TexasCHLforum.com

So,as I understand what is happening now, compared to what happened before, much of the storm is a tempest in a teapot situation. The ATF is reviewing its decision on pistol braces (which actually would apply to any pistol but is most commonly used on AR pistols). They are deciding whether or not a pistol brace is actually a short stock, thus making the weapon a short barrelled rifle. The ATF cannot currently give us a hard and fast rule on what will be decided to be a brace and what will be decided to be an SBR. This situation was, at least in part, brought on by users of AR pistol braces to get around the law on SBRs. The actual law says it is a pistol if it is designed to be fired with one hand. Most people use two hands to shoot an AR pistol, even with a brace, raising the question of whether it really is a pistol or not.

The good news is that there is a SCOTUS case where the ruling included saying that they would not rely on ATF opinions. This is good because, to compare it to another agency, the IRS will not even rely on their own opinions but at least ATF will (so far).

This has happened at least three times before that I know of. The ATF reversed its previous opinion on bump stocks and effectively made them illegal. People were using bump stocks to get around the ban on full auto firearms. As a result of the one crime where they are known to have been used, there was enough public uproar to pass a new "assault rifle" ban that a compromise was effectively reached that kept all of our rifles intact if you did not have a bump stock. But the bump stock ban is just and ATF opinion and the law actually defines what a machine gun is.

The time before that there was an uproar about "assault rifles" being used in crimes, especially gang drive by shootings. There was a ban on these assault rifles proposed. It was fought hard, but it was going to pass no matter what. A compromise was reached to remove some of the opposition by requiring the instant background check system, the effectiveness of the ban to be studied and reported to congress, and the ban to expire in ten years unless extended. The end result was that we now have an official congressionally accepted report that assault weapon bans do not materially affect crime rates and the ban is gone. This makes it much harder to institute new assault rifle bans at the federal level. That is a good thing.

The time before that was a drive towards major gun control. There was also a counterpush against it. The end result was the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. As gun owners, we gained the legal ability to travel with firearms in most cases. The compromise made us give up the right or ability to buy any new fully automatic firearms. This did not affect our legal ability to buy existing full-auto stuff, though it did drive up their prices.

So now we need to know what to do with the current push. I believe we have a clear cut path to remedy the current ATF opinion. First, we have time to make comments on the proposal that may force the ATF to at least make the criteria more clear for the determination. Second, we have several suggestions which can prove useful, including registering the weapons for free as SBRs, which would let you make other changes to improve the weapon. Third, we can use the courts to argue against the ATF decision. We would have to show that the braced AR pistol is commonly shot from a one handed position. We can add to the court case how many people fire all pistols using two hands. This would show that the use of a support hand on the AR pistol is not uncommon. That brings the question down to making sure that pistol owners do NOT shoulder the brace and use it as a miniature stock. If people keep shouldering the braced pistol, then the ATF opinion is correct and we will not win in court.

I do not know anything about what the NRA is or is not doing. I have no contact with the management more than any other member. But this case looks like it has been set up for us. Using the free registration option lets a lot of people get what they wanted without having to jump through the previous hoops. And having a SCOTUS case against the ATF opinions means we just nee to find the right plaintiff to file a lawsuit. There are some tricks in the case and I will be the first to admit that any court case is a crap shoot when it comes to a decision, but it seems possible to me. I think a good case could be made against the bump stock ban also. I happen to think that a case can be made against freezing the NFA registry also. Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong on this. But this is my opinion on how to fight this.

Full disclosure: I have never owned a rifle with a bump stock. I don't think the average person has any use for full auto or the simulation of it. I do love to shoot full auto because it is a blast, but I know it has very limited tactical application other than suppressive fire. I have never cared for AR pistols, with or without braces. I have tried one one time, and felt that it was kind of fun but I could not see a use for it at all. I would rather use my 1911 for any time I need a pistol (or lately, my Springfield XDM-10). But I also believe that my seeing a need for them is irrelevant. My interpretation of the Second Amendment says if you want it, you don't need to justify it to me.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:12 pmThe ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

I think you are correct about asking the congressmen about the law. And then ask them why they did not write the law properly and concisely and CLEARLY. Point out that the Constitution clearly states that Congress is SOLE legislative power in the US, and they have no authority to delegate it to anyone, especially not to an executive branch agency, as that violates the separation of powers. The whole Code of Federal Regulations is unconstitutional and should be done away with. That would force Congress to write laws that average people can understand and there is no "interpretation" of by executive agencies.

Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:29 pmDoes NFA registration reduce crimes?

There is an interesting problem with answering this question. Historically, very few weapons registered with ATF under the NFA have been used in crimes. This could be used to argue that it is not a useful tool. But we have no way of knowing what would have happened if we did not register those weapons. Prior to the passage of the law, some of the weapons were very popular with some criminals. Thus, the lack of crime involving those weapons could also be argued to show the success of the law.

I am not convinced that the law serves a useful purpose but I have to admit that I cannot prove it either way. I do not find very many incidents in crime reports of unregistered NFA firearms being used (despite the media calling everything an automatic rifle). Whether this is due to the NFA or not is debatable and there is not a lot of factual information to prove either way.