Enough said
- Thread starter Domar1291
- Start date
Bassbob
Emissary
This should be a sticky.
The Night Rider
Professional
It's nice but it's not real.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
This is what George actually said.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
FIRST ANNUAL ADDRESS, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, JANUARY 8, 1790
This is what George actually said.
X
XD94045
Guest
That part
dadoser
Elite
The reality - based on our system of government, set up by the founding Fathers -
It doesn't matter what I think the 2A means. It doesn't really matter what George Washington thinks it means. The only thing that matters is what the Courts and ultimately what the SCOTUS interprets it to mean. Eventually it all comes down to 5 of nine individuals in what the 2A means at any given time.
I can scream all day long how the NFA of 1934 (or insert any gun regulation here) is un-Constitutional, but until it is overturned by those Courts, it is Constitutional under our system of 3 branch/Checks & Balances government. That same system that the Founders created.
Any gun legislation that has not been overturned by the courts, is essentially Constitutional.
Even - strict constructionist judge Scalia in DC vs. Heller stated the 2A had limits.
With the current SCOTUS, we seem to be getting a more favorable interpretation of the 2A. For me, we'll see how far they go with the Brace Rule challenges. Personally, I think to overturn the ATF Brace Rule, they will have to nulify part of the NFA (1934). That is 89 yr old legislation. I'd be surprised if they go that far, but we'll see......they did overturn a 50 yr precedent with Roe. ( I don't think a majority of the SCOTUS is as pro gun as they are pro-life.)
The other "fix" would be Congress actually working on legislation that makes sense and repealing those that don't. But they are too dysfuntional, or too lazy to do that. Its easier to grandstand than legislate. Legislation is hard.
The Courts interpret what the 2A means at any given time/case - all we have is our individual votes.
Agree with it or not - that is the past and present state of U.S. Democracy.
It doesn't matter what I think the 2A means. It doesn't really matter what George Washington thinks it means. The only thing that matters is what the Courts and ultimately what the SCOTUS interprets it to mean. Eventually it all comes down to 5 of nine individuals in what the 2A means at any given time.
I can scream all day long how the NFA of 1934 (or insert any gun regulation here) is un-Constitutional, but until it is overturned by those Courts, it is Constitutional under our system of 3 branch/Checks & Balances government. That same system that the Founders created.
Any gun legislation that has not been overturned by the courts, is essentially Constitutional.
Even - strict constructionist judge Scalia in DC vs. Heller stated the 2A had limits.
With the current SCOTUS, we seem to be getting a more favorable interpretation of the 2A. For me, we'll see how far they go with the Brace Rule challenges. Personally, I think to overturn the ATF Brace Rule, they will have to nulify part of the NFA (1934). That is 89 yr old legislation. I'd be surprised if they go that far, but we'll see......they did overturn a 50 yr precedent with Roe. ( I don't think a majority of the SCOTUS is as pro gun as they are pro-life.)
The other "fix" would be Congress actually working on legislation that makes sense and repealing those that don't. But they are too dysfuntional, or too lazy to do that. Its easier to grandstand than legislate. Legislation is hard.
The Courts interpret what the 2A means at any given time/case - all we have is our individual votes.
Agree with it or not - that is the past and present state of U.S. Democracy.
Last edited:
dadoser
Elite
First - let me clearly state - I hope I'm wrong. and, just because I think this - does not mean I want this to be the outcome. (I know if one does not parrot the thoughts of the 2A youtube legal "experts" - one can get hammered on online gun forums. Getting accused of "defending the ATF" and being a "boot-licker", etc. Actually I think this forum in one of the best for not doing that.)
Based on PASSED congressional legislation/definitions, I think it is way easier for an ATF attorney to argue that a braced pistol is an SBR vs a group of attorneys arguing the minutia/technicalities that a braced pistol does not meet original 1934 NFA definitions. I think its easier for ATF to make the argument - "yeah we screwed up for the last 10 years, but our current rule/interpretation is more correct to original congressional definitions for an SBR (1934)......and we waived the $200 as a correction."
In the big picture, I don't think the ATF screwing over folks in non-SBR states/counties and all legal buyers over the past 10 yrs is enough to oveturn it. That 16" barrel limit part of the NFA 1934 will have to be overturned - in my opinion.
I think the ATF Braced pistol argument is based on configuration. They are not making a part illegal. In the new rule Braced pistol configuration is consistent with congressional definitions and the NFA 1934.
I think for the Brace rule to be overturned, parts of the NFA Act of 1934 would have to be overturned. I'm not convinced the courts or SCOTUS is willing to go that far. I hope they will, but I'm skeptical.
This thinking is why I complied and registered 6 braced pistols. Just like I complied when I bought them and didn't add a stock.....or when I fill out a form 4473....or when I bought and completed form 4's for suppressors....or when I check a firearm thru TSA....etc....etc. After the Patriot Act - none of us have any privacy anyway. The Government can find out what i have if they really want to.
If the rule is overturned, there will have to be a process to void Braced pistol approved form 1s (there is no stamp for those). If that happens, I will probably void 2-5 of those registered and just celebrate any free stamps I got.
Pitdogg2
Professional
The ATF agreed with the brace in the beginning. The problem was the firearms makers were advertising it to be used as a shoulder fired firearm. That marketing flew in the face of what the ATF agreed to in the beginning. Had the kept showing them as a "braced" firearm in all the advertising I do not believe the ATF would have made the decision they ultimately did.
It's one thing to "know" people are using them as shoulder fired weapons it's a whole other ball game when most all of the manufacturers actually put pictures in print of this as a shoulder fired "pistol"
It's one thing to "know" people are using them as shoulder fired weapons it's a whole other ball game when most all of the manufacturers actually put pictures in print of this as a shoulder fired "pistol"
The Night Rider
Professional
I don't own a "braced pistol" .
I participate, even if it's just to read, in most of the major gun forums.
This is one of the few on which I can't point to a whole bunch of posts implying or outright stating that that pistol brace is a workaround for an SBR.
I've read a whole bunch of posts talking about how useful that pistol brace "wink wink" is.
I'm not stupid. I don't like the ATF but I don't think they are either.
We kind of did this to ourselves
I participate, even if it's just to read, in most of the major gun forums.
This is one of the few on which I can't point to a whole bunch of posts implying or outright stating that that pistol brace is a workaround for an SBR.
I've read a whole bunch of posts talking about how useful that pistol brace "wink wink" is.
I'm not stupid. I don't like the ATF but I don't think they are either.
We kind of did this to ourselves
Bassbob
Emissary
I disagree. The ATF stated multiple times for over a decade that braces were fine. Then at the behest of Joe Biden they magically change the definition ? The fact is that to make something that is legal, illegal, you need legislation. Unelected bureaucrats do not have the authority to do that. And at least 3 federal courts so far agree with me. I suspect the SCOTUS will as well.
dadoser
Elite
I hope you are right. The 1st court ruling (from the same judge that was favorable to the 2A community) in Mock v Garland - went for the ATF 5 (or 6?) to 0. that's why it is even in the appeals courts for an injunction -
I see the injunctions as just a pause - not necessarily an indicator of the rule getting overturned. Those are not rulings.
I think Pitdogg2 and The Night Rider nailed it above. The 2A community and the marketing by manufacturers kinda pushed the ATF to do something. All the mass shootings do not help our cause either politically - for any 2A freedoms or expansion of 2A rights. (logical,valid arguments and stats don't make must difference here unfortunately.)
Just a point of clarification - Trump opened the door for the DOJ/ATF to be more agrressive and "interpretive" on this stuff with his directions on Bump Stocks. It ain't all on biden.
Stating he can get rid of Bump stocks - "no Bill." (at the end)
Last edited: