SquidBubble
Member
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.
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.
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.
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/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.
Take a look at this for an eye-opening explanation of how the above happens, and how it's happened many times throughout history.... Always a bit jealous at how the Left mass "mobilizes" (aka tantrums) around their important issues.
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.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
Opinions change. My opinion of the Sig/Shockwave "arm brace" never has.........it's been a crappy shoulder stock since day one.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.
Yet who was in the White House when ATF issued the first determination letter?So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.
I think you responded in the wrong thread.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
Getting back to OP.as the OP of thread ...who was in the White House when ATF issued the first determination letter?
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.Getting back to OP.as the OP of thread ...
Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen
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.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.
Oh good grief.Besides, what happened to bump stocks is moot as circuit courts ruled ATF's "determination" in violation of APA and unconstitutional.
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.So just what of "something" changed? To me, it's reflective of who is in the white house.
We are still waiting to hear back from ATF director - https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395546today is the evening of the 20th, meaning, what, ten days to go?
Congress doesn't decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. That's the role of the judiciary.Jim Jordan was interviewed today by G&G. He said the House did pass a bill saying the pistol brace rule is unconstitutional.....
Thomas Massie/Troy Nehls grills ATF director about new Stabilizing Brace Rule (ATF director explains what "something" changed)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.
No that’s not what I meant at all. Distributors would continue to distribute, it just would not have to be with licensed dealers.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.
Do you know, how we know, you've never been a gun dealer?No that’s not what I meant at all. Distributors would continue to distribute, it just would not have to be with licensed dealers.