My take 1) judges of all stripes hate it when people rely on a government ruling and then the government changes it's position. In the law we call that detrimental reliance and that invokes the concept of promissory estoppel. That alone is a sound ground for the courts to strike down what the ATF is doing 2) under the BRUEN decision, I cannot see the blatantly unconstitutional 1934 NFA Surviving the heightened standards of review.
1) I hope you are right. I’ve never gone down the brace road because I knew this would eventually happen and I don’t need drama. But I know a lot of people this could affect. 2) Yes, the Bruen ruling pretty much put a stake in the heart of most of this nonsense. In a world where the Constitution mattered I would say the 1934 and 1968 laws are toast. I remember as a kid my dad saying in my lifetime I would never see the Constitution overturned or amended, but I would see every tenet of the Constitution violated with impunity. Good call. I’m not yet 50 and we are there. I try to be optimistic, but there isn’t much historical basis feeding optimism. Hopefully I’m wrong and we are on the verge of reversing some unconstitutional restrictions at least. I was impressed with Gabbard’s understanding of the issue. I’ve never heard even proclaimed 2A supporting old guard Republicans speak with such clarity that comes from actual understanding of the issue.
I hope the law suits by WILL and FPC not only get this arbitrary of the ATF overturned but also puts an end to the forced registration and taxation of SBR's the is justified by the outdated and supplanted FFA of 1934. Which is more arbitrary and un-legislated gun control by the ATF. I disagree with Ms. Gabbard that gun control advocates are motivated by fear that law abiding citizens will stand up to "their" tyranny of and by government. That, IMHO, is not fair. I think gun control advocates sincerely "believe" that their laws and actions will save lives; that it is a false belief doesn't change their misguided sincerity. The "positive" way to combat their misinformed goals is to prove them wrong with facts. What 2nd amendment defenders should be lobbying for is required scientific research to justify or refute any proposed gun legislation. I keep using California as an example of how bad gun law does nothing but piss people off, from both sides, and, does nothing to save lives. As evidenced by the two recent mass shootings there. The truth is AR based pistols and SBR's are a superior home defense weapon that should be allowed by the Heller ruling if taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Hopefully this recent over-reach by the ATF will result, in the long run, in a good outcome for law abiding gun owners.
I thank the left for opening the NFA up to judicial scrutiny; I thought they would do so by placing 'assault weapons' under its umbrella, but this works just as well. By ruling the AR pistol w/ brace is a SBR, the ATF has placed SBRs "in common use" and thus, a "bearable arm". Its is impossible to soundly argue that current jurisprudence allows the NFA restrictions on any "bearable arm".
Are you saying the ATF is the "LEFT"? I'm in agreement that ATF over reach needs to be taken all the way to the Supreme's where, with this court, it will be re-soundly overturned AND further ruling that SBR's need not be taxed and unlawfully registered. It will be interesting to see how this turns out, I predict not well for the ATF and consequently Anti-Second Amendment gun grabbers.
The ATF didn't make this ruling at the direction of President Biden, they made this ruling because they are self funding, over reaching bureaucrats that realized their original decision was costing them a substantial amount of money.
The director of the BATFE is a Biden appointee. Absent specific info to the contrary, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reach to suppose the change in the ATF's position is related to the director's, and/or Biden's leftist position on firearms.
I hope so as well. There is now precedent from the SC sufficient to put a stop to this nonsense. Pistol braces on AR pistols etc. are certainly now in common use so must be allowed. The whole SBR thing was stupid to begin with. It was a consolation prize for the failure to outlaw handguns. Handguns were to be prohibited based on their concealable nature based on size. Now, a planned prohibition on braces takes millions of SBR type firearms (pistols with braces) and mandates they be returned to pistol form, making them much more concealable! We’ve come full circle with the ATF creating millions more of a firearm type they wanted banned when the SBR law was passed. These people are so stupid it gives me confidence they will never win this war on the 2A. It seems clear to me there are two types of gun control advocates. There is the type described by Gabbard that do want a toothless citizenry. There is a class of authoritarian in the upper reaches of government and anti gun lobbying that fear those with the means to resist tyranny. These first types floated trial balloons like the Bundy standoff and did not like armed folks showing up to prevent another Waco or Weaver episode. The first type of anti gun folk are looked up to by the second type. The second type, as you say, mistakenly believe the anti gun cause is directed at reducing homicides and suicides and accidents. The first type has convinced the second type concern for human life is the reason for the movement. The second type are easily duped as they instinctively believe any misinformation and disinformation provided them by the first class of anti gunners. The second type are operating out of ignorance. The first type out of authoritarianism seeking to destroy effective opposition. Yep. There’s no going back now. We have a constitutionally protected right to firearms in common use and these firearms most certainly are in common use. The ATF made sure of that by telling us braces were legal and appropriate for the last few years. They cooked their own goose.
The brace is far more commonly used as a buttstock than it is a brace. But also, there's no legit reason to restrict SBRs, so I see no problem at all with this 'loophole' to getting effectively an SBR. Certainly allowing the ATF to ban gun parts without anyone voting doesn't just infringe on the 2A but also subverts democracy.
Yes, the brace is commonly “shouldered” but the ATF has ruled in the past it doesn’t matter—that “misuse” did not affect legality based on intended use. I agree 100% the whole issue is absurd because braces do not affect the lethality of a weapon and only make it larger and less concealable. And less concealable should make anti gunners happy. SBR’s and SBS’s being regulated makes no sense whatsoever and should cease. And yes, the ATF is usurping powers reserved for congress. This ruling violates multiple aspects of the Constitution.
Well my position is that all guns That cross state lines should be registered so that renders the ATF's argument moot as well as hers. And Congress has the right to such regulation owing to the commerce clause
Power. Congress has the power to create such regulation. So long as the regulation does not run afoul of the protections presumptively afforded to the right to keep and bear arms by the 2nd. For that to be the case, the federal government needs to demonstrate that a law which require the federal registration of firearms which cross state lines is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Can't be done? Unconstitutional.
