Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by Runaway1956

There were fireworks at a Congressional hearing covering a critical topic not just to the firearm industry and Second Amendment supporters, but to all Americans. It wasn’t entirely unexpected. The U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance’s hearing titled, “ATF’s Assault on the Second Amendment: When is Enough Enough?” posed a simple question. And the question gets to the heart of whether or not the ATF makes the rules.

Sorry ATF, You Don’t Make the Rules
Who writes law in the United States? That begged other questions. Can government agencies go rogue and create sweeping regulations that turn law-abiding citizens into criminals? Or does law-making authority reside with the people through their duly elected representatives in Congress?

The Background
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) promulgated a new Final Rule in January. This new rule has drastic implications for millions of existing law-abiding gun owners. The agency unilaterally decreed that stabilizing arm braces attached to pistols are now defined as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). As such they are subject to registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

That means owners who already legally purchased the firearm accessory must register their purchase. Likewise, they must submit photos and fingerprints, pass an additional background check and alert local law enforcement that they possess one.

If they don’t, they risk facing felony charges and imprisonment. The Congressional Research Service estimates there could be upwards of 40 million braces in circulation today.

Alex Bosco testified about how we got here today. The former Marine invented the forearm stabilizing brace in 2012 to help disabled veterans more safely participate in recreational pistol shooting.

Pretty long read, so I'm sticking a spoiler tag here.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2023/03/atf-rules/

“Since I began my business, I’ve made every effort to comply with all the rules and regulations set out by ATF. After submitting the original brace to ATF for review, ATF responded in writing stating that attaching a stabilizing brace – quote – would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm, and that – quote – such a firearm would not be subject to National Firearms Act controls,” Bosco explained.

He added ATF has “repeatedly held that various pistol brace designs did not convert a pistol to a short-barreled rifle.”

That all changed once ATF reclassified stabilizing arm brace-attached pistols as SBRs. This put Bosco’s livelihood, and millions of other law-abiding Americans, at serious risk.

Whose Authority?
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) asked the central question of who writes law for the United States.

“Ever since Mr. Biden took office, his administration has actively sought to infringe on the Second Amendment and I’m deeply concerned about the ATF and their recent actions,” Rep. Fallon said. “This rule will effectively turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals if they fail to comply even though Congress did not act. We didn’t pass any new criminal laws or penalties related to pistol stabilizing braces. We had unelected bureaucrats do it. That’s not the way this works.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) echoed, adding that bureaucratic rulemaking is wrong under Republican and Democratic administrations.

“This should send shivers down the spine of all members under Article II,” Rep. Roy said. “And look, I don’t view this through the lens of being a Democratic administration. I didn’t like it when the Trump administration was doing stuff like this. Whether it was the bump stock ban – I didn’t like that either.”

Constitutionally Problematic
Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer agreed the ATF rulemaking is Constitutionally problematic.

“Our Constitution is set up with a separation of powers. You have the Executive Branch, whose job it is to enforce the law and you have Congress who passes laws because Congress is held accountable to the people,” Swearer said. “No official at the ATF… is elected and held accountable through that process.”

The overreach by ATF may be rectified in due time if recent precedent plays out. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overwhelmingly overruled the Trump administration’s ATF Final Rule. It said the rule overstepped its authority to classify bump stocks as “machineguns.”

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA because the agency overstepped its authority with similar rulemaking without clear congressional authorization.

The ATF stabilizing arm brace rule could be approaching a similar fate.

Know What You’re Talking About
Democratic lawmakers demonstrated they are uninformed about the arm brace accessory.

Democratic lawmakers used terminology like “high-powered,” “increasingly lethal,” and “weapons of war.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) praised the ATF for usurping her congressional authority “to prevent…the misuse of stabilizing braces, which convert everyday firearms into killing machines.”

It was similar to when Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) misidentified an arm brace, confusing it for a bump stock, during a previous debate.

Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C), a Federal Firearms Licensee, asked Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Director for Policy Rob Wilcox about the accessory. “Will a pistol brace change the capacity of a firearm? Meaning the number of rounds?”

“No sir,” Wilcox responded.

“Will a pistol brace change the firing speed of a firearm?” Rep. Edwards continued.

“No sir.” Wilcox answered.

Rep. Edwards asked Bosco about the confusion.

“I think the problem is that a lot of people aren’t informed about what is and isn’t a pistol and what is and isn’t a rifle. It’s very nuanced,” Bosco replied. “A stabilizing brace is not a force multiplier.”

Gun Control Won’t Stop
The ATF pistol brace rule is yet another example of the Biden administration going beyond its authority to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Gun control groups have grown frustrated that more hasn’t been done. However, they ignore the criminals who are the ones committing violent crimes.

Manuel Oliver, whose son was murdered in the 2018 Parkland high school shooting, disrupted the committee hearing, was removed, and subsequently arrested. Oliver also disrupted and was removed from a White House ceremony when President Biden announced several gun control executive actions.

The actions by gun control groups, Democratic lawmakers shaming companies for not doing their gun control bidding and the ATF overreaching its authority on the pistol brace Final Rule are a pattern. It shows the goal is not to hold criminals accountable. It’s about controlling law-abiding Americans.

Story originally posted to NSSF.org.

This question has come up before, and it has never been firmly dealt with. The Environmental Protection Agency has assumed authorities that it does not have, in the past. The Transportation Department has acted unilaterally under questionable authorities. Ditto the Federal Communications Commission.

The heart of the issue here, is the question: Who makes law in this country? Constitutionally speaking, only Congress may enact a law, change a law, or repeal a law. The Executive Branch's one and only responsibility and authority, is to enforce the law that Congress passes.

Donald Trump can't make certain gun accessories legal, or illegal. Joe Biden can't make certain guns legal or illegal. The ATF can't make certain gun accessories legal or illegal. Only Congress has the authority to do that.

It's high time that Congress took notice, and reigned in all government agencies!

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @01:28PM (11 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30, @01:28PM (#1298872) Journal

    Does khallow get to relabel a violent insurrection to prevent democratic change of piwer? Absolutely not.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Or is today another reality-is-relative day?

    Words mean things. No point to arguing from hypocrisy when no hypocrisy happening.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:43PM (9 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday March 30, @05:43PM (#1298936) Journal

    If you and Runaway are free to conflate regulation with lawmaking and use the terms interchangeably then the rest of us are too!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:52PM (#1298939)

      No interchange happening. J6 was the dictionary definition of an insurrection but Deer Leader Drumpf couldn't be arsed to actually lead. Or supposedly he tried and the secret service prevented him, hilarious that prez fash was restrained like a toddler in the back seat. Anyway, khallow and runaway shift definitions, intentions, and simple facts whenever their argument needs. Like the BoTH sIDeS bs it is just an attempt to mask their own misdeeds, but I appreciate the intent of your reply.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @06:31PM (7 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30, @06:31PM (#1298955) Journal

      conflate regulation with lawmaking

      Show it happened first.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:35PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:35PM (#1298974)

        "Explain to me how I'm obviously wrong so I can deny facts over and over to try and fake a real point that suckers will believe enough to muddy the waters."

        Debating with khallow is stupid. I saw a thread where someone actually felt like it was productive, and the end result was that khallow ended up agreeing! So drag a thread on long enough and brainwashed propagandists sometimes cede to reality, then turn around and immediately continue the propaganda.

        Why bother when conservatives are still struggling to accept electing such an embarassing grifter.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @09:16PM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30, @09:16PM (#1298981) Journal
          There's a difference between regulation and law making which continues to be missed. Here, the clean water act regulates "navigable waters" and "water quality". The EPA choose to interpret that to mean pools on a landlocked piece of real estate near a lake (the lake itself would qualify). That's the continuing violation. If Congress intends such an expansive interpretation to hold - and I grant there are likely a fair number who would - then they need to pass a law stating that new extent.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:54PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:54PM (#1299213)

            Poor conservitives find reality so hard to deal with. They always want exact wording, then turn around to weaponize it by saying swimming pools which dump water back into the public sphere shouldn't be regulated by the EPA for reasons. Sadly those reasons are aleays so they can pollute to keep their costs down so they get more money. There is no problem here except for Republican whinging that they have to follow rules. Doubly strange when conservatives are busy dictating how people treat their own bodies or who gets the functional right to vote. We can discuss regulatory overreach once you have addressed your own issues regarding governance AND you have an actual issue worth talking about instead of water pollution which no one wants.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31, @07:33PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 31, @07:33PM (#1299240) Journal

              They always want exact wording, then turn around to weaponize it by saying swimming pools which dump water back into the public sphere shouldn't be regulated by the EPA for reasons.

              That's what law does. It specifies such boundaries. And occasionally, it is a disadvantage when someone can do harm through a legal edge case or loophole. I don't see anything that would be better if we allowed regulatory agencies to do things by feel.

              There is no problem here except for Republican whinging that they have to follow rules.

              Rules that can change year to year unpredictably.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31, @09:21PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 31, @09:21PM (#1299258) Journal
              Also, keep in mind that any rules process will occasionally fall under the sway of scary conservatives and Republicans. You probably want a process that can survive that. Any process that can be changed by people you like can also be changed by people you don't like. Exact wording is harder to screw up.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:44AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:44AM (#1299859)

                Are you threatening us with "scary conservatives" that will allow for infilling of the Waters of the United States of America? They do not so much twist wording as throw all regulations overboard, which, when you are water-front property, can be fatal.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05, @09:53AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 05, @09:53AM (#1299877) Journal
                  Yes. Because they exist and occasionally rise to power.

                  They do not so much twist wording as throw all regulations overboard,

                  Thus the point to exact wording. Do you really want to give them the power to twist wording as well?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:29PM (#1299971)

    And khallow makes his relabel yell! YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaa! What do you call a libertarian that flies a Confederate battle flag?

    A Republican