ATF Backs down on Braces

[PPS1980]

BREAKING: ATF Backs Down, Withdraws Comment Request on Pistol Brace 'Objective Factors' Classification - The Truth About Guns

ATF is announcing the withdrawal of a notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020.

ATF Deputy Director Marvin Richardson has just issued the following statement:

 

[Golphin]

They must just be testing the waters and getting ready to see what they can start "regulating" when times are right. Other than that I am not sure why out of left field they brought up it up.

 

[PPS1980]

They must just be testing the waters and getting ready to see what they can start "regulating" when times are right. Other than that I am not sure why out of left field they brought up it up.

Or someone still in office slapped them down HARD.

 

[Erocksmash]

Fantastic!! Now they can back off 80% lowers and apologize...

 

[Martya]

[SIGH]
As long as they apologize everything will be forgiven and forgotten....
[/SIGH]

 

[WCCPHD]

Front door is closed. They are now looking for a back door or window.

Moral of the story, they are going to try to get in and WE must be vigilant.

 

[fordson]

Sorry, but I just don’t trust them........

 

[CZU]

If they were going to classify these as NFA just how do they think they can process 2-3 million stamps in a reasonable amount of time? They can't even get suppressors done in a timely manner.

 

[stansdds]

Front door is closed. They are now looking for a back door or window.

Moral of the story, they are going to try to get in and WE must be vigilant.

I vote this as the best response to this thread!

 

[HardToHandle]

The rulemaking has not officially been pulled down yet. I certainly appreciate Mitch&Co. for helping the BATF to understand. We will see if our Georgian members will sustain this role.

However, I did read some of the 6000+ comments made already today. The comments were very mixed, with handful of substance. The vast majority were vaguely written in English, seemed to have the average education level of Fourth Grade and so painful as to embarrass decent folk. The BATF may also decided that out of concern for employee safety, they couldn’t risk the sanity of their employees.

Example, really - “Flip Flop Flip Flop goes the ATF - changing the rules because... reasons.” Substance optional.

 

[LostintheOzone]

They must just be testing the waters and getting ready to see what they can start "regulating" when times are right. Other than that I am not sure why out of left field they brought up it up.

To see if there was any support in congress to pass legislation instead of ATF regulation. The legislation from congress is coming.

 

[Racer X]

And we know how to call them on it.

 

[Justin T]

A win, even if temporary.

 

[bushmaster1313]

This type of rulemaking brings up one of my pet peeves, i.e., whether something is or is not illegal under a law passed by Congress should not depend on how a Regulatory Agency interprets that law. This issue is well-illustrated by the BATFE's flip-flop on its application of the NFA to bump stocks. As many will no doubt recall, when the BATFE first considered bump stocks it found that they were not "machine guns" under the NFA. Then, when the BATFE considered bump stocks under the NFA a second time, it found that bump stocks were machine guns. To me, these contradictory bump stock rulings show the fundamental unfairness of letting a Regulatory Agency decide whether or not something is or is not illegal.

This is not to say that a Regulatory Agency should never be allowed to promulgate regulations that involve criminal liability. For example, after Congress passed a law requiring a license to deal in firearms, it is perfectly reasonable for the BATFE to require a particular form for the license application and to make it illegal to not use that form. However, whether a particular firearm or accessory meets the definition of a machine gun should not hinge on the BATFE's interpretation of the underlying law.

 

[Sgt911]

A win, even if temporary.

I would LOL, but you are correct, bad timing for them is all, wait until next year.

 

[WCCPHD]

The anti-gun people and the government minions who do their bidding may regroup, but they will NEVER give up. They are just waiting for the next "opportunity" to pounce.

They are patient. They NEVER relent. They NEVER sleep. They NEVER compromise. They say they do, but have they ever given one inch? They see every slight movement in their direction as a win.

They are planners. They are schemers. They do nothing that is not going to benefit them and their agenda. They hate us and make no bones about it.

Always be vigilant. Never compromise with them (because WE will lose.) They see a compromise as not getting everything they want NOW, but causing US to lose something. Before the ink is dry on a "compromise" they are already working on the next power grab.

When it comes to getting what they want they have no morals, no scruples, no conscience and no regrets in doing everything they can to win. They have no compunction about lying, stealing or running directly over us.

Unfortunately we are going to have to employ their tactics just to keep what we have.

 

[Echo40]

A win, even if temporary.

The Christmas Spirit is strong in this one...

 

[CH4]

Looks like someone doesn’t agree with ATF on this issue. Possibly congress since they are the budget people and losing all that revenue for funding gender studies in Pakistan will hurt too much.

 

[S&W59]

There's a problem though insomuch as their are verifiable reports of rogue elements of the ATF lobbying the Sleepy Joe administration to ban 80% receivers and arm brace 'stocks' by presidential fiat. This flies in the face of standards and protocol as this means they went around the agency chief's back and over their head to do this. I'm not certain its canon in law, but agents of federal agencies are forbidden to lobby Congress or the administration. At the very least these elements need to be fired without recourse for rehire.

 

[Muss Muggins]

As a retired federal LEO, with Congressional field offices for our Representative and both Senators located in the building in which we worked, I can state with confidence that there is no such prohibition. We regularly discussed pending, needed, and unneeded legislation with the staff and the elected officials. Often, we would get talking points from our administration. I was often picked to deal with it in our office, because I had grown up with most of the field staff, and had their ear . . .

There's a problem though insomuch as their are verifiable reports of rogue elements of the ATF lobbying the President-Elect Biden administration to ban 80% receivers and arm brace 'stocks' by presidential fiat. This flies in the face of standards and protocol as this means they went around the agency chief's back and over their head to do this. I'm not certain its canon in law, but agents of federal agencies are forbidden to lobby Congress or the administration. At the very least these elements need to be fired without recourse for rehire.