SDGlock23]

One way of thinking about it is this, the pistol braces proved that SBR's are no more "dangerous" than anything else, bringing into question the NFA.

 

[LiveLife]

what part of the ADA addresses firearms

ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities to ensure people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs - https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

This is from 2010 ADA Standards which combines 28 CFR 35 and 2004 ADA AG - https://www.access-board.gov/files/ada/ADA-Standards.pdf

243 Shooting Facilities with Firing Positions
243.1 General. Where shooting facilities with firing positions are designed and constructed at a site, at least 5 percent, but no fewer than one, of each type of firing position shall comply with 1010.

1010 Shooting Facilities with Firing Positions
1010.1 Turning Space. A circular turning space 60 inches (1525 mm) diameter minimum with slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be provided at shooting facilities with firing positions.​

But this thread is focused on "Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen" which is more specific to "adaptive devices" such as rifle scopes for people with visual disability.

In the post-Bruen ruling world, 4/28/23 preliminary injunction ruling by district judge McGlynn could be very pertinent to "adaptive devices" for shooters with disabilities - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1682714280/99(Barnett)_Order_of_PI_of_042823.pdf?1682714280

Second Amendment rights for one group of individuals - those with disabilities ... consider arm braces for semiautomatic pistols ... ATF has recognized that such braces are necessary for those with disabilities to use a firearm ... As reason and the ATF final rule evidences, braces are needed by certain individuals with disabilities to operate a firearm. Thus, arm braces are an integral part of the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such individuals and can also be considered an “arm.”​

And yesterday's 5th Circuit issuing preliminary injunction for Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace rule) case may overshadow "adaptive devices" issue as Supreme Court addresses ending Chevron deference in Loper v. Raimondo to limit executive agency/ATF overreach which is the focus of this thread of Congress demanding ATF explain why Bruen mandate of "text and history" analysis was not done prior to publishing the Final Rule on pistol brace - 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-12633715

And arguments made squarely address this thread's focus of why ATF is violating APA and overreaching beyond authority by Congress without considering Bruen ruling - 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-12633716

• "Final Rule ... promulgated (published) by ... [ATF] to regulate 'braced pistols' as 'short-barreled rifles' ... violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"
  
• "Final Rule, by re-writing and significantly expanding the definition of 'rifle,' exercised legislative powers ... Thus ... violate the APA by exercising legislative powers."
• "Final Rule fails to adequately consider the Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller, Caetano, and Bruen ... [ATF] should have engaged in the court-mandated text and history analysis."

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Congress doesn't decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. That's the role of the judiciary.
Congress can change laws they dislike.

Opinion, maybe?

 

[wesmonster]

Wish I had a buck for every time Congress called someone up on their BS and ultimately nothing happened. Even if the brace ban was nulllified it won't stop ATF until something is done to keep them from writing and enforcing their own rules. Their job is enforcing the laws already written, it's up to other branches to create and interpret laws.

 

[LiveLife]

[ATF] job is enforcing the laws already written, it's up to other branches to create and interpret laws.

I agree ... This from Politico - 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-12633715

... The Supreme Court in recent years has moved away from Chevron [deference] ... In the past six years, agencies lost 70 percent of Supreme Court cases that addressed Chevron ... That includes last year's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, which strengthened and for the first time named the "major questions" doctrine as a way to strike down regulations.

... "Congress should pass laws, judges should construe them, and unelected bureaucrats should stick to their job of just implementing those laws—not rewriting them"​

 

[dogtown tom]

ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities to ensure people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs - https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/

This is from 2010 ADA Standards which combines 28 CFR 35 and 2004 ADA AG - https://www.access-board.gov/files/ada/ADA-Standards.pdf

243 Shooting Facilities with Firing Positions
243.1 General. Where shooting facilities with firing positions are designed and constructed at a site, at least 5 percent, but no fewer than one, of each type of firing position shall comply with 1010.

1010 Shooting Facilities with Firing Positions
1010.1 Turning Space. A circular turning space 60 inches (1525 mm) diameter minimum with slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be provided at shooting facilities with firing positions.
​

Exactly.
The ADA is about accessibility and discrimination, NOT about firearms. Hence why I questioned why on earth someone with your experience would write: "I have a feeling Circuit courts may have revealed how they would rule for Pistol Brace, especially since it's a modern "arm" to accommodate "physical disability".

The courts won't consider jack squat about the supposed reason for an arm brace because the NFA applies to the firearm, not the person.​

But this thread is focused on "Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen"

Congressmen, not Congress. They can demand answers all day long. ATF doesn't have to explain anything.

 

[LiveLife]

The courts won't consider jack squat about the supposed reason for an arm brace because the NFA applies to the firearm, not the person.

But judge McGlynn just wrote this - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1682714280/99(Barnett)_Order_of_PI_of_042823.pdf?1682714280

Second Amendment rights for one group of individuals - those with disabilities ... consider arm braces for semiautomatic pistols ... ATF has recognized that such braces are necessary for those with disabilities to use a firearm ... As reason and the ATF final rule evidences, braces are needed by certain individuals with disabilities to operate a firearm. Thus, arm braces are an integral part of the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such individuals and can also be considered an “arm.”​

And let's get back to the OP which is:

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

To me, Congress could make pistol brace the example used to limit executive agency/ATF overreach as "You do not have the authority" was already expressed in regards to Pistol Brace Final Rule.

Congress. They can demand answers all day long. ATF doesn't have to explain anything.

Matt Gaetz mentioned defunding ATF to "Zero out their salaries for breaking the law and abusing the liberties of Americans" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...in-light-of-bruen.916923/page-3#post-12631924

And 5th Circuit issuing preliminary injunction for Mock v Garland case which clearly argued for ATF violating APA (Which is violation of the Constitution), ATF exercising law making powers not authorized by Congress, ATF failing to consider Heller, Caetano, Bruen rulings and not engaged in court-mandated text and history analysis will support Congress limiting executive agency/ATF overreach - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12633716

 

[LiveLife]

More good news in regards to executive agency powers/ATF overreach.

Today, the US Supreme Court ruled against EPA again in Sackett v. EPA after last year's ruling against EPA - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12635072

 

[LiveLife]

And second preliminary injunction issued against ATF pistol brace rule in SAF v ATF - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12635126

​

 

[shafter]

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


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.

The issue with "we the people" is that there isn't any such thing as "we" anymore. It's us, them, they, those over there, some people, etc etc. There is no united front.

 

[Odd Job]

Closed per OP's request, updates will be provided elsewhere.