BATFE "determinations"

[steelslaver]

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.

How about a lot of time and a couple good files. Does the machine shop have to have a lathe and a mill or just a mill. How about a harbor freight mill? I believe someone could easily convert a AR to full auto with out a mill or lathe. John Browning once converted a lever action rifle into a full auto. Couple of operating rod along barrel connected to a funnel in front of muzzle on one end and lever on other. Funnel allowed bullet to pass, but muzzle blast pushed funnel forward, operating lever, springs sucked back rods closing lever and a toggle on lever tripped trigger and bang bang bang.

A 3D printer guns still got a ways to go. But the printers are fun.

A blocks of good steel, aluminum or brass, a drill, files and some stuff from the hardware store and a bunch of time and I believe I could make a open breach full auto similar to a M3 grease gun. Way easier with my mill and lathe. Why would it even need a rifled barrel to spew a bunch of rounds at short range.

Only thing that has stopped me is it would be a felony.

 

[nicky4968]

Browning converted a Winchester 1873 to full auto in his machine shop.

 

[glowe]

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.

You tell me what this looks like? No playing cards needed here.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k[/ame]

 

[Kevin J.]

How about a solenoid, micro switch, battery, and button. I believe this setup was once called a Kentucky Electric rifle.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

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.

Sometimes, even the most ardent supporters of the RKBA need to look at right and wrong. When something is wrong we should be able to acknowledge that and let the ATF take care of it.

Arguing that an external mechanical assist versus internal adjustments to distinguish firearms as fully automatic or not is just wrong. It is not rocket science to see what a bump stock does, notwithstanding the joy of attaching playing cards to the wheels of your bicycle.

So. "determinations" and other rule making, if done within the confines of the statutory authority, have the weight of law and, if properly written, crimes can be defined under regulatory authority. American citizens have the right to sue the Federal government when it, via agency or Congress, oversteps its Constitutional authority.

I wish elections fixed things but so often the new party in power doesn't fix much. A plague on both their houses! Thank you, Bard.

Two final thoughts.

With respect to the original question I think it is safe to say that sometimes executive authority can be squashed by judicial inquiry/oversight/etc. Regulations that violate aspects of the Constitution can be over turned - ipso facto , this week's District Court condemnation of the CDC's attempt to extend the mask mandate. Perfect case in point.

My other thought is more humorous - raise your hand if you found the firearms aficionado in the "JERRYRIGEVERTHING" video above EXTREMELY irritating when he calls cartridges "bullets" and magazines "clips". SO ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bushmaster1313]

From a lawyer’s perspective I maintain that a statute that can first be interpreted by an agency to mean one thing and then be interpreted by the same agency to mean the opposite is the definition of “Void for Vagueness” and a violation of Due Process.

Even if the second interpretation by the agency is a correct expression of Congressional intent under every canon of statutory construction, I would argue that the statute cannot and must not be enforced until Congress reaffirms its intent by passing new enabling legislation.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

From a lawyer’s perspective I maintain that a statute that can first be interpreted by an agency to mean one thing and then be interpreted by the same agency to mean the opposite is the definition of “Void for Vagueness” and a violation of Due Process.

Even if the second interpretation by the agency is a correct expression of Congressional intent under every canon of statutory construction, I would argue that the statute cannot and must not be enforced until Congress reaffirms it’s intent by passing new enabling legislation.

The problem is not the void for vagueness issue of a badly drafted statute but it is the follow up concept of permitting an agency to write regulations under a statute, badly written or not, and then change its mind - that is the crux of the immediate problem.

Stupidly written regulations, enforced by stupid regulators, and then OMG!!! WE GOT THAT WRONG!!!

Well, no *%$# Sherlock!

 

[bushmaster1313]

The problem is not the void for vagueness issue of a badly drafted statute but it is the follow up concept of permitting an agency to write regulations under a statute, badly written or not, and then change its mind - that is the crux of the immediate problem.

Stupidly written regulations, enforced by stupid regulators, and then OMG!!! WE GOT THAT WRONG!!!

Well, no *%$# Sherlock!

The whole concept of Congress delegating to agencies the power to make regulations with the force of law, with criminal penalties for violation, is one of the great tragedies of the American political system.

 

[JDinAZ]

From a lawyer’s perspective I maintain that a statute that can first be interpreted by an agency to mean one thing and then be interpreted by the same agency to mean the opposite is the definition of “Void for Vagueness” and a violation of Due Process.

Even if the second interpretation by the agency is a correct expression of Congressional intent under every canon of statutory construction, I would argue that the statute cannot and must not be enforced until Congress reaffirms its intent by passing new enabling legislation.

This is the way^^^^^


Void for Vaugeness is powerful to say the least, along with a few others



It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions
are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume
that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the
Person of ordinary inteii&nce a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that
he may act accordin.gly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.

Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is, to be prevented, laws must provide
explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague <*pg. 228> law impermissibly delegates
[408 Us ioj basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution .on an ad hoc
and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.
[Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408,U.S. 104 (1972)] '


whether right or wrong, the premise underlying the constitutional, methodfordetermining
guilt or innocence in federal courts is that laymen are better than specialists to perform this
task.
[Toth v.Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955)]


We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was
adopted...
[Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895)]




Then there is also the opposition which seem to want to think Chevron is a saving grace for gov to "interpret" as they see fit. Unfortunately for them, Scalia blasted that angle on pg26, and subsequent, in Crandon V US. Explaining that Gov interpretations listed within CFR are meraly advisory notices for all Gov, not Law

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep494/usrep494152/usrep494152.pdf



"The Justice Department, of course, has a very specific
responsibility to determine for itself what this statute means,
in order to decide when to prosecute; but we have never
thought that the interpretation of those charged with pros-
ecuting criminal statutes is entitled to deference."

"Thus, to give per-
suasive effect to the Government's expansive advice-giving
interpretation of § 209(a) would turn the normal construction
of criminal statutes upside-down, replacing the doctrine of
lenity with a doctrine of severity."

"The body of administrative interpretation is nonetheless
useful in the present case, for one purpose: It demonstrates
beyond question the unmanageable problems that arise when
§ 209(a) is not interpreted as it was written, limited to the
payment or supplementation of salary. The administrative
history of § 209(a) is a record of poignant attempts by the At-
torney General and the OLC to derive reasonable results
from the rigid and undiscriminating criminal statute they
have invented."

 

[Tyree1867]

I came across this months old debate about the role of the "administrative state" in lawmaking. Nineteen days ago SCOTUS had the final word in their WVA v. EPA decision.

 

[sceva]

I came across this months old debate about the role of the "administrative state" in lawmaking. Nineteen days ago SCOTUS had the final word in their WVA v. EPA decision.

If we have learned nothing else; we have learned that it's only the "Final Word" until a later Supreme Court decides to look at it again and comers up with a new Final Word. It appears to me that Settled Law is a myth.

 

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

a shoe string can achieve the same thing as a bump stock, so can a certain grip style, are they now all classified as "machine guns"? there is a legal definition for machine guns, bump stocks do not fall under it, end of story. and if you ask actual atf agents(former, not the current democrat lackeys), they'll tell you the same thing.


just because something looks like it's doing something doesn't make it that thing. 2 things can achieve similar results. a machinegun is a modification to the sear that achieves continuous fire per one use of the trigger. a show string can achieves similar looking results, but functionally, legally, by definition, and by action, it does not achieve the same thing. a machinegun will allow the weapon to be utilized effectively and predictably. a bump stock,a shoe lace, and other methods will not.


but at the end of the day, machineguns shouldn't be banned anyway. as that is a literal infringement on the right to bear arms. the founding fathers never gave the government the power to regulate what kinds of arms you could have. it says arms, as in all arms, past and present. people used to own war ships and canons back in the day, and they could own puckle guns and maxims too. there is no historical precedent for bans on fully automatic "assault weapons"