Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court established a legal test to determine whether to defer to a government agencyās interpretation of a law created by Congress in which the agency āfills in the blanksā (administers) without limitations.
the ATF can't wave a tax but they can make law ...... š§š§š§
From the linked article, ATF can't waive it, isn't collecting it, but it's still owed. Enter 87,000 IRS agents and ready-made list of who didn't pay it. Hmmmm....
IF we assume, and thatās one big honkinā IF, that thereās any logical reason to restrict pistols with shoulder stocks or SBRs in the first place, then the position the ATF is taking on them makes sense in that context. The claims by users and the industry that the braces exist to enable the disabled, and my particular favorite, disabled veterans, to shoot handguns, is silly on its face, as anyone whoās spent any time on YouTube can attest. Iāve watched dozens, maybe hundreds of videos where people are shooting pistols with braces, and Iāve yet to see anyone that looks disabled in any of them, and few if any where they shoot them any way except from the shoulder. Same goes for what Iāve seen at the range. In ācommon useā, theyāre SBRs (with short stocks), despite the claims to the contrary.
Equally silly however, is that weāre still saddled with a nearly 90 year-old law written during the gangland era to address stuff being used by criminals like Clyde Barrow (chopped BAR), and guns that are long out of production and now almost priceless relics like Lugers and Broomhandle Mausers, plus sawed-off shotguns. That law deprives us of the use of some very utilitarian firearms, while as usual not affecting criminals one whit. Somehow too, weāre now permitted what looks suspiciously like sawed-off shotguns, as long as we call them āpistolsā, kinda-sorta. Wonder how long before they take a swing at those.
The real problem is that the Congress has abandoned its responsibility to write clear, sensible legislation and also to defend its proper position as a co-equal branch of the government. I have a sneaking suspicion that the ATF may win this round unless the courts find that they allowed the braces to come into ācommon useā with their earlier back-door lawmaking. That would cause some heads to explode in D.C.
IF we assume, and thatās one big honkinā IF, that thereās any logical reason to restrict pistols with shoulder stocks or SBRs in the first place, then the position the ATF is taking on them makes sense in that context. The claims by users and the industry that the braces exist to enable the disabled, and my particular favorite, disabled veterans, to shoot handguns, is silly on its face, as anyone whoās spent any time on YouTube can attest. Iāve watched dozens, maybe hundreds of videos where people are shooting pistols with braces, and Iāve yet to see anyone that looks disabled in any of them, and few if any where they shoot them any way except from the shoulder. Same goes for what Iāve seen at the range. In ācommon useā, theyāre SBRs (with short stocks), despite the claims to the contrary.
Equally silly however, is that weāre still saddled with a nearly 90 year-old law written during the gangland era to address stuff being used by criminals like Clyde Barrow (chopped BAR), and guns that are long out of production and now almost priceless relics like Lugers and Broomhandle Mausers, plus sawed-off shotguns. That law deprives us of the use of some very utilitarian firearms, while as usual not affecting criminals one whit. Somehow too, weāre now permitted what looks suspiciously like sawed-off shotguns, as long as we call them āpistolsā, kinda-sorta. Wonder how long before they take a swing at those.
The real problem is that the Congress has abandoned its responsibility to write clear, sensible legislation and also to defend its proper position as a co-equal branch of the government. I have a sneaking suspicion that the ATF may win this round unless the courts find that they allowed the braces to come into ācommon useā with their earlier back-door lawmaking. That would cause some heads to explode in D.C.
The most important thing you said is "in common use". In Caetano, SCOTUS ruled the 200,000 stun guns in circulation constituted "common use". Estimates range between 10 and 40 million braces in use, that's "common use". Additionally, the ATF is now equating braced pistols with SBR's, which is a tacit admission SBR's are "in common use". Per Bruin, once something's "in common use" it can't be "dangerous AND unusual". That which is in common use can't at the same time be "unusual". Therefore SBR's are protected arms and it now becomes the burden of the state to prove there were equivalent laws in 1791 that would justify the regulation of SBR's.
Spoiler alert: 1934 is not 1791.
I think the AFT may have stepped in it Bigly. I suspect there are judges in the Northern district of Texas and the 5th Circuit that would agree with me.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 01/14/23.
Nobody spends somebody elseļæ½s money as carefully as he spends his own. The U.S Government has a unique capacity for getting things upside down. Milton Friedman.
Go quiet or full tilt, just don't get caught in the middle of the stupids. DD
the ATF can't wave a tax but they can make law ...... š§š§š§
ATF makes the gun laws.
False: Congress makes federal gun laws; ATF enforces them.
Tell that to the ATF.
Nobody spends somebody elseļæ½s money as carefully as he spends his own. The U.S Government has a unique capacity for getting things upside down. Milton Friedman.
Go quiet or full tilt, just don't get caught in the middle of the stupids. DD
the ATF can't wave a tax but they can make law ...... š§š§š§
From the linked article, ATF can't waive it, isn't collecting it, but it's still owed. Enter 87,000 IRS agents and ready-made list of who didn't pay it. Hmmmm....
yes following tax law , but breaking law by making laws .
Regrettably, when someone in the Executive Branch steps in it, bigly or just a little bit, thereās generally no consequence to speak of, by design. They just nod their pointy heads and start working on the next overreach.
You can say one thing for them; they aināt quitters!ššššššššššš
I'm torn on what I want to do. I'm in the middle of building a AR pistol. Have both the brace and standard spring tube. If I'm gonna go sbr, then it's getting a standard stock. Otherside of me says the govt doesn't need to know what I have and to keep it a pistol.
I'm torn on what I want to do. I'm in the middle of building a AR pistol. Have both the brace and standard spring tube. If I'm gonna go sbr, then it's getting a standard stock. Otherside of me says the govt doesn't need to know what I have and to keep it a pistol.
Lawsuits will start flying this week. I'd be patent, see how things shake out.
Nobody spends somebody elseļæ½s money as carefully as he spends his own. The U.S Government has a unique capacity for getting things upside down. Milton Friedman.
Go quiet or full tilt, just don't get caught in the middle of the stupids. DD
I'm torn on what I want to do. I'm in the middle of building a AR pistol. Have both the brace and standard spring tube. If I'm gonna go sbr, then it's getting a standard stock. Otherside of me says the govt doesn't need to know what I have and to keep it a pistol.
As far as I can tell, the only thing you need to think about now is making sure receiver(s) is(are) in your Gun Trust, if you have one, before this publishes. Further, if you intend to use the special braced pistol to SBA Form 1, you'll want to make sure the pistol was either registered with the MSP or that you're exempt. This could be due to Opinion 7403 or otherwise.
There are hassles with an SBR that you avoid with a pistol. One of them, the engraving requirement, is being waived. How this makes any sense, who knows.
Originally Posted by 16penny
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
I plan to sit back and wait. My question is how do they know if you have one or not? The brace does not have a serial number so how do they know who has one and who does not? Granted you take it to a public range and ATF is there, they will know, or someone turns you in, but other than that....
I may not be smart but I can lift heavy objects
I have a shotgun so I have no need for a 30-06.....
Short version is the ATF processed their own background checks. If a check stays open for 88 days it's an automatic denial, and per the ATF Deputy Director, will results in "Enforcement action" for posession of an unregistered SBR, up to 10 years in camp fed.
Nobody spends somebody elseļæ½s money as carefully as he spends his own. The U.S Government has a unique capacity for getting things upside down. Milton Friedman.
Go quiet or full tilt, just don't get caught in the middle of the stupids. DD
I'm going to wait and see as well. I have a .300 BLK pistol with a fixed position brace that takes tools to remove or adjust. I will convert to a rifle, before I SBR it. I don't want to have to ask the govt permission yearly to be able to take it to the OK deer lease.
