Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

[Jim Watson]

"See, folks I am trying to help you. Send more campaign money for me and my clique and we will get it right next time."

 

[SharpDog]

 

[Will Munny]

Grandstanding. Regulations can be overridden by a law, but the GOP doesn't have the votes to do that.

Abolishing the ATF, without repealing the underlying laws, would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. For example, there would be no one to process NFA applications, so whatever is owned now would be frozen in place.

Besides which, the law enforcement functions would merely be transferred to other agencies, which may lack the institutional expertise.

We see this all the time with calls to abolish the IRS. Somebody is going to administer the tax laws, even though that somebody is not called the IRS. These are mindless games.

Wrong. Without a means of enforcement, the law ceases to have any impact. The reason prohibition failed was exactly that, because the government never seriously enforced it. Even the president drank in the White house during the period.

 

[doubleh]

It's just huff and puff and blow no one's house down. It would never make it through the senate and the stand-in for president would be told to veto it if it did. It rests with the courts to resolve this.

 

[Elkins45]

Wrong. Without a means of enforcement, the law ceases to have any impact. The reason prohibition failed was exactly that, because the government never seriously enforced it. Even the president drank in the White house during the period.

I don’t think this reflects the reality for the vast majority of gun crimes. ATF mostly arrests dealers and large scale violators. Your average Joe breaking the gun laws is caught by state and local law enforcement. Most gun law violations never cross the desk of the ATF.

I also disagree with using prohibition as an analogy. Except for the few politician who grand-standed and voted for it, and a small swath of the Bible Belt, most people didn’t want prohibition. That contrasts to a fairly large group of Americans who don’t want you to own any guns now.

 

[Will Munny]

I don’t think this reflects the reality for the vast majority of gun crimes. ATF mostly arrests dealers and large scale violators. Your average Joe breaking the gun laws is caught by state and local law enforcement. Most gun law violations never cross the desk of the ATF.

I also disagree with using prohibition as an analogy. Except for the few politician who grand-standed and voted for it, and a small swath of the Bible Belt, most people didn’t want prohibition. That contrasts to a fairly large group of Americans who don’t want you to own any guns now.

State and local LE is not enforcing ATF regulations. Two different problems.
No, most Americans did want prohibition, it would never have passed otherwise. The coastal elites and the inner cities were the only ones who did not want it.

 

[SharpDog]

 

[hso]

fly in the ATF's soup

The ATF is only threatened when the House, Senate, and POTUS are held by 2A supporters. This is just a fundraiser bill.

 

[Jim Watson]

It wasn't threatened when House, Senate, and Prez were all Republicans.
Not the same thing, apparently.

 

[hso]

It wasn't threatened

Very true.

I should have been clearer that the ATF can't be threatened unless House, Senate, and POTUS are pro-2A.

The fact that they've never really been threatened when the Legislative and Executive were pro-2A speaks volumes for anyone willing to hear.

 

[LiveLife]

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

FPC attorney discuss 1/6/23 5th Circuit 13-3 En Banc ruling for Cargill v. Garland that blocked ATF ruling on bump stocks also apply to SBR/Pistol brace/80% ruling because only Congress can change the definition of what is firearm under GCA and ATF does not have the power to change the definition on their own - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/01/07/fifth-circuit-blocks-atf-ban-on-bump-stocks-n65923

 

[tarosean]

The fact that they've never really been threatened when the Legislative and Executive were pro-2A speaks volumes for anyone willing to hear.

Bingo.. Even when we held all the cards not to long ago, nothing happened..

 

[buck460XVR]

Except for the few politician who grand-standed and voted for it, and a small swath of the Bible Belt, most people didn’t want prohibition.

No, most Americans did want prohibition, it would never have passed otherwise. The coastal elites and the inner cities were the only ones who did not want it.

Most Americans today do not have a clue as of why Prohibition was initiated....... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/opinion/prohibition-anniversary-100.html

The majority of Americans today support the legalization of Marijuana, yet unlike many states, the feds refuse. Could it be that those in power are not privy to the money to be made?

 

[AlexanderA]

The fact that they've never really been threatened when the Legislative and Executive were pro-2A speaks volumes for anyone willing to hear.

Is the goal to abolish the ATF, or to reform the ATF? The ATF has the potential to be a pro-RKBA agency, provided a few changes are made at the top, and a clearer mandate (mission statement) is promulgated. The employees will follow whatever guidelines are set out for them.

 

[SharpDog]

Mark finds three holes in BATFE's pistol brace rule:

 

[dogtown tom]

Wrong. Without a means of enforcement, the law ceases to have any impact. The reason prohibition failed was exactly that, because the government never seriously enforced it.

You have to be kidding.
Even today, illegal manufacture, possession and transport of liquor is enforced.

Even the president drank in the White house during the period.

And that wasn't illegal.
The 18th Amendment only prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages. If you had a basement full of booze you could lawfully possess and consume.

 

[dogtown tom]

Mark finds three holes in BATFE's pistol brace rule:

Is it somehow possible to just name those three holes? Is that difficult?
Otherwise it takes seventeen minutes out of my life that I'll never get back.

 

[SharpDog]

Is it somehow possible to just name those three holes? Is that difficult?
Otherwise it takes seventeen minutes out of my life that I'll never get back.

If I named them someone would ask me to link the specific statutes, this way you can ask Mark ...

 

[dogtown tom]

If I named them someone would ask me to link the specific statutes, this way you can ask Mark ...

So you didn't watch it either.

 

[SharpDog]

So you didn't watch it either.

Of course I did, along with all of the others I have posted. You might learn something.

 

[Choctaw]

Nothing will come of it. The government never, ever gives up power once it has it.

 

[dogtown tom]

Of course I did, along with all of the others I have posted. You might learn something.

No, I won't.
I can read and have pretty good reading comprehension. I'll read the source, not someone vidiots interpretation of that source.
What I dont have is gullibility or a desire to be spoon fed by some YouTuber looking for clicks.

 

[230RN]

But you would still have the federal gun laws, which somebody would have to enforce. The priority would be to repeal the gun laws, so that the ATF could go back to concerning itself with alcohol and tobacco.

But all those federal gun laws are void from the get-go anyhow, at least according to the protections afforded us by that piece of paper they call the Constitution.

I seem to recall that was the highest law of the land, no? Did they repeal that? I know they've been nibbling at it for about two centuries.

I don't know, but it seems to me anything the ATF does relating to inhibiting firearms is illegal in the first place. They can have their tobacco and alcohol, but nothing to do with arms of any kind unless it's to enhance ownership and maybe do some training.

Oops. There's the alarm. I guess I'd better wake up. Gotta pee anyway.

Terry, 230RN

 

[AlexanderA]

But all those federal gun laws are void from the get-go anyhow, at least according to the protections afforded us by that piece of paper they call the Constitution.

The presumption is that laws are valid until declared invalid by the courts. Merely saying that something is an "infringement" carries no weight at all, unless you are a judge.

Some of the declarations from the pro-gun side are as detached from reality as those of the antigunners.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

No, I won't.
I can read and have pretty good reading comprehension. I'll read the source, not someone vidiots interpretation of that source.
What I dont have is gullibility or a desire to be spoon fed by some YouTuber looking for clicks.

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. He doesn't find any "holes," but rather finds some rather anecdotal inclusions and omissions of precedents in their rationale that is included in the rule clarification. As most of us understand, it really doesn't matter how hypocritical, selective or even unlawful the enforcement order is, it won't really matter from a practical perspective until such time there is a successful legal challenge.