ATF notice of proposed rule change AR pistols

[partypilot1]

The grading proposed for SBRs will be tomorrow’s grade for an assault rifle. It will be #1 hunting rifle to #4 assault rifle. Scope( 1 point), magazine (2 points), simi-auto (3 points) NFA or else. 
 

[mikegideon]

44 minutes ago, Garufa said:

at the optimism and short memory of gun owners. 

If the ATF decides a gun is this, that, or the other, it is law until the courts decide otherwise. 

Bump stock ban...direct order of DJT.

This new proposal is a quagmire designed for one thing and one thing only.  Read the grading proposal.  

Congress has nothing to do with it and when the obligatory public comments are dismissed then the new regulation takes effect.  It will carry the weight of law.

Those public comments are there for a reason. And, they have some weight. Or at least they did before they figured out that the general public really IS that stupid.

Edited June 12, 2021 by mikegideon

[ohell]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:17 AM, partypilot1 said:

Looks like it’s more than braces. Any AR pistol with a barrel over 7” would be a SBR due to overall length.

I don’t see this as true.  Some paragraphs are ambiguous adding to the quagmire navigating GCA and NFA but worksheet and rule change intent revolve around firearms using a “stabilizing brace”. A traditional ar pistol will stay as that and exceeding 26” generally puts it into firearm under gca as long as firearm was not born as a rifle, used as concealed and has no stock or per proposed rule “stabilizing brace”. Using pistol buffer tube designed for flat wire spring will cut length allowing longer barrel and under 26” for traditional pistol 

Comment through any source but recommend using GOA so they have a record for lawsuit. The NRA will do nothing. 

[ohell]

. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by ohell

[Omega]

2 hours ago, Garufa said:

at the optimism and short memory of gun owners. 

If the ATF decides a gun is this, that, or the other, it is law until the courts decide otherwise. 

Bump stock ban...direct order of DJT.

This new proposal is a quagmire designed for one thing and one thing only.  Read the grading proposal.  

Congress has nothing to do with it and when the obligatory public comments are dismissed then the new regulation takes effect.  It will carry the weight of law.

It will then suffer the same fate as the bump-stock ban.

https://thenewamerican.com/federal-court-overturns-atfs-ban-on-bump-stocks/

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/federal-bump-stock-ban-blocked-by-divided-appeals-court

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/critics-federal-ban-firearms-device-win-key-decision-76689637

[FUJIMO]

This is probably peanuts compared to whats coming down the pike. 

[RED333]

Just another chop at the tree of freedom from the commes!!!

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, RED333 said:

Just another chop at the tree of freedom from the commes!!!

You KNOW those commies care deeply about you. Just ask 'em.

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, FUJIMO said:

This is probably peanuts compared to whats coming down the pike. 

I wonder what they are waiting on. 2021 has been full of violence and mass shootings yet they haven't passed anything. Mid terms will be here before we know it. 

It does seem like it's all been lip service. If they were hell bent on passing gun control they haven't shown it. Hopefully it stays that way.

[mikegideon]

2 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I wonder what they are waiting on. 2021 has been full of violence and mass shootings yet they haven't passed anything. Mid terms will be here before we know it. 

It does seem like it's all been lip service. If they were hell bent on passing gun control they haven't shown it. Hopefully it stays that way.

They sure seem to be hell bent on it. That pesky filibuster is in the way. Not saying it isn't all vote pandering. Just saying that they would if they could. They already have in every big blue state in the country.

[Blitzen]

6 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

They sure seem to be hell bent on it. That pesky filibuster is in the way. Not saying it isn't all vote pandering. Just saying that they would if they could. They already have in every big blue state in the country.

I agree. The pesky filibuster has the agenda bogged down in the Senate. Thank goodness!  

[Erik88]

4 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

They sure seem to be hell bent on it. That pesky filibuster is in the way. Not saying it isn't all vote pandering. Just saying that they would if they could. They already have in every big blue state in the country.

I thought they had a way around the filibuster? I guess I'm still skeptical they have enough votes in the Senate to pass anything substantial. Also, above all else, Democrats care about getting re-elected. I think they know gun control isn't as popular as they pretend. We'll see though. Wish folks would chill out so I can buy 9mm again sometime this decade.

[No_0ne]

8 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I thought they had a way around the filibuster?

Only through the process of reconciliation, which applies ( as part of the law authorizing this process) only to issues about monetary items in the budget.  Gun control is not one of those, so reconciliation can't be used to pass it in the evenly divided Senate.  Of course, that's assuming that they could get all of the current Democrat members to vote for whatever bill is up, a process that's proving difficult.  Back in 2013, after the Connecticut school shooting, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, yet couldn't pass as much as a background check bill due to the reluctance of some of their members to pass any gun-related legislation which might lead to a loss in the next election (the Republicans controlled the House at the time, so it was probably a moot point anyway).  If they couldn't corral all their members into voting for such measures then, it's unlikely they could do the same now, so gun control bills are essentially dead for the current Senate term.  There are advantages to the "partisan gridlock" we hear so much about ...

[No_0ne]

16 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I think they know gun control isn't as popular as they pretend.

That's almost certainly true, not only for gun control but for most of the "hot button" ideas promoted by both parties.  Depending on how you frame the questions, voters are roughly equally divided on gun control, abortion, school choice, balanced budgets and deficit reduction, "gender" issues, etc.  None of these issues are proven winners at the ballot box but are useful in inflaming the more rabid supporters on either side, and equally advantageous when fundraising  for elections.  When you get down to the "nitty gritty" of politics, the single most defining factor of virtually all politicians is their overwhelming desire to get elected and remain in office, a lot of the things that both parties seemingly advocate don't accomplish this and so will remain as "talking points" rather than actual legislative initiatives ...

[mikegideon]

4 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I thought they had a way around the filibuster? I guess I'm still skeptical they have enough votes in the Senate to pass anything substantial. Also, above all else, Democrats care about getting re-elected. I think they know gun control isn't as popular as they pretend. We'll see though. Wish folks would chill out so I can buy 9mm again sometime this decade.

They can change the senate rules if they have enough votes. They don't thanks to Manchin and Sinema.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by mikegideon

[FUJIMO]

55 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I wonder what they are waiting on. 2021 has been full of violence and mass shootings yet they haven't passed anything. Mid terms will be here before we know it. 

It does seem like it's all been lip service. If they were hell bent on passing gun control they haven't shown it. Hopefully it stays that way.

It's all lip service right ? Until it isn't. Joebama said back in March when press were "aggressive" with him it's all about timing. I for one believe him

[Ronald_55]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Wish folks would chill out so I can buy 9mm again sometime this decade.

Academy in Johnson City had several flavors of 9mm the other night. Limit 2 boxes. Not pre pricing, but not gouging. 

I think all these hyped proposals have no hope, and they know it. They are for show and to guage support and opposition. I am more afraid of them sneaking something in at the back of some other 2000 page bill. That is the normal MO. Misdirection has worked well for them in the past. 

[FUJIMO]

7 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:

Academy in Johnson City had several flavors of 9mm the other night. Limit 2 boxes. Not pre pricing, but not gouging. 

I think all these hyped proposals have no hope, and they know it. They are for show and to guage support and opposition. I am more afraid of them sneaking something in at the back of some other 2000 page bill. That is the normal MO. Misdirection has worked well for them in the past. 

THIS is the way it will come through. Trojan horse style 

[turkeydad]

Here is Sleepy Joe's executive action verbatim on April 7.

The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act. The alleged shooter in the Boulder tragedy last month appears to have used a pistol with an arm brace, which can make a firearm more stable and accurate while still being concealable.

So here is their proposed rule, made within 60 days. The ATF has made their proposal and that's all Sleepy Joe promised, he can now blame the right for whatever reason it doesn't fly. It's just the backside of his political lip service to his base. The Dems know gun control is not popular right now and they want to be elected in 2022. As long as the backlash draws enough attention this has no traction.

 

[btq96r]

The benefit of doing it this way is the attention, or lack thereof.  I'm not talking about with us, we track these things pretty well...but you all should know we're one side of the spectrum on gun issues.

Using  the route of delegated regulatory moves makes it so the Congress isn't debating it for puic consumption.  Democrats don't have to go out on a limb for it, since the issue is an election risk and a distraction from the rest of their agenda.  Plus, if you haven't noticed, Republicans aren't in any hurry to raise a stink, or negotiate for these rules to be blocked via legislation; silence equals consent there in my book. 

Something like this is always been the greatest danger when Congress lets the federal agencies decide what's what. It absolves them of responsibility, and keeps them away from having to do the pesky scut work of governing on specifics that don't move the needle politically.

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

The benefit of doing it this way is the attention, or lack thereof.  I'm not talking about with us, we track these things pretty well...but you all should know we're one side of the spectrum on gun issues.

Using  the route of delegated regulatory moves makes it so the Congress isn't debating it for puic consumption.  Democrats don't have to go out on a limb for it, since the issue is an election risk and a distraction from the rest of their agenda.  Plus, if you haven't noticed, Republicans aren't in any hurry to raise a stink, or negotiate for these rules to be blocked via legislation; silence equals consent there in my book. 

Something like this is always been the greatest danger when Congress lets the federal agencies decide what's what. It absolves them of responsibility, and keeps them away from having to do the pesky scut work of governing on specifics that don't move the needle politically.

One thing's for sure. We have very little say in the matter. We exist mainly to help them acquire more wealth.

[Chucktshoes]

 

[No_0ne]

6 hours ago, mikegideon said:

They can change the senate rules if they have enough votes. They don't thanks to Manchin and Sinema.

 

 

I'm not sure that it's just those two.  There are others who recognize the fallacy of jettisoning the filibuster, knowing that at some point the Democrats will need it to hold up Republican bills too.   Sinema and Manchin are the two public faces now, as both are from states where Republicans have, or have been in the majority for years.  As long as they are willing to object publicly to abolishing the filibuster, others who might feel the same way but are elected in states where liberals are agitating for them to do so don't have to take a stand on the issue.  One thing all politicians hate is actually having to make potentially controversial votes ...

3 hours ago, btq96r said:

Something like this is always been the greatest danger when Congress lets the federal agencies decide what's what. It absolves them of responsibility, and keeps them away from having to do the pesky scut work of governing on specifics that don't move the needle politically.

Very true.  No need to spend political capital on things that don't have a chance of passing, or forces the Congress critters to take an actual position on unpopular issues ...

[Moped]

22 hours ago, mikegideon said:

They can change the senate rules if they have enough votes. They don't thanks to Manchin and Sinema.

 

 

This right here! 

[Dirtshooter]

Plus this last 18 months has seen a bunch of Democrat voters decide they needed and wanted a gun and they won't be voting for gun control, so the way I see it there are many more voters against crazy gun control laws and there are for it. Like Colion Noir puts it " I will not comply" . I think that should be the new slogan to every gun advocating person in the U.S.