STORMINORMAN
Member
Fortunately, no administrative agency has Constitutional authority (Article 1 Section 1) to "amend the definition" of ANYTHING vis-a-vis legislation under the Separation of Powers: Congress writes laws exclusively...
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
M&p 15 pistol 5.56 buffer tube must go as well
- Thread starter Dusty84
- Start date
I am a former Government Bureaucrat so definitions are important.
For example what is their definition of shouldering? I know the shoulder on the human body can be medically defined. But is there a medical definition for shouldering?
Is allowing the buffer tube to touch the face shouldering? It’s intent to to create a three point stable shooting stance.
Is the BATF rewinding the definition to using a tennis ball on the end of the buffer tube as a stock or brace?
Is the buffer tube a integral part of the gun required for functioning or is a a accessory?
These are all questions that will have to be answered by Congress passing laws or by the Courts while in the meantime we are left to drift with little direction.
For example what is their definition of shouldering? I know the shoulder on the human body can be medically defined. But is there a medical definition for shouldering?
Is allowing the buffer tube to touch the face shouldering? It’s intent to to create a three point stable shooting stance.
Is the BATF rewinding the definition to using a tennis ball on the end of the buffer tube as a stock or brace?
Is the buffer tube a integral part of the gun required for functioning or is a a accessory?
These are all questions that will have to be answered by Congress passing laws or by the Courts while in the meantime we are left to drift with little direction.
STORMINORMAN
Member
Since unConstitutional laws are declared as null and void after review, unConstitutional administrative overreach and executive orders fall under the same constraints...
See Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Cheers!
See Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Cheers!
4506517
Member
Yes.
PLEASE go challenge them.
I, for one, want to see what happens.
Dig deep, hire an attorney, and challenge them over nuances in their rules.
As a "government bureaucrat" have you ever worked with them?
I mean, out in the field?
No wonder we are where we are.
Since we seem to love splitting hairs about their new rule, I'll sit here and wait for you to hire your attorney and challenge it.
Most of us can't afford that, so we'll watch as the "government bureaucrat" and his attorney navigate the long, drawn out legal Case.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
PLEASE go challenge them.
I, for one, want to see what happens.
Dig deep, hire an attorney, and challenge them over nuances in their rules.
As a "government bureaucrat" have you ever worked with them?
I mean, out in the field?
No wonder we are where we are.
Since we seem to love splitting hairs about their new rule, I'll sit here and wait for you to hire your attorney and challenge it.
Most of us can't afford that, so we'll watch as the "government bureaucrat" and his attorney navigate the long, drawn out legal Case.
Go ahead. We're waiting.
That’s a good argument to make. Its one that I made way before this SBR drama. Some Azzhat sitting behind a desk at the BATF shouldn’t be able to change a law. But that is exactly what happened and got us to where we are today. These firearms they are changing the “rules” on have always been outlawed, requiring registration. They wanted to help disabled Veterans with the brace. That’s a good thing. But they should have done it by changing the law. They didn’t. They made a change they weren’t authorized to make and now they are back peddling on it.
AR pistols will be next. They did the same thing there. Those were NFA, they were SBR’s. They changed that by publishing a “rule” instead of changing the law. They will be correcting that next.
I had one of those, but I got rid of it simply because a .223/5.56 that can’t be shouldered is useless.
I think all these things should be legal including machine guns. But I have never agreed that these clowns at the ATF should have the authority to change the impact of the law through a “rule” change, even when it’s something we want. Had they modified the law as they should have, we would not be having this drama. And we wouldn’t have the issue of the people that are going to be arrested and possibly go to prison because they aren’t paying attention.
Followed by restricting semi-automatic firearms and ammunition. President Biden has stated in clear language the all semiautomatic firearms should be illegal. He specifically is calling for a ban on 9mm firearms as “A 9mm bullet will blow the lung out of the body”. The BATF has a long history of going rogue. A new generation of gun owners were not around in the early 1990’s when the BATF aided by the FBI and DOJ where attacking and killing gun owners.
With a divided Congress gun owners must look to the Courts and ultimately The Supreme Court to stop the BATF and DOJ.
Interesting rant. By “government bureaucrat” are you referring my comment in Post #22?
I have no intention of hiring a attorney and suing the BATF. What I am doing is writing to my Senator and Representative in Washington and joining with other gun owners by supporting the NRA/ILA and SAF.
I hope you will get actively involved in the fight. The fight is large enough so there is room for you to join.
Last edited:
