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

[BreechFace]

If these unconstitutional laws get struck down, the payment for all legal fees should be levied against the salaries of all those who voted to push forward that bill. Maybe some of them will start carrying around a pocket constitution and bill of rights in their fancy suit jackets to check their legislation at the door.

Over-simplified, yes. But that's how I feel about this. There is zero cares about whether something is constitutional as a bill moves through the branches of the government. It's get it to a vote, and party lines will gather.

That's my raw-raw for the day, continue prescheduled topic of conversation.

 

[Roverguy]

Keep in mind that the Obama administration refined the use of unconstitutional executive orders and illegal regulations as means of achieving policy outcomes they desired and the Biden administration is full of Obama era veterans.

Take just two examples: the EPA’s MATS (Mercury Air Toxicity Standard) regulation and its Clean Power Plan. The MATS rule was vacated and the Clean Power Plan found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Utterly immaterial. The publication of MATS alone closed over 20% of the US coal fleet and the Clean Power Plan got that number up to nearly 40% also ensuring that no U.S. utility would invest in extending the life of coal plants, let alone building a new one.

The Obama administration perfected the weaponization of regulation, understanding that illegal regulation could still create the desired policy outcomes by showing publicly traded companies’ shareholders the regulatory risks posed by products/investments/behavior of the companies and thereby curtailing them. Does the administration believe that recent ATF regulations are legal? Why should they care? The goal is to harass and harry the firearms industry, induce regulatory fatigue, create substantial barriers to entry, diminish profits by raising the regulatory cost of doing business, and generally limiting commerce in firearms. They don’t really care whether the regulations withstand judicial scrutiny; the regulations achieve their intended goal whether they stand or not.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The death of the federal reserve note (aka dollar) via hyper-inflation could mean the death of big government. No funds = no paychecks and even if brrrrrrrr! was used to fund the paychecks, would anybody show up to work or put their life on the line for a check that won't pay for the commute and a cup of coffee? Society doesn't need a leviathan government.

More government = more taxes = less savings = less funds for investments or growth.

 

[LiveLife]

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.

Not likely.

And my point is we didn't have Bruen and WV v EPA Supreme Court rulings and we are seeing the start of Judicial branch push back against unconstitutional state/federal laws backed by now more pro-2A House.

So what happened before has changed due to these rulings and change in House make up. If more 2A Sumpreme Court rulings are made, likely for NY carry/AW/magazine ban along with other cases/issues, pending 2024/2026 election outcome, we could move towards permanent enforcement of "Originalist" Supreme Court rulings.

These are all new and things are just starting to fall into place with Congress pushing back on federal agencies' authorities expanding in light of WV v EPA ruling.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

From your keyboard to G-d's ear.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

Fantastic idea. Has it been "officially" proposed?

 

[old lady new shooter]

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

Most of the "sanctuary" jurisdictions make laws that say they won't allocate funds for the enforcement of federal gun laws that don't mirror the gun laws in their own jurisdiction. The mistake Missouri made was making a law that straight out prohibited enforcing federal gun laws. A state clearly has the authority to decide how to allocate funds.

 

[Buzznrose]

Fantastic idea. Has it been "officially" proposed?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m not holding my breath in this. But maybe I’ll ask my congressman to consider it….and I actually believe he might consider it, but still doubt he’d do it. My congressman is Chip Roy.

 

[Megawatt maker]

The SCOTUS needs to step up more to enforce it WV vs EPA and Bruen rulings on the lower courts.

It very obvious at this point...the Feds, some states, and too many lower courts are flat out ignoring both rulings.

The House can grumble all it wants. Tester and Manchun can agree to even eliminate the ATF (they wont...they may talk a good talk...but won't walk the walk), and even get such a bill jambed through the Senate (unlikely..as the Dems would filibuster it)...in the end...the traitor occupant paid Chinese agent sitting in the Oval office would just veto it.

 

[dogtown tom]

If these unconstitutional laws get struck down, the payment for all legal fees should be levied against the salaries of all those who voted to push forward that bill. Maybe some of them will start carrying around a pocket constitution and bill of rights in their fancy suit jackets to check their legislation at the door.

You really think thats a good idea?
I don't.

Our elected representatives are elected to represent the wishes of their constituents. If the morons in Dallas County, TX continue to elect liberal morons, thats their choice. They deserve to be heard just as much as my conservative representative. No matter how unconstitutional I think their bill or law is.

Don't like the legislation passed by those elected to represent us? Then there is a simple solution.

There is zero cares about whether something is constitutional as a bill moves through the branches of the government. It's get it to a vote, and party lines will gather.

And thats the beauty and ugliness of our system of government. The system of checks and balances makes it so that no one branch of government has more power than another and cannot overthrow another.

 

[BreechFace]

You really think thats a good idea?
I don't.

Part of my post was frustration, but part of it was something that should be considered, maybe not in the way I posted, but you bet they should be held accountable for passing laws that fly directly in face of any constitutional, bill of rights scrutiny. Instead, many cases it takes an honest citizen getting jammed up before these unconstitutional laws get looked at. Talk about a back-***wards way of handling things.

Our elected representatives are elected to represent the wishes of their constituents while upholding the constitution. If the morons in Dallas County, TX continue to elect liberal morons, thats their choice. They deserve to be heard just as much as my conservative representative.

Fixed it for you.

No matter how unconstitutional I think their bill or law is.

Unconstitutional laws are just that, unconstitutional. Don't like what the constitution states well there are means established at the founding of this country to adjust those. But that never happens, instead we have a fiat-constitution in the eyes of legislators in this country that's in tatters.

Don't like the legislation passed by those elected to represent us? Then there is a simple solution.

It hasn't been that simple since hanging chads in Florida, and much before that.

And thats the beauty and ugliness of our system of government. The system of checks and balances makes it so that no one branch of government has more power than another and cannot overthrow another.

You're right there, it is ugly!

And the idea of checks and balances also has gone out the window, our legislators have abdicated their roles by allowing unelected officials to make proclaimations, adjustments, interpretations to law. We are paying "elected officials" for not doing their jobs, and handing it over to unelected political advocates that are appointed by parties upon turnover in the duly elected government.

 

[dogtown tom]

Part of my post was frustration, but part of it was something that should be considered, maybe not in the way I posted, but you bet they should be held accountable for passing laws that fly directly in face of any constitutional, bill of rights scrutiny. Instead, many cases it takes an honest citizen getting jammed up before these unconstitutional laws get looked at. Talk about a back-***wards way of handling things.

I'm sorry, but no way would I want prior restraint of a bill or punishment for the one who proposed it. The Constitution you hold so dear has that little First Amendment for a very good reason. To protect free speech and unpopular ideas.

Fixed it for you.

No, you didn't.
What you and I believe to be "constitutional" is irrelevant. And as evidenced by SCOTUS rulings for over two centuries...what is "constitutional" changes.

Unconstitutional laws are just that, unconstitutional. Don't like what the constitution states well there are means established at the founding of this country to adjust those. But that never happens, instead we have a fiat-constitution in the eyes of legislators in this country that's in tatters.

But you don't determine that. The SCOTUS and judiciary determine what is/is not unconstitutional.
You think we are in tatters, I don't.

It hasn't been that simple since hanging chads in Florida, and much before that.

It really has.
Hanging chads, stolen elections, and the like are the whining and complaining of the loser. Just like the eight year old that consistently gets beaten at TicTacToe......the winner only won because he cheated.

You're right there, it is ugly!

Always will be.

And the idea of checks and balances also has gone out the window,

You haven't been paying attention lately have you?

our legislators have abdicated their roles by allowing unelected officials to make proclaimations, adjustments, interpretations to law. We are paying "elected officials" for not doing their jobs, and handing it over to unelected political advocates that are appointed by parties upon turnover in the duly elected government.

Its nothing new, its the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)
And guess who was the reason for this law.........FDR and a Democratic Congress. Note reason, not the beneficiary.
FDR and his Democrat Congress pushed through the New Deal that included several new federal agencies. Fear of the power these federal agencies possessed scared Congress and thats when Congress decided it needed the APA to control the power of federal agencies.

If only there was a way to declare those "proclaimations, adjustments, interpretations to law" as illegal. Oh wait.....there is.

 

[CapnMac]

Lobbying by S&W, Colt and others led to the removal of handguns specifically.

As part of the Legislative History, the then SCOTUS strongly indicated that they'd strike down NFA if it banned handguns as a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
They did, sadly, accept the premise of limiting "dangerous" weapons "for the public good." Allegedly, Miller was meat to revisit this, but when Miller died it mooted the proceedings. The Miller case would have specifically highlighted the absurdity of the SBR & SBS rules (the latter especially). Other issues intervened to put the business on a back burner for generations.

 

[old lady new shooter]

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m not holding my breath in this. But maybe I’ll ask my congressman to consider it….and I actually believe he might consider it, but still doubt he’d do it. My congressman is Chip Roy.

I *LOVE* Chip Roy. If anybody might be willing I think it would be him. Keep us posted please.

 

[230RN]

Keep in mind that the Obama administration refined the use of unconstitutional executive orders and illegal regulations as means of achieving policy outcomes they desired and the Biden administration is full of Obama era veterans.

Take just two examples: the EPA’s MATS (Mercury Air Toxicity Standard) regulation and its Clean Power Plan. The MATS rule was vacated and the Clean Power Plan found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Utterly immaterial. The publication of MATS alone closed over 20% of the US coal fleet and the Clean Power Plan got that number up to nearly 40% also ensuring that no U.S. utility would invest in extending the life of coal plants, let alone building a new one.

The Obama administration perfected the weaponization of regulation, understanding that illegal regulation could still create the desired policy outcomes by showing publicly traded companies’ shareholders the regulatory risks posed by products/investments/behavior of the companies and thereby curtailing them. Does the administration believe that recent ATF regulations are legal? Why should they care? The goal is to harass and harry the firearms industry, induce regulatory fatigue, create substantial barriers to entry, diminish profits by raising the regulatory cost of doing business, and generally limiting commerce in firearms. They don’t really care whether the regulations withstand judicial scrutiny; the regulations achieve their intended goal whether they stand or not.

Bolded for truth. Every gun owner should read that.

One thing I wonder about is whether ATF licensees might only be half hearted about attacks on the laws and the ATF. After all, their livelihood depends on their licensure. That's human nature.

Terry, 230RN

 

[dogtown tom]

One thing I wonder about is whether ATF licensees might only be half hearted about attacks on the laws and the ATF. After all, their livelihood depends on their licensure. That's human nature.
Terry, 230RN

Yeah, every time I talk to other gun dealers we are fully in agreement that we need redesigned 4473's every two years, how much fun we have in filling out multiple sale reports, how we love compliance inspections that disrupt our business for days if not weeks and appreciate ATF's zero tolerance policies because we know its for our own good.. We have no fond memories of the days when eighteen year old buyers could buy rifles without extended wait periods. What we really want is more questions on the 4473 that no customer reads.


I mean, really..........what on earth gives you the idea that any gun dealer in America likes how ATF operates? Surely you wouldn't have written that without some evidence that gun dealers secretly love ATF and their oversight. C'mon spill the beans, tell us what dealers are "half hearted".
Do you really think that gun dealers welcome more gun laws?
That we want FEWER customers?
That we secretly want customers to face hassles in acquiring their firearms legally?
Do you really think that ATF can yank an FFL because a licensee complains about gun laws?



Good grief where do ya'll get this stuff?

 

[230RN]

Yeah, every time I talk to other gun dealers we are fully in agreement that we need redesigned 4473's every two years, how much fun we have in filling out multiple sale reports, how we love compliance inspections that disrupt our business for days if not weeks and appreciate ATF's zero tolerance policies because we know its for our own good.. We have no fond memories of the days when eighteen year old buyers could buy rifles without extended wait periods. What we really want is more questions on the 4473 that no customer reads.


I mean, really..........what on earth gives you the idea that any gun dealer in America likes how ATF operates? Surely you wouldn't have written that without some evidence that gun dealers secretly love ATF and their oversight. C'mon spill the beans, tell us what dealers are "half hearted".
Do you really think that gun dealers welcome more gun laws?
That we want FEWER customers?
That we secretly want customers to face hassles in acquiring their firearms legally?
Do you really think that ATF can yank an FFL because a licensee complains about gun laws?



Good grief where do ya'll get this stuff?

I get that stuff I wondered about from GCA 1934, not from your dealership at present.

The whole legal structure of licensing gun dealers is unconstitutional in the first (1934) place by strict srutiny of the second Amendment.

Without that 1934 abomination, your neighbor across the street, as well as your next door neighbor, could compete with you.

The only ones benefitting from that 1934 abomination are the big dealers, who are equipped (personnel, electonically) to deal with the entanglements of that... 1934 abomination. Oh, and the big crime rings.

Without it and its burdens infringements, all your neighbor would need is a broom and a cash register to compete with you.

That's where I get all that stuff that I wondered about.

Terry, 230RN

 

[12Bravo20]

I get that stuff I wondered about from GCA 1934, not from your dealership at present.

The whole legal structure of licensing gun dealers is unconstitutional in the first (1934) place by strict srutiny of the second Amendment.

Without that 1934 abomination, your neighbor across the street, as well as your next door neighbor, could compete with you.

The only ones benefitting from that 1934 abomination are the big dealers, who are equipped (personnel, electonically) to deal with the entanglements of that... 1934 abomination. Oh, and the big crime rings.

Without it and its burdens infringements, all your neighbor would need is a broom and a cash register to compete with you.

That's where I get all that stuff that I wondered about.

Terry, 230RN

Actually it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that started all of that. There was no such thing as a 4473 until the 68 GCA was passed. And it was the 68 GCA that made it so stored/dealers had to be licensed and could only ship to other FFL holders. Up until then a private individual could mail order a firearm and have it sent directly to their home. Look at any major retailer catalogs from 1967 and you will see that they still sold firearms through their catalogs directly to a person's home. And IIRC it was in the late 80's or early 90's when the ATF starts shutting down kitchen table FFL's and requiring all FFL holders that sold firearms to have an actual store front.

None of this had anything to do with the 1934 NFA. The 34 NFA regulates types of firearms.

 

[dogtown tom]

I get that stuff I wondered about from GCA 1934, not from your dealership at present.

The whole legal structure of licensing gun dealers is unconstitutional in the first (1934) place by strict srutiny of the second Amendment.

Says what court ruling? 'Cause that's who determines whether a law is unconstitutional.

Without that 1934 abomination, your neighbor across the street, as well as your next door neighbor, could compete with you.

The only ones benefitting from that 1934 abomination are the big dealers, who are equipped (personnel, electonically) to deal with the entanglements of that... 1934 abomination. Oh, and the big crime rings.

How can you try and be an advocate for the Second Amendment and have your facts this twisted?

Without it and its burdens infringements, all your neighbor would need is a broom and a cash register to compete with you.

That's where I get all that stuff that I wondered about.

Terry, 230RN

Wow.

 

[dogtown tom]

..... And IIRC it was in the late 80's or early 90's when the ATF starts shutting down kitchen table FFL's and requiring all FFL holders that sold firearms to have an actual store front.....

Myth.
There has never been a requirement that an FFL have a storefront.
ATF didn't go on a rampage in the 80's against kitchen table dealers, they went on a rampage against guys who lied on their application for an FFL.

What did happen during the Clinton administration was ATF actually began enforcing federal law and its own regulations. Those regulations always required a licensee to operate lawfully under all state, county, city laws and regulations. That included HOA restrictions and zoning compliance. It meant having a business license, a state sales tax permit and having your FFL business premises zoned to allow such a business.

FFL's were given a choice to operate legally (as they promised when they signed their application for an FFL) or voluntarily surrender their license. Those that didn't do either were not permitted to renew or had the FFL revoked.

Currently home based (or kitchen table) dealers greatly outnumber FFL's with a commercial storefront.


To this day, the ATF Form 7 includes:

Indicate type of business premises
Zoned Residential:
Single Family Dwelling
Condominium/Apartment
Hotel/Motel
Public Housing

Zoned Commercial:
Store Front
Office
Rod & Gun Club
Military Installation

ATF literally does not care where you operate your business, just that its legal to do so.

 

[Balrog]

Yeah, every time I talk to other gun dealers we are fully in agreement that we need redesigned 4473's every two years, how much fun we have in filling out multiple sale reports, how we love compliance inspections that disrupt our business for days if not weeks and appreciate ATF's zero tolerance policies because we know its for our own good.. We have no fond memories of the days when eighteen year old buyers could buy rifles without extended wait periods. What we really want is more questions on the 4473 that no customer reads.


I mean, really..........what on earth gives you the idea that any gun dealer in America likes how ATF operates? Surely you wouldn't have written that without some evidence that gun dealers secretly love ATF and their oversight. C'mon spill the beans, tell us what dealers are "half hearted".
Do you really think that gun dealers welcome more gun laws?
That we want FEWER customers?
That we secretly want customers to face hassles in acquiring their firearms legally?
Do you really think that ATF can yank an FFL because a licensee complains about gun laws?



Good grief where do ya'll get this stuff?

Yes, more laws reduce the number of customers, but then if we eliminated all gun laws including the need to have a FFL to sell guns, that would reduce your customers also, right?

 

[J-Bar]

.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Lock?

 

[dogtown tom]

Yes, more laws reduce the number of customers, but then if we eliminated all gun laws including the need to have a FFL to sell guns, that would reduce your customers also, right?

Not necessarily.
Few manufacturers want to deal directly with the consumer. They use a system of distributors and dealers.

Think that elimination of gun laws means you'll be buying direct from Glock, Ruger or S&W? Dream on.

 

[I6turbo]

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.

But I admire your optimism!

I used to think I was cynical, but I was naive. The major institutions are rotten. To. The. Core. And out of control. And congress isn't going to get squat done about it.