TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:37 pm I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. It quickly went from a factual post to ranting, faulty analogies, insinuations of apathy and insults to a whole class of gun owners. If you can't stick to facts and leave the emotion out of the discussion, then just ignore this thread.

Apathy and/or Inaction:
As I've said twice, I won't say what the NRA is or is not doing on this issue. However, as I posted earlier, any efforts on this issue must proceed with the knowledge of the SCOTUS case that held the BATFE's opinions are not relevant to whether a person has violated the NFA. It will focus on whether the weapon at issue is a SBR or a pistol. Yes, I'd like to see the BATFE reverse it's position and "approve" all pistol braces. This would make it less likely that most LEO agencies would arrest someone for having a braced pistol. It would make it less likely that most DAs would accept charges. However, there are jurisdictions where agencies would make the arrest and the DAs would be happy to prosecute. Then, the honest citizen who relied upon the BATFE decision would very possibly find himself/herself in the same position the straw-man defendant (Uncle) did when he also relied upon the BATFE's website disclosures.

So what are the only safe and reliable fixs to this problem? Removing SBRs and SBSs from the NFA, along with suppressors, is one way. Even the rank and file BATFE agents want this done. However, with an anti-gun Democrat majority in the House and a rabid anti-gun President/Vice-President about to be inaugurated next month, that isn't going to happen. This leads us to the second fix. This will require a favorable decision from the SCOTUS. First, we need a broad decision on semi-auto rifles (a/k/a "black rifles" or "assault rifles.") Then we need a favorable decision on the NFA. That decision probably would not include machine guns and destructive devices, but SBRs, SBSs, suppressors and possibly AOWs might be stricken from the list. At this point, this is just a theory, but it's the type of fix that would truly protect citizens. I don't want a symbolic victory, much less one that gives honest people a false sense of security.

Bump-stocks - A terrible analogy or comparison:
Trying to compare the bump-stock issue to pistol braces is a classic apples to oranges comparison. I've discussed this before so I'll be brief. The United States has never had any mass shooting that comes close to the Law Vegas incident. Fifty-eight people died from gunfire; 411 people were wounded by gunfire while 456 where injured fleeing the scene. Thus, total casualties were 925!!!! This generated a tsunami of anti-gun pressure on elected officials. I cannot and will not go into detail, but pro-gun members of Congress begged for a way to stop an all-out semi-auto rifle ban. People who argue that bump-stocks were "thrown under the buss" are intentionally or unintentionally arguing that it would have been better to have semi-auto rifles banned than to dump the issue back on the BATFE. Of course, they won't admit it, but those are the facts. We came closer to losing "assault rifles" than most people know and some people will never believe. You can believe this or not, but it's a fact. I know what I'm talking about; as Elmer Keith's book was titled, "Hell, I was There!"

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:33 pm

extremist wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:46 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:53 pm
Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.

I agree that suppressors, SBRs and SBSs should be removed from the NFA. In my view, that's a much better argument than trying to convince people outside of the gun culture that a weapon that looks just like a SBR is actually a pistol.

Here is an important fact that I suspect most folks do not know. I am aware of it only because the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund helped to fund the defense. There was a SCOTUS case where a former police officer was asked by his Uncle to purchase a Glock at his discount with money supplied by the Uncle. The Uncle was not a prohibited person and he could legally own and possess a handgun in his home state. The former officer bought the gun with his Uncle's money and it was delivered to the Uncle. I'm not sure, but I think the handgun was transferred to the Uncle through an FFL in the Uncle's state of residence, but I may be mistaken.

The former officer was convicted of making a straw-man sale and sentenced to federal prison. Part of his defense/appeal was that the BATFE website expressly stated that such a transaction would be illegal only if the ultimate possessor of the firearm was a prohibited person. The SCOTUS rejected this argument noting that the BATFE's opinion didn't matter. The law is clear that purchasing a firearm for someone else was a straw-man sale. So arguing with and about the BATFE "opinion" concerning pistol v. SBR is more than a little dangerous.

Chas.