this might be good news, ATF took it too far

[Pb]

Trump rescinded Obama's rule about the VA reporting those with disabilities to the NICS. Would that count?

Yes, I did not know that.

[kgbsquirrel]

Not sure if serious.

The ATF didn't write the NFA, and their interpretations of the various iundefined portions of it is usually a coin toss. But setting aside the "executive branch rule-making" farce that they love so much, in this case I think they are interpreting the language of the NFA how Congress meant it. As opposed to the forced reset trigger, where they are ignoring the plain text to do what they want.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

[dogmush]

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

I'm sorry, was the NFA declared unconstitutional while I was napping?  Has US jurisprudence changed from the assumption of constitutionality until found otherwise?

There are plenty of laws that I disagree with that are still on the books.  I can disagree with the law while still acknowledging that it exists, what it says, and that it will be enforced upon me.

[Pb]

Not sure if serious.

The ATF didn't write the NFA, and their interpretations of the various iundefined portions of it is usually a coin toss. But setting aside the "executive branch rule-making" farce that they love so much, in this case I think they are interpreting the language of the NFA how Congress meant it. As opposed to the forced reset trigger, where they are ignoring the plain text to do what they want.

The NFA violates and enumerated right, as congress intended.  The BATFE was given the job of enforcing this violation. 

[Devonai]

We just need to convince a court that an M4 is protected under the 2A as the obvious arm of the militia.

Best I can do is an A1 receiver, A2 upper, fixed stock, iron sights, no optic.

[dogmush]

The NFA violates and enumerated right, as congress intended.  The BATFE was given the job of enforcing this violation. 

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Not to be a dick, but what's your *expletive deleted*ing point?

The NFA, however odious, is not practically unconstitional until a court finds it so, and no court has.  Additionally ATF has proven both willing to, and adept at, killing people who cross the lines they draw with their rule-making, whether they have the theoretical power to make laws or not.  I love a good internet chest beating as much as the next guy, but considering I own several solvent traps in various stages of Form 1-ing, a Rare Breed Trigger, and 12 pistol braced weapons, 5 of which are Privately Made Firearms, and 3 of those are 3D printed receivers, this summer has made me pretty keen on knowing exactly where the ATF is choosing to draw the line on visiting people.

I guess we could all make do with 16" rifles and sneer at pistol braces and solvent traps on the internet like good little Fudd serfs.

I could tell fed.gov to *expletive deleted*ck right off, and take my chances with whatever Tac Team shows up next.  I'm sure my wife and dogs would love that.

Seriously though:  What's your suggestion for dealing with the ATF's rulemaking?  My pistol braced guns are too practically useful to just give up that class of weapon.

[Pb]

The right to kill your children until six months in the womb was a "Constitional right" up until a few months ago.  Now it isn't.

In fact, there was never a Constitional right to abortion, and jackasses in robes lying about it did not make it so.

What Judges claim may change what the government will imprision you over, but it does not determine the actual meaning of words and why they were written in the Bill of Rights.

The NFA is unconstitional whether or not Judges think it is.  Because they can lie, ignore the law and facts and can and do usually vote their personal preferences.

[dogmush]

That's why I said it isn't practically unconstitutional. It may be unconstitutional. But if you build a machine gun and show it to the ATF you'll find the NFA enforced as if it was constitutional.

So until some "jackasses in robes" actually write the words, we can treat it as constitutional for day to day life.

[gunsmith]

    If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
 I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
 A lot of people will be going to jail

[Hawkmoon]

    If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
 I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
 A lot of people will be going to jail

Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.

[gunsmith]

Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.

oh, you have a good point - however they're just under the impression that the second amendment means what it says - most folks are not like us, most folks just imagine they know whats legal and whats not.
Like if they grew up in NJ, they imagine JHP is illegal everywhere.
Lots of NYPD think AR15's are banned everywhere except for PD use.
I know a retired SFPD guy who thinks loaded open carry is legal in CA

[HankB]

That's why I said it isn't practically unconstitutional. It may be unconstitutional. But if you build a machine gun and show it to the ATF you'll find the NFA enforced as if it was constitutional.

So until some "jackasses in robes" actually write the words, we can treat it as constitutional for day to day life.

Some have questioned the morality of abiding by laws that are themselves illegal or unconstitutional by the plain reading of the Constitution. When asked whether or not a person SHOULD obey a bad law, Ayn Rand (you've probably heard of her) replied with words to the effect that you don't stop a juggernaut by laying down in front of it.

Sad to say, multiple parts of the Constitution have been ignored, and "jackasses in robes" have avoided doing their %$#!@ jobs because of political expediency. But from a practical sense, we're still stuck with the bad result - ignore it at your peril.

[dogmush]

I opined several years ago that one of the problems with a failure of the Rule of Law (and with passing bad or nonsensical laws) is that following the law becomes less of a moral choice, and more of a tactical one.  People don't follow the law because it's right, rather because it's too inconvenient not to follow the law.  The problem with this is that tactical considerations can change quickly and without warning, and are much less compelling to people than their morals.

The US is well down this path.

[cordex]

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.

Sorry, are you under the impression that as of right now it is "unlawful" to use a pistol brace as a shoulder stock?

Or, put another way, as it appears you have failed to keep up with the current status of pistol braces and the ATF's waffling on them, does that make you too stupid to play outdoors without adult supervision?

[Hawkmoon]

Sorry, are you under the impression that as of right now it is "unlawful" to use a pistol brace as a shoulder stock?

Or, put another way, as it appears you have failed to keep up with the current status of pistol braces and the ATF's waffling on them, does that make you too stupid to play outdoors without adult supervision?

Actually, I follow the current status of "pistol braces" very closely, and I am well aware of the ATF's waffling. ATF waffling aside, all you have to do is read the underlying law and regulations (not the "new" rules, the old rules).

[cordex]

Actually, I follow the current status of "pistol braces" very closely, and I am well aware of the ATF's waffling. ATF waffling aside, all you have to do is read the underlying law and regulations (not the "new" rules, the old rules).

No.  The pistol brace was specifically designed to fall within the letter of the law.  If you'd like me to detail why, I'm happy to do so, but you say you're hip so I'm sure that's not necessary.

The point of the "new" rules is that the ATF has to make new rules out of whole cloth in order to prohibit them.

[MechAg94]

    If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
 I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
 A lot of people will be going to jail

I am with you on this.  There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF.  They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal.  Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF. 

[dogmush]

I am with you on this.  There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF.  They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal.  Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF.

Should be great fun looking for the guys in 5.11 shorts, blue polos and New Balances walking around gun shows looking to by "pistols".

[HankB]

I opined several years ago that one of the problems with a failure of the Rule of Law (and with passing bad or nonsensical laws) is that following the law becomes less of a moral choice, and more of a tactical one.  People don't follow the law because it's right, rather because it's too inconvenient not to follow the law.  The problem with this is that tactical considerations can change quickly and without warning, and are much less compelling to people than their morals.

The US is well down this path.

It's been recognized that there are two types of laws - malum in se and  malum prohibitum. (Lawyers love Latin.) The first is a law that outlaws something that is fundamentally wrong - murder, burglary, theft, etc. The second is a "because we said so" type of law - for example, in some places if an adult buys a six pack of beer at 12:01 PM on Sunday that's fine, but if he does it 2 minutes earlier at 11:59 AM, that's a crime. Good people won't commit the first because, well, the underlying behavior is wrong. As for the second - well, that's where tactical choice comes it; rational people don't care about taking "illegal" actions that aren't inherently wrong, they'll just try to be careful about being caught.

[Ben]

I am with you on this.  There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF.  They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal.  Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF.

Yup. "Ignorance is no excuse" and "people should know better" doesn't fly with me anymore. Everyone on this site is a criminal, either misdemeanor or felon. Every one of us. There is no way to exist in the US anymore and not have committed a crime punishable with jailtime based on laws on the books, whether you are knowingly breaking a law or unknowingly breaking one of the hundreds of thousands you've never heard of.

Saying, "but they're unconstitutional!" doesn't work. As mentioned above, most of us are too comfortable to accept jailtime or $500K in legal fees fighting against a government with unlimited resources to destroy us. It may be a cop out, but I continue to strive for "under the radar". Until they go far enough to flip our switch, my strategy is to just stay away from the core planets and not call the feds.

[JTHunter]

Indeed, very much so.

Which  is exactly why I've been bellyaching for years about "our" usage of the terms "upper receiver" and "lower receiver."  It lends credence to the notion that both parts are firearms and need serializing and  4473s.

We ourselves are stepping on our own feet on that one.

Terry, 230RN

The part with the barrel where the bullet goes in should be the "receiver".  The "undercarriage" that does the loading (movement of the hammer and bullet) should be the "body" of the gun as it doesn't really "receive" anything.
Now, before any of you say it receives the bullet from the magazine, NO it doesn't.  The magazine elevates the bullet itself THROUGH the "body", then the bolt that is part of the "receiver" shoves it into place to be fired. 

[Pb]

Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.

You think people who have pistol braces and use them as shoulder stocks "should hurt"?  That is not a good attitude to have.

[dogmush]

The part with the barrel where the bullet goes in should be the "receiver".  The "undercarriage" that does the loading (movement of the hammer and bullet) should be the "body" of the gun as it doesn't really "receive" anything.
Now, before any of you say it receives the bullet from the magazine, NO it doesn't.  The magazine elevates the bullet itself THROUGH the "body", then the bolt that is part of the "receiver" shoves it into place to be fired. 

Except that the receiver is specifically defined as holding fire control components. Until last month the definition called out "hammer" and "firing mechanism" among other parts.  Now it is "A part of a firearm that, ... provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components".

It is the weapons parts that are being "received", not the ammunition.

[HankB]

Wonder if the new ruling will affect FAL rifle uppers and lowers.

[dogmush]

Wonder if the new ruling will affect FAL rifle uppers and lowers.

No.  It does not change them.