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

[SquidBubble]

This rule isn't getting overturned before May 31st or even soon after, and I'll put money on that. It's going to play out just like bump stocks - years and years to wind its way through the courts.

 

[Doc Samson]

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.

Always disappointed by how many of the "will not comply" crowd... comply. Always a bit jealous at how the Left mass "mobilizes" (aka tantrums) around their important issues. This issue (along with so many others) should be one where the vast majority stand united in support of each other against insane, arbitrary, anti-Constitutional rulings. Moving off into the weeds just a bit: Our country is literally falling apart due to massive corruption and abuse of power and the best we can manage is to roll over... again. Just read an article this morning asking "Can we still trust the FBI?"

Love AceofSpades, btw!

 

[12Bravo20]

Sometimes we gun owners are our own worse enemies. We have seen people not care as long as they are not effected way too many times.

And getting rid of laws will not really effect how manufacturers sell firearms. They will still sell to distributers who in turn sell to dealers no matter what.

 

[jmorris]

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.

Whenever I ask children to stop playing and do something I want done, in that way, it never gets done.

If it was a printed letter, it was a waste of paper.

 

[LiveLife]

Whenever I ask children to stop playing and do something I want done, in that way, it never gets done.

If it was a printed letter, it was a waste of paper.

Not my words but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan's letter on 3/6/23 sent to ATF chief Steve Dettelbach - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-doesnt-violate-2a-in-light-of-bruen.916923/

"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 me, Congress letter to ATF is precursor to a "timeout" and "spanking" of ATF's overreach without apparent congressional authorization from Congress' "parental" eyes.

"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"​

And here's "You got some explaining to do" ATF "Oversight" hearing on April 26 (Jump to 19:11 minute for start of hearing)

At 1:58:10, "... firearms expert ... the piece of plastic ..." explanation from the director and "parental" Congress overrules the ATF director, "YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY"

 

[dogtown tom]

Not my words but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan's letter on 3/6/23 sent to ATF chief Steve Dettelbach - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-doesnt-violate-2a-in-light-of-bruen.916923/

"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 me, Congress letter to ATF is precursor to a "timeout" and "spanking" of ATF's overreach without apparent congressional authorization from Congress' "parental" eyes.

​

​

ATF has stated many times that they do not regulate arm braces. In my mind, the serious doubts I have are whether our supposed Second Amendment loving Congressmen have a single clue as to what is being discussed or the history of gun law in the USA.

As far as whether ATF has the authority......1934 National Firearms Act is the legislation ATF is basing it's regulation. Where does ATF get its authority to write those regulations? Congress....via the Administrative Procedures Act. So here you have a Congressman blasting a federal agency for using the authority Congress gave it. Clown World. But it makes for good YouTube videos doesn't it? To answer Jim Jordan's question.....the 1934 National Firearms Act regulated Short Barreled Rifles. He should know that.

Remember, from 1934 until 2012, ATF had consistently held the opinion that attaching anything to a pistol to use as a shoulder stock was the making of an NFA regulated Short Barreled Rifle. That's why Shockwave asked for a determination letter on whether their "arm brace" would make a pistol an SBR. ATF wrote in that original determination letter that attaching the Shockwave to a pistol did not result in the making of an NFA firearm. It's well established that a determination letter is only ATF's opinion at the time the letter is written and does not carry the force of law. NO ONE COMPLAINED ABOUT ATF'S AUTHORITY when they issued that determination did they? Now, a decade later, ATF has realized that those "arm braces" aren't arm braces, but shoulder stocks. They revoked the previous determination on the same authority they used when they issued the original determination. The ATF didn't "approve" the Shockwave arm brace, they just make a determination on the entire firearm.

Plus, it's common knowledge that ATF determination letters aren't worth the paper they are printed on. There are multiple examples of ATF changing their mind and worst of all....ATF doesn't keep a publicly accessible catalog of those determination letters. They only way to see one of those letters is to have the requester post a copy on a public forum. Basically it's confidential correspondence because ATF knows their opinion will be scrutinized. ATF employees have complained for years about the sorry state of maintaining a file of those letters.

What ATF did next was amend the definition of SBR to include pistols with an arm brace attached. This doesn't regulate arm braces, because ATF doesn't regulate accessories, but firearms. It's perfectly legal to possess an arm brace, perfectly legal to attach an arm brace to a rifle, perfectly legal to attach an arm brace to a pistol with a 16" barrel.....as long as that does not result in a rifle with less than 26" OAL.

 

[I6turbo]

... Always a bit jealous at how the Left mass "mobilizes" (aka tantrums) around their important issues.

Take a look at this for an eye-opening explanation of how the above happens, and how it's happened many times throughout history.

 

[LiveLife]

ATF has stated many times that they do not regulate arm braces.

As far as whether ATF has the authority.....via the Administrative Procedures Act

What gets me is ATF basing their determination on "something" to be acceptable such as Sig arm brace and Tailhook arm brace then determining them not acceptable later by changing their mind.

So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.

I think that's what needs to change and hope Congress clarify what "something" is for ATF to follow.

 

[230RN]

WRONG THREAD

 

[dogtown tom]

What gets me is ATF basing their determination on "something" to be acceptable such as Sig arm brace and Tailhook arm brace then determining them not acceptable later by changing their mind.

Opinions change. My opinion of the Sig/Shockwave "arm brace" never has.........it's been a crappy shoulder stock since day one.

So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.

Yet who was in the White House when ATF issued the first determination letter?
If the occupant of the White House matters, why did Trump order ATF to redefine machine gun to include bump stocks?

 

[dogtown tom]

Me, from...
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/12629372/


I should have been more clear about that. I regard GCA34 as the starting point for sweeping unConsitutional laws regarding guns. The outcome of the (1934) Miller case has been used to both support and condemn such legislation since the case was simply returned to the lower court for revision.

Which the lower Court never did.

My point here was that it "opened the door" for all subsequent national legislation including licensure of gun dealers, which by plain reading in English is forbidden, pussyfootin' around by the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

I simply wondered aloud if today's gun dealers realized that those laws, at root, seemed to benefit the gun dealers in terms of limiting how many and which people can be allowed to sell guns (despite the bureaucratic entanglements).

Whether "plain English strict scrutiny" versus "formal but entangled muddy pronouncements" by the Supreme Court best reflected our firearms rights was another matter.

Terry, 230RN

I think you responded in the wrong thread.

 

[LiveLife]

who was in the White House when ATF issued the first determination letter?

Getting back to OP.as the OP of thread ...

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

At this point, focus of this thread is the FACT that determination CHANGED based on "something" ATF used and Congress is not happy about that.

Besides, what happened to bump stocks is moot as circuit courts ruled ATF's "determination" in violation of APA and unconstitutional.

 

[dogtown tom]

Getting back to OP.as the OP of thread ...
Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen

That's not up to ATF, that for the courts to determine. Until SCOTUS says the NFA & GFA are invalid, ATF has to continue business as usual.

At this point, focus of this thread is the FACT that determination CHANGED based on "something" ATF used and Congress is not happy about that.

It changed likely based on the fact ATF believed they were originally designed to be an actual arm brace and not as a shoulder stock.
Congress can be as unhappy as they want, but until they repeal the NFA and GCA its just hot air and pandering to their constituents. You may think Jim Jordan really showed 'em, but the fact is Dettelbach went right back to his office at ATF and didn't change a thing. It's simply politics.

Jim Jordan had four years during Trumps administration to grill ATF and didn't.....that should show how seriously he takes the Second Amendment.

Besides, what happened to bump stocks is moot as circuit courts ruled ATF's "determination" in violation of APA and unconstitutional.

Oh good grief.
1. It wasn't a "determination", it was a regulatory change to the definition. If you don't know the difference you should.
2. It ain't moot.

 

[I6turbo]

So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.

Unfortunately, it's not reflective of who's in the White House (hence, we aren't voting our way out of this), but who is actually in power in DC, and who is controlling the big institutions (a.k.a. deep state). That is, the same ones who were actually controlling them well prior to 2016.

 

[LiveLife]

OK everyone ... One more time of OP and focus of this thread - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-doesnt-violate-2a-in-light-of-bruen.916923/

OP is "focused" on the demand letter Congress wrote to ATF to explain why the "Pistol Brace Rule" doesn't violate the Second Amendment in light of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling and ATF appeared before Congress on 4/26/23 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...e-doesnt-violate-2a-in-light-of-bruen.916923/

• 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
• Final Rule failed to adequately consider Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller, Caetano, and Bruen and ATF should have engaged in the court-mandated text and history analysis.

At 1:58:10 of video ATF director explains with "... the piece of plastic ..." but Congress' response to the ATF director is "YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY"

I am not a lawyer but to this layperson who is not a FFL, "You don't have the authority" means ATF doesn't have the authority of Congress to expand the regulatory definition of "rifle" to make pistols with braces now as SBR due to brace being a "piece of plastic".

BTW, in January, 5th Circuit ruled against ATF on Cargill v Garland bump stocks case where ATF violated APA requirements. In April, 6th Circuit ruled for Hardin v ATF (ATF bump stock ban) that ATF went beyond its legal authority when it banned bump stocks by classifying them as "machine gun" parts in 2017 - 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-12614023

So to this layperson, Congress demanding ATF to come before Congress regarding pistol brace could be due to 5th/6th Circuit rulings and to clarify that it's Congress who has the authority to expand the regulatory definition of "rifle" clearly expressed by "You don't have the authority" to the ATF director as Final Rule failed to adequately consider Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller, Caetano, and Bruen and ATF should have engaged in the court-mandated text and history analysis.

If this is not the case, someone explain to me.




Off thread topic but pertinent, various lawsuits against ATF regarding the pistol brace rule, but since I am not a lawyer but just a layperson, I can only cite progression of cases and what other lawyers/attorneys state based on court filings - 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-12548001

• Two major lawsuits were filed one with Gun Owners of America (GOA)/Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined with Texas Attorney General for GOA/TX v ATF and 25 states' AGs joining FRAC/SB Tactical for FRAC v ATF (Lawsuit funded by NRA but NRA did not join the lawsuit as plaintiff)
• There is third lawsuit filed by Firearms Policy Coalition for Mock v Garland
• Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) is another lawsuit filed in federal court - 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

GOA/TX v ATF is seeking to find the rule change invalid:

• Rule change is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Second Amendment
• ATF did not follow the proper procedure of APA as the Final Rule is significantly different from the Proposed Rule
• The Proposed Rule centered around the worksheet 4999 but the published Final Rule scrapped the worksheet entirely and came up with a new and vaguer test to determine what is rifle and SBR
• Such drastic change is not allowed under the APA
• To be given "Chevron deference", agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be "rational" or "reasonable"
• Chevron deference and the Rule of Lenity - The "Rule of lenity" indicates that when dealing with criminal statutory interpretation a court is required to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in a way that is most favorable to the people not the enforcement agency
• This argument has already been validated by the 5th Circuit for Cargill v ATF bump stocks case. "... The APA specifically sets forth standards by which courts must review agency actions - arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority, and so on ... The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA" - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...hat-congress-not-atf-declares-what-the-law-is
• GOA argued "Contrary to ATF's position, criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe. If Congress wishes to criminalize braced pistols, it can amend the NFA to do so." "This preserves the separation of powers by ensuring legislatures, not executive officers, define crimes. But Congress has not done so, and ATF's sudden reversal violates the Rule of Lenity."

FRAC v ATF

• Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and SB Tactical are joined by WEST VIRGINIA, NORTH DAKOTA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, VIRGINIA, and WYOMING
• The Final Rule is an agency action that exceeds the ATF's statutory authority
• The Final Rule regulates pistols and other firearms equipped with "stabilizing braces" even though the text and structure and history and purpose of NFA and GCA shows that the statute does not regulate such weapons
• "At minimum, the statutes and Rule are grievously ambiguous as applied to "stabilizing braces", and thus the Adjudications violate the rule of lenity. The adjudications are invalid because they interpret the NFA and GCA in a way that encompasses millions of weapons - undoubtedly in common use - and thus raises grave constitutional doubts under the Second Amendment."
• In Caetano v Mass., 30,000 stun guns made stun guns "in common use" for the purposes of the Second Amendment therefore protected by the text of the Second Amendment and this is important as there are 30, up to 100 million pistol braces in common use

Mock v Garland

• "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."

Watterson v ATF

• Federal case is filed in Eastern District of Texas to challenge ATF's pistol brace rule
• Plaintiff is making similar arguments as TX/GOA v ATF case alleging ATF is violating the APA, 2A and exceeding agency authority
• Plaintiff is seeking to invalidate ATF's pistol brace rule and requesting preliminary injunction
• Plaintiff is asking the court to expedite the case and make a ruling before the 60 days when ATF can start enforcement (compliance deadline is 120 days) or grant a preliminary injunction
• Plaintiff is arguing ATF's pistol brace rule is violation of the APA and the Second Amendment and stated, "Not only does the Rule violate multiple provisions of the Constitution, but it also exceeds Defendant's statutory authority"
• While referencing the Supreme Court's West Virginia v EPA ruling, "Moreover, Defendants made critical policy decisions regarding public safety and the right to keep and bear arms when issuing the Rule ... Although Congress was required to speak clearly here, it failed to do so. None of the provisions on which the Defendants rely, clearly give defendants the authority to decide to redefine "rifles" to include pistols equipped with stabilizing braces."
• 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
• Plaintiffs claim pistol brace rule is a clear violation of the Second Amendment, "History and tradition do not support the Rule's restrictions on a person's right to keep and bear arms ... ATF itself has estimated that between 3 and 7 million affected stabilizing braces have been sold from 2013 to 2020, and yet Defendants point to only two incidents where criminals used stabilizing braces in the Rule. This demonstrates that pistols with stabilizing braces are not unusual or dangerous and the overwhelming majority of pistols with stabilizing braces are being used for lawful purposes. Pistols with stabilizing braces are in common use by law-abiding citizens and fall squarely within the Second Amendment's bounds."
• Plaintiffs finish by stating, "Moreover, there is no long standing historical tradition that justifies banning a pistol because it has a stabilizing brace or requiring a person to register a pistol due to a stabilizing brace."
• The Court will issue an order on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief or Preliminary Injunction on or before March 24, 2023

OK, back to OP.

 

[armoredman]

Did I miss a ruling prior to March 24? Or is it still dragging, because today is the evening of the 20th, meaning, what, ten days to go?

 

[LiveLife]

today is the evening of the 20th, meaning, what, ten days to go?

We are still waiting to hear back from ATF director - https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395546

5/9/23 - Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) announces that he has written Director Steven Dettlebach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) seeking clarification of Dettelbach's recent House Judiciary Committee testimony concerning the ATF's new pistol brace rule. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is a signatory to the letter.

In his Judiciary Committee testimony, Director Dettelbach said, "…we wrote the rule to make it easy to comply with. If somebody just at their home detaches the weapon from the brace and keeps them apart, they do not have to register anything. They can keep the brace, they can keep the business end of the gun."

But the written ATF rule says to comply in this manner, the owner must: "Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the stabilizing brace such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a ‘firearm’ under the NFA."

"I’m sending ATF Director Dettelbach a letter asking him to clarify whether the compliance option he suggested for pistol brace owners in his Congressional testimony was accurate and complete. If he was wrong, he may have just put millions of owners in legal jeopardy," said Rep. Massie.

During Director Dettelbach's testimony, he indicated that "detachment" of the pistol brace from the weapon would be sufficient to satisfy the compliance requirements of the ATF's pistol brace rule. Dettelbach's testimony may be viewed at this embedded link.​

West Virginia AG, who is one of 25 AG plaintiffs for FRAC v ATF demanded answers from ATF director - https://republicmatters.com/2nd-ame...swers-from-atf-on-pistol-braces-bearing-arms/

5/15/23 - Several members of Congress have asked Dettelbach to elaborate on his position, and now West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is demanding answers as well. Morrisey is already part of a 25-state coalition of attorneys general challenging the new rule in court, but the AG wants assurances that Dettelbach’s statement to Congress isn’t going end up leading to criminal charges for gun owners who follow his advice.​

Here's Representative Andrew Clyde's statement on 5/15/23 - House to Block ATF's Unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule

 

[old lady new shooter]

Jim Jordan was interviewed today by G&G. He said the House did pass a bill saying the pistol brace rule is unconstitutional but the Senate hasn't taken it up and even if it passed the Senate Biden would veto it. He did say he believes the courts will rule it unconstitutional whenever it finally gets up to the appropriate level. Meanwhile he said Congress is going to use its power of the purse to curb the ATF.

Here is a link to the thread I started about this: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/g-g-interviews-jim-jordan.919274/

 

[LiveLife]

Matt Gaetz talks about ATF going beyond their authority at 2:15 minute of video and pistol brace at 2:35 minute of video along with defunding ATF to "Zero out their salaries for breaking the law and abusing the liberties of Americans" at 5:00 minute of video.

"No One Elected You" - Matt Gaetz Clashes With Dem Witness On ATF Authority And The Second Amendment

​

 

[LiveLife]

Here's a key point that many are not taking into consideration ... Supreme Court's Bruen ruling.

< Letting that soak in a bit >

Bruen ruling not only eliminated the "two step" approach used for 2A cases for decades, now the rest of judicial branch must use "text and history" approach in deciding 2A cases which also applies to legislative and executive branches in compliance or they will be ruled unconstitutional, ultimately by the Supreme Court. (And ATF is an agency of the executive branch)

In granting TRO for Siegel v Platkin, district court Judge Renée Bumb made a significant statement that the legislators consider the clear dictate of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling of Second Amendment context of historical tradition of firearms regulation and stated - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-2#post-12537421

"While the Legislature may disagree with Bruen, it may not disobey it."​

Since Justice Thomas stated "Second Amendment is not a second class right" in Bruen, permanent enforcement is forth coming for "modern" types of arms, just as permanent enforcement happened for "modern" forms of First Amendment like email/text. If not, Second Amendment would be indeed "second class right" ... And the Supreme Court won't allow that.

As to "modern" types of arms pertinent to the thread discussion (Yes, pistol brace is "modern" type of arm to aid those with physical disability just as rifle scope is "modern" type of arm to aid those with visual disability), Bruen ruling is an extension of Heller/Caetano rulings where "modern" types of firearms "in common use" can be used inside/outside of home.

In granting preliminary injunction for Harrel v. Raoul (IL AW/magazine ban) case on 4/28/23, district judge Stephen P. McGlynn made an interesting statement regarding pistol brace in application of Bruen ruling - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-12#post-12614779

This Court must now consider the third issue, likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs rely on recent Supreme Court decisions that made it clear that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are in common use ... it is first necessary to review the pertinent aspects of the Bruen decision as well as the Heller (Page 11)

... Finally, this Court turns to Bruen ... Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals analyzed the Second Amendment under a two-step test ... The Bruen Court firmly rejected this two-step framework ... The Court instead adopted a single step test “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history” under which the “government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition" (Page 15)

PICA outlaws possession of a “semiautomatic pistol” with a detachable magazine if it is equipped with ... “arm brace.” ... Defendants’ argument is not persuasive. (Page 17)

PICA also interferes with the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for one group of individuals — those with disabilities. To provide one example, consider arm braces for semiautomatic pistols. As noted above, PICA prohibits the use of an arm brace on any semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine without any caveat or exceptions. The Department of Justice has also attempted to regulate possession and registration of arm braces. See generally Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”, 88 FR 6478. However, one notable distinction exists. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) has recognized that such braces are necessary for those with disabilities to use a firearm by directing that “[t]his rule does not affect ‘stabilizing braces’ that are objectively designed and intended as a ‘stabilizing brace’ for use by individuals with disabilities.” Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”, https://www.atf.gov/rulesand-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces. 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.” (Page 19)

This Court agrees that in the case of each of these items “[t]he defensive application is obvious, as is the public safety advantage in preventing stray shots.” ... Therefore, because the “meaningful exercise” of the right to armed self-defense is wholly dependent on the ability of citizens to utilize their arms and hit their intended target, items that aid in accuracy may be considered “arms” and are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. (Page 20)
​

So judge McGlynn ruled "arm braces" are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment in compliance to Bruen ruling supported by Heller/Caetano rulings for "modern" types of arms "in common use" and ATF expanded the regulatory definition of "rifle" to make pistols with braces now as SBR in the "Final Rule" but Congress just told ATF, "You don't have the authority" and Matt Gaetz talks of ATF going beyond their authority to criminalizing millions of American who lawfully purchased pistol braces and defunding/zeroing out salaries of ATF (Which Congress can do) for "breaking the law and abusing the liberties of Americans" along with Andrew Clyde push for House to block "ATF's unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule".

And recently ATF director testified before Congress and stated, "If somebody just at their home detaches the weapon from the brace and keeps them apart, they do not have to register anything. They can keep the brace, they can keep the business end of the gun." against ATF rule and Thomas Massie demanded from ATF director to "clarify whether the compliance option he suggested for pistol brace owners in his Congressional testimony was accurate and complete. If he was wrong, he may have just put millions of owners in legal jeopardy."

It will be interesting what ATF director decides to do by May 31st ...

 

[dogtown tom]

Jim Jordan was interviewed today by G&G. He said the House did pass a bill saying the pistol brace rule is unconstitutional.....

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

 

[old lady new shooter]

I believe the position was that ATF usurped Congress' job of making laws.

Whatever, if they can really defang them by withholding funding, I doubt anyone here will be sad.

 

[LiveLife]

What gets me is ATF basing their determination on "something" to be acceptable such as Sig arm brace and Tailhook arm brace then determining them not acceptable later by changing their mind.

So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.

I think that's what needs to change and hope Congress clarify what "something" is for ATF to follow.

Thomas Massie/Troy Nehls grills ATF director about new Stabilizing Brace Rule (ATF director explains what "something" changed)




Hageman Accuses ATF Of Trying 'To Subvert The Authority Of Congress' With New Rule (And how ATF's actions change depending on the occupants of the white house)

 

[Balrog]

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.

No that’s not what I meant at all. Distributors would continue to distribute, it just would not have to be with licensed dealers.

 

[dogtown tom]

No that’s not what I meant at all. Distributors would continue to distribute, it just would not have to be with licensed dealers.

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.