Florida Shooters Network

There's a very short comment period on this. It ends 1/4.

wjbarricklow wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:54 pm There's a very short comment period on this. It ends 1/4.

Does the G.C.A not REQUIRE a 90 day comment period? I don't understand how they are able to get away with making their own rules? Much like other things going on currently, rules are being changed on the fly to steer the outcome to a desired effect. The Constitution without the rule of law makes for a Nation founded on quicksand.

I don’t know if 90 days is required.

I just know what they gave us.

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=A ... Yu_ZpFYuDU


https://youtu.be/BYISBtPpYTg

And the ATF blinked. GARY.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/break ... ification/

MiamiOffshore wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:24 pm I don't understand how they are able to get away with making their own rules?

Admittedly, I haven't read most of the thread.

That is the heart of the problem though- the ATF is granted the authority to be the expert and definition makers as well as rule enforcement. When considering budgets, more work is always better than less. Let's think about a redefinition of a machine gun to be a firearm that is capable of rate of fire greater that 10 per minute, who is to say otherwise? That grants them the ability to define or redefine anything they want out of existence, and redefinition of anything into contraband to bolster effectiveness statistics.

It's over (for now). ATF withdraws notice after letter from Congress asking them to "knock it off":

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... f_amp=true

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/gener ... 2-23-20pdf

What fantastic news! NOW it feels like Christmas!!!

It’s one thing to say AR pistols naturally have the recoil tube behind the receiver, so even without a brace one could shoulder the back of the recoil tube as it’s always there, & the brace doesn’t change anything for an AR pistol. But what about AK pistols, or other guns that have an internal recoil assembly? They don’t have a recoil tube that must be there. Adding a brace to them means adding a recoil tube which isn’t needed for the gun to function. What I read kept referring to AR pistols, but what about other guns which don’t need recoil tubes, & have folding braces which were only designed to skirt SBR registration? We’re not out of the woods yet. Merry Christmas to everyone. GARY.

I don't see the withdrawal letter as a win.

The letter says it's not a new rule, just an interpretation from an existing rule. So screw the public, they don't need our comment.

Still under review with the DOJ? I think ATF and DOJ are just waiting for Biden to come in and give the marching orders to ban a bunch of pistol braces.

Whole thing is ridiculous if you ask me- arguing over whether kind of pistol brace should be considered a stock. If I wanted a commit a crime with a short barreled rifle, I could just put a pistol upper on a rifle lower, and put it back before the ATF sees me. Ridiculous.

wjbarricklow wrote: ↑Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:27 pm I don't see the withdrawal letter as a win.

The letter says it's not a new rule, just an interpretation from an existing rule. So screw the public, they don't need our comment.

Still under review with the DOJ? I think ATF and DOJ are just waiting for Biden to come in and give the marching orders to ban a bunch of pistol braces.

Whole thing is ridiculous if you ask me- arguing over whether kind of pistol brace should be considered a stock. If I wanted a commit a crime with a short barreled rifle, I could just put a pistol upper on a rifle lower, and put it back before the ATF sees me. Ridiculous.

I think it is just a waiting game. Plenty of new potential for new rules and interpretation w the next administration.