Wow! And I guess your Signature “Wisdom comes thru fear” pretty much says it all huh? That you be the all knowing dispenser of wisdom thru fear
Don’t be too hard on him.
Muss and I have a long history of philosophical disagreements. He was probably good at what he did in terms of following directives he was given. My career was mostly spent determining what directives should be given and pointing out the pitfalls and unintended consequences when short term goals or objectives are used to drive long term policy.
——
I am not a narrow read of the law person by any means as I’ve seen over the last 30 years how that ends badly when very narrow read of the law or guidance in a particular case is then generalized.
The ongoing rule making process for braced handguns is a great example.
They were clearly illegal and from a common sense perspective were a “stock” intended to circumvent the SBR provisions of the NFA of 1934 - until a company made the case that they were a disability accommodation for veterans who wanted to shoot heavy AR-15 pistols. The ATF should have just said “nice try but the answer is no.” The ATF also could have put some amended rules regarding disability accommodation and documenting disability, etc for lawful users of said braces. But they did not, because the federal rule making process is very time consuming, and there was no real legal authority to amend the regulations to accommodate disabilities.
Instead they made a narrow read of the law and determined a brace that looked like a stick and could be used like a stock despite its purported (and let’s be honest really improbable) design intent was in fact not a stock but a brace.
That opened the flood gates as ATF approved more of them on the same flawed logic.
At some point it occurred to them that these were items that were being very commonly used by non disabled people and that they were being used to circumvent the SBR registration requirement in the NFA. Rather than reverse their original option they added language that stated if you use a brace on a handgun as a stock, it changes the status from handgun to SBR. Worse, they used language about rifles being designed to be fired with two Handys that when read very narrowly meant my 1911 was no longer a “handgun”.
They figured that out pretty quickly and backed off from “mere use” as a criteria for defining classification of firearms. They also figured out it was virtually unenforceable:
Defense attorney: Agent do you agree that the law says that a braced handgun becomes an SBR when the brace is placed against the shoulder like a stock?
Agent: yes, that is how the law reads.
Defense attorney: How far away from you from the defendant when you observed him place the brace against his shoulder wand at what angle were you to the defendant.
Agent: I was about 50 yards away and at to his left rear.
Defense attorney: So.. you could not directly observe whether the stock was against his right shoulder or, as was the case, that it was still 1/4” in front of his shoulder.
Agent: (long pause) No I could not.
Consequently the ATF then said you can have braced handguns and shoot them off your shoulder, forget we ever mentioned it.
Fast forward a couple more years and the ATF has proposed a new rule change that will reclassify the vast majority of previously approved braced handguns as SBRs and require owners of said firearms to complete a form 1 application and pay a $200 tax stamp fee.
The basis for this is once again a narrow read of the law citing the use of braced pistols in 2 out of more than 2600 mass shootings since 2013 when braced handguns were first approved. That’s 2/2600 mass shootings and by its own estimate 2/3,000,000 braced handguns in existence.
That’s a problem as the scope of the NFA of 1934 is firearms that are likely to be used in crimes by gangs. Long guns of any kind are used in less than 1.5% of all crimes and they even take a distant second place in mass shootings to traditional unbraced handguns. Braced handguns are virtually never used in crimes as while they are still technically handguns, they are heavy and hard to conceal.
But like the “interstate nexus” Muss speaks about, if you get enough lawyers together taking a narrow enough read of the law, you can twist it around to do almost anything. Unless of course enough law abiding citizens step up and say “enough”.
The public comment period just closed on the proposed braced handgun rules and the ATF received over 180,000 comments. I suspect the vast majority of them are opposed to part or all of the proposed rule.
We’ll see what happens. By law they have to respond to all comments, although they can and will group them together. Unfortunately there is no requirement to change the proposed rule based on any comments, no matter how valid they may be. The ATF. Am simply say “we disagree” and refuse to make any substantive change.
Personally, I have no issue with having them classified as SBRs - going forward. Existing examples should remain as braced handguns. The ATF has rejected that alternative due to concerns for tracing these unserialized braces and deter owning what is pre or post reclassification. However it isn’t that hard. Current owners could just submit the proposed worksheet, with the criteria and include the serial number of the handgun the brace is on. It’s then only legal on that handgun, and only in that configuration. Any change in configuration would require a new worksheet be completed as a post classification requirement firearm.
The ATF also rejected the idea of waiving the $200 tax stamp out of fear that shooters would register all their current firearms as potential braced handguns and add braces later. The above mentioned method addresses that as well. I also don’t think the number of braced handguns would increase appreciably because of it.
If it does come to pass it will criminalize a large number of otherwise law abiding Americans who statistically have less than a one tenth of one percent chance they’ll ever use a braced handgun on a crime. For those that comply it will cost them literally hundreds of millions of dollars to comply.
For those that opt to convert them back to braced handguns, it won’t make most of them any less lethal. For example the British train their MP5 equipped officers to shoot them using a sling. They push the MP5 forward against the single point sling to stabilize the weapon. It actually works better than a stock if the office is wearing body armor and/or a gas mask, and it’s much easier and more compact to use in close quarters.
But we are not talking common sense here, or even public safety - instead we are talking about a pattern of using a narrow read of the law to achieve an agenda.