I didn't miss it, I just don't think trying to overturn a 90 year old law is going to be successful. Doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, it is the law and has been for nearly a century.
The ATF repeatedly said... so? When they repeated said that bumpstocks were machineguns were they right (no they weren't)? You all want to have it both ways - happy to go along with whatever they say as long as they agree with you.
Yes, the ATF is indirectly responsible for many, many, many people buying braced pistols, and now they are trying to make it right by giving you options with how to deal with your illegal SBR's. Every single person I know that bought one of these did so simply because it was an SBR without the paperwork... well guess what - here comes the paperwork. I think a lot of us knew this day was coming.
Read all of the comments and responses in the rule - you'll see exactly how the justice department is going to pick your defense apart if you refuse to comply.
The issue here isn’t whether pistol braces are SBRs or not. The issue is ATF overstepping and legislating on behalf of Congress in violation of the Constitution.
It is an issue that should concern everyone. The ATF used its authority (under Chevron Deference and long settled court rulings and established legal precedent) during the Obama Administration over a decade ago to say that bump stocks, braced pistols and forced reset triggers were legal and did not fall under the NFA.
Then in the past administration the ATF as an executive branch agency reversed their bump stock position when the president told them to do so, and in the current administration reversed its position on FRT and pistol braces for similar politically motivated reasons.
In doing so the ATF has both violated federal administrative law by once again using Chevron Deference to reverse its own original re-interpretation. However, given the clear criminal penalties for non compliance, it did so illegally by violating the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity must be applied prior to and in place of Chevron deference when criminal penalties result from a reinterpretation.
——
In other words, we have an executive branch agency violating administrative law and the constitution by infringing on the right of congress to make laws.
In the intervening 10 years between the ATF determination that bump stocks and pistol braces were legal, and their flip flop on that opinion, Congress had the ability to effectively disagree. At any time Congress could have redefined the definitions in the NFA of 1934 by passing legislation that changed or clarified those definitions and them illegal and or classified them as NFA items.
Congress still has the right to do so if it so chooses, and we all know that isn’t likely to happen any time soon.
However in its pistol brace ruling the ATF has substantially and significantly expanded and modified the relevant definitions in a manner that is not supported by the statutory language. ATF could do that if and only if:
- the original statutory language was silent on the issue (which is questionable when they are revising a fundamental definition);
- the revision is a “reasonable construction” of the statute (which is again questionable in this case; and
- the revision does not place persons at risk of facing criminal (as opposed to civil) penalties.
——
If we say it’s ok for ATF do exceed it’s powers in this manner, we are also saying it’s ok for every other executive branch agency to do the same.
If we do that we might as well wad the Constitution up and throw it away.
