BATFE "determinations"

[Racer X]

Is there any recourse for us citizens?

The Executive Branch can't make laws, just execute them. But Biden telling the BATFE his wishes, then the BATFE redefining hardware to suit the President's wishes is just that.

 

[pharmer]

Is there any recourse for us citizens?

First week of November. Joe

 

[Frailer]

First week of November. Joe

Well…maybe. It would work if we’d all get together and vote *all* incumbents out of office.

But that ain’t going to happen.

Unfortunately the private corporations known as the Democratic and Republican Parties have managed to convince us that “the other side” is evil or stupid…or both.

The last president made bump stocks illegal by fiat. The current one is trying to do the same thing for “ghost guns.”

“D” or “R.” They. Are. The. Same.

 

[krsmith58]

Well…maybe. It would work if we’d all get together and vote *all* incumbents out of office.

But that ain’t going to happen.

Unfortunately the private corporations known as the Democratic and Republican Parties have managed to convince us that “the other side” is evil or stupid…or both.

The last president made bump stocks illegal by fiat. The current one is trying to do the same thing for “ghost guns.”

“D” or “R.” They. Are. The. Same.

well said Brother. krs

 

[shocker]

The Executive Branch can't make laws.

Correct. Congress can, however, authorize the Executive Branch to write regulations.

 

[ladder13]

Well…maybe. It would work if we’d all get together and vote *all* incumbents out of office.

But that ain’t going to happen.

Unfortunately the private corporations known as the Democratic and Republican Parties have managed to convince us that “the other side” is evil or stupid…or both.

The last president made bump stocks illegal by fiat. The current one is trying to do the same thing for “ghost guns.”

“D” or “R.” They. Are. The. Same.

I have to agree with this unfortunately.

But one is pure evil.

 

[johngalt]

Correct. Congress can, however, authorize the Executive Branch to write regulations.

Under the condition that those regulations are limited to implementing the laws as passed by Congress. They are not authorized to create law out of thin air.

 

[biku324]

There's a system for that - go to court.

 

[BB57]

22 states have signed on to a challenge of the bump stock ban.

In particular the states are stating the 6th circuit court has inappropriately applied Chevron deference allowing the ATF to determine bump stocks are machine guns.

Applying Chevron deference requires that the statue be silent on a particular issue and further that the federal agencies construction of the regulation is reasonable.

The 6th circuit court of appeals was split 8-8 on the issue, and with the prior 6th court ruling the ATF determination stood. But it’s up for review by the Supreme Court.

One of the three issues being put forward by the 22 states is the doctrine that the rule of lenity should apply in place of, or at a minimum prior to, Chevron deference in any case where a criminal penalty is involved.

If the court agrees, that will have enormous implications for several recent ATF re-determinations as well as proposed ATF rule changes.

For example the recent determination that suppressor kits are already class III weapons, which automatically makes anyone owning them a criminal violates the rule of lenity, even though the courts have not upheld the concept of ex post facto crimes. (The courts has claimed that the federal agency can do that on matters of public safety.)

They are both strong applications of the rule of lenity. In both cases people legally owning bump stocks or suppressor kits become criminals if they do not surrender or destroy those items.

Most importantly it would require federal agencies to ensure that whenever there is any ambiguity in an interpretation of statute or reg, that the law be interpreted in favor of the individual who would otherwise be in violation of the law.

That runs the entire ATF mode of operation in making interpretations right into the ditch and ensures that any interpretation must favor legal gun owners.

——

My concern however is that while we have 6 conservative judges on the court, 3 of them will have to decide if they are loyal to the Constitution, or to the person who both appointed them and directed the ATF to ban bump stocks. So the issue should be clear cut, but is still very much in doubt.

 

[Bill Lear]

Say we get a Republican controlled House and Senate come November - will they REVERSE the illegal gun rules put in place by the BATFE at Biden's insistence?

No, they won't...that IS the problem...either party leaves IN PLACE the rights stolen from the previous administration!

 

[sceva]

This is a common issue with the Bureaucracies created as Regulatory Entities. Congress creates and authorizes them to then go out and create the "Regulations" on their own which then have the power of law with consequences for breaking the law ( I mean Regulation)
This gets restrictions put in place while shielding the Legislative branch from needing to take any responsibility. Plausible deniability in Gov't speak as in "I didn't vote for that so I am not responsible and you should vote for me again and again"
It's not just the BATF, it's the EPA, OSHA and a myriad of others. The worse thing is that they can determine something is completely legal and even put out notices / letters to that effect than later reverse them selves and determine that after further review (read - pressure from higher ups to do something) Reverse themselves and declare that said item or policy is not legal and all already obtained are not contraband. Since they have full regulatory authority to write / change regulations / definitions as they see fit there is not a lot of recourse unless a higher court wants to srep in and ddecide they over stepped.

 

[stansdds]

This is a common issue with the Bureaucracies created as Regulatory Entities. Congress creates and authorizes them to then go out and create the "Regulations" on their own which then have the power of law with consequences for breaking the law ( I mean Regulation)
This gets restrictions put in place while shielding the Legislative branch from needing to take any responsibility. Plausible deniability in Gov't speak as in "I didn't vote for that so I am not responsible and you should vote for me again and again"
It's not just the BATF, it's the EPA, OSHA and a myriad of others. The worse thing is that they can determine something is completely legal and even put out notices / letters to that effect than later reverse them selves and determine that after further review (read - pressure from higher ups to do something) Reverse themselves and declare that said item or policy is not legal and all already obtained are not contraband. Since they have full regulatory authority to write / change regulations / definitions as they see fit there is not a lot of recourse unless a higher court wants to srep in and ddecide they over stepped.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Absolutely correct.

 

[drumminor2nd]

This is a common issue with the Bureaucracies created as Regulatory Entities. Congress creates and authorizes them to then go out and create the "Regulations" on their own which then have the power of law with consequences for breaking the law ( I mean Regulation)
This gets restrictions put in place while shielding the Legislative branch from needing to take any responsibility. Plausible deniability in Gov't speak as in "I didn't vote for that so I am not responsible and you should vote for me again and again"
It's not just the BATF, it's the EPA, OSHA and a myriad of others. The worse thing is that they can determine something is completely legal and even put out notices / letters to that effect than later reverse them selves and determine that after further review (read - pressure from higher ups to do something) Reverse themselves and declare that said item or policy is not legal and all already obtained are not contraband. Since they have full regulatory authority to write / change regulations / definitions as they see fit there is not a lot of recourse unless a higher court wants to srep in and ddecide they over stepped.

The point isn't to have "plausable deniability," it's that it takes far too long to put out new laws on every single stupid little thing that comes before a government agency.

Do you have any idea how much time would be wasted if Congress had to hold committee hearings on changing the "Male/Female" box on 4473s to "Male/Female/Other"? People complain about Congress arguing over stupid stuff now or not actually reading laws now, imagine if they had to read and argue over 500,000 pages of regulations on reducing the allowable amount of rat poo in your hot dogs from 4.8 parts per million to 4.79 ppm, or changing the proximity a drone is allowed to fly to videotape bald eagle fornication from 100 feet to 101 feet... Also, do you want "The shoulder thing that goes up" to be in charge of whether or not a binary trigger is a machine gun?

And the correct answer for OP's query is America's favorite pastime since we ditched dueling to settle differences -- sue them.

 

[glowe]

The fact that there are companies out there pushing the limits of common sense only provides the media and President fodder to support the anti-gun movement.

First, anything that turns a legal firearm into an automatic is just not right. Second, guns without serial numbers that are sold as kits is also wrong. There are way to many companies out there actively looking to skirt the laws and regulations for the quick dollar. Are these companies manufacturers or maybe dealers who should have FFLs to use for every sale? Buying all the parts and putting them in a box for sale certainly stretches the regulations and selling frames of any firearm without a serial number should make the sale illegal. They turn into poster children for anti-gun movement and too many gun owners support their tactics.

I cannot stand watching the news and reading about these guns being used in crimes built by criminals, especially when it ends up killing innocent people. If tightening regulations to eliminate these kit guns and 3D guns is a bad idea, how do we as conscientious gun owners support skirting the regulations for the quick buck? We know who buys these guns, so how can we turn a blind eye on the issue?

 

[steelslaver]

Wait. It should be illegal to sell a kit that only requires basic assembly I will buy. But, On the prohibiting the "80%" receivers is a slippery slope. Just where are you going to draw that line. I am sure if I really wanted to I could make a AR receiver from a block of aluminum. So, you could say that to me a block of aluminum is a kit. My cousin who is a machinist and CNC programmer with access to lots of machines could make all he wanted. In fact he has done business with a guy who is legally manufacturing AR receivers and the basic program is out there and perfectly legal for anyone to have. So are CNC machines. If anyone think someone won't pick up the slack selling bad people 80% lowers you are 100% wrong. They will just be worth more money and money draws criminals.

They have made it more difficult to get drugs containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. Anyone notice that the meth epidemic didn't go away? Now the big boys make the poison from the same raw materials big pharma does. Gives them more control and money.

If un registered AR receivers become worth even $500 a pop some enterprising guys will have a CNC machines cranking out some every day in their garage or shop, complete with precipitation harder setups. Hey its already a felony do might as well machine in the extra pocket and cross drill it for a select fire sear.
.

Since the GCA of 1968 there have been mote and more illegal guns owned by prohibited persons than ever. Waste of time. They will get a few real dummies, maybe an occasional top shelf guy once every few years and a new one will take over before the ink is dry on the first ones court records.

Besides all the full auto guns OUR OWN GOVERNMMENT, supplies all our good buddies don't stay gone. Heck look how many our own military has lost right here stateside.

 

[bulletslap]

The glaring abuse of “Law” I see is the BATMEN are attempting to use regulations to change the Legal definition of items passed into Federal Law. That is wrong and an abuse of the power of the BATF.

 

[Tyree1867]

The point isn't to have "plausable deniability," it's that it takes far too long to put out new laws on every single stupid little thing that comes before a government agency.

Do you have any idea how much time would be wasted if Congress had to hold committee hearings on changing the "Male/Female" box on 4473s to "Male/Female/Other"? People complain about Congress arguing over stupid stuff now or not actually reading laws now, imagine if they had to read and argue over 500,000 pages of regulations on reducing the allowable amount of rat poo in your hot dogs from 4.8 parts per million to 4.79 ppm, or changing the proximity a drone is allowed to fly to videotape bald eagle fornication from 100 feet to 101 feet... Also, do you want "The shoulder thing that goes up" to be in charge of whether or not a binary trigger is a machine gun?

And the correct answer for OP's query is America's favorite pastime since we ditched dueling to settle differences -- sue them.

Sorry I have to disagree with you brother, but the job of Congress is to make the laws, regardless of how long & messy that is. Leaving the gory details to the executive agencies, which are under the Prez's control, is an absolute abdication of their responsibilities. They do it to pass the buck!

 

[steelslaver]

Sorry I have to disagree with you brother, but the job of Congress is to make the laws, regardless of how long & messy that is. Leaving the gory details to the executive agencies, which are under the Prez's control, is an absolute abdication of their responsibilities. They do it to pass the buck!

"
Yet everyone wants the laws "simple"

Then there is the fact that what you want done can't be. How long would it take to describe what parts and how much of every known and yet unknown receiver can be sold. Just define receiver, hardly the same on all guns. Half of congress doesn't know a brass case from an actual bullet .Then someone comes up with a completely new idea. I guess would be 100% legal till congress gets around to passing a specific law. I mean look at bump stocks, They were considered legal because they found a loophole that no one in the BARF had thought of let alone congress. How many people in congress fully understand all things atomic? Explain how you expect them to write an all defining law on who can have and use any type of radioactive material. My paint old watch dials for example and the, kid who used it to make a breeder reactor. How could they have made a law about that if laws are supposed to include everything. LMAO. Define pornography for example. That discussion has been going on since 1776 and still isn't settled and its definition varies from one person to the next.


Plus any law no matter how well written or how man details it encompasses it will be interpreted , it not by an agency it certainly will be by lawyers and courts.

Example. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Ok, simple concise. How many here think that a just anybody should be able to by a full auto and take it to school???? A private school. Teachers included, which guns? What about LEOs can they do that? How about if it is a home school? Just my kids, what about cousins? Step children?

Write away. A lawyer will be around shortly to ask 10,000 questions you forgot or about how law 36b interacts with statue 54c.

 

[16thVACav]

Saying a bump stock is a machine gun is like saying attaching a baseball card to the wheel of my bicycle makes it a motorcycle.

 

[nicky4968]

I can’t remember the name of the case. Years ago the Supreme Court ruled that a firearm was not easily convertible to a machine gun if it required the use of a machine shop.
As far as I know no one has made a gun with a 3-D printer that isn’t destroyed with the first shot. But we are hammered constantly with proposed laws and regulations regarding printed firearms. This is the problem: Our public servants, elected or appointed, spend their time on fantasy matters, rather than doing the work we hired them to do.