ATF Looking To Restrict Or Ban Pistol Braces

[bae125]

Quite the opposite Stu, from the letter to the ATF:

"We strongly urge ATF to cease taking any actions and reconsider or rescind any secret determinations
which call into question the legality of firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. Thank
you for your attention to this matter. "

This reeks of a congressman grandstanding with the intention of taking a political "victory lap" when the ATF responds with they are doing nothing of the sort. Crazy to think a member of congress would do that.

This isn't how the BATFE, or any regulatory agency, works. They don't make up laws, I know that may sound crazy to some of you but they don't. Remember when the whole bump stock thing was going on? The ATF said they had no legal mechanism for banning them, which they didn't, so the president shoved one down their throat. Without some type of legislation that creates or changes the current regs the agency can't "decide" that a rule exists without legal basis.

[Draken]

This reeks of a congressman grandstanding with the intention of taking a political "victory lap" when the ATF responds with they are doing nothing of the sort. Crazy to think a member of congress would do that.

This isn't how the BATFE, or any regulatory agency, works. They don't make up laws, I know that may sound crazy to some of you but they don't. Remember when the whole bump stock thing was going on? The ATF said they had no legal mechanism for banning them, which they didn't, so the president shoved one down their throat. Without some type of legislation that creates or changes the current regs the agency can't "decide" that a rule exists without legal basis.

NO, but they can "reclassify" as they have done in the past.
First their opinion was braces were good.
Then they said no, they are bad.
Then they said wait, we were wrong and they are good again.

They are still salty they lost in OH court, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were trying to make felons out of A LOT of gun owners. The more they can turn into felons over night, the more they can take firearms away from.

[bae125]

NO, but they can "reclassify" as they have done in the past.
First their opinion was braces were good.
Then they said no, they are bad.
Then they said wait, we were wrong and they are good again.

They are still salty they lost in OH court, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were trying to make felons out of A LOT of gun owners. The more they can turn into felons over night, the more they can take firearms away from.

When they are pressured, usually by a political appointee, they can try to do things like reclassify, but, as you pointed out, there is always a legal challenge and without a sound platform those attempts fail.

This is why regulators absolutely hate attempting to do things outside their legal framework, because it ends with an embarrassing and predictable loss with the possibility of further restrictions. That's why I mentioned the bumpstock thing, the agency knew any challenge would be successful.

Keep in mind, the people that actually run the agencies, not the political appointees and their lackeys, are going to be there to see administrations come and go. They have no desire to overreach in such a public way. Things like that ruin careers. The former lobbyists and political friends that end up in the appointed leadership positions will frequently attempt to use their respective agencies as political tools, and this is regardless of party, they all do it.

[Scoop]

Keep in mind, the people that actually run the agencies, not the political appointees and their lackeys, are going to be there to see administrations come and go. They have no desire to overreach in such a public way.

I'm pretty sure that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were not political appointees.

They had "no desire to overreach in such a public way"?

[bae125]

I'm pretty sure that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were not political appointees.

They had "no desire to overreach in such a public way"?

Well, playing with politics is always at your own risk. I have no idea what their motivations were, I had to look them up, but what they were doing wasn't really regulatory like the ATF and bump stocks. Sound like they both ruined their careers though.

[JDeko]

Just a guess here, but I believe this is Rep. Gaetz putting the ball on the tee for President Trump to stop the ATF to gain favor among Second Amendment people. I may be very wrong, but this would be an exceptionally easy way for Trump to halt the ATF from doing something and recover from the bump stock debacle. There's no "crisis" driving this, so no lost political capital for Trump to say No to this changed regulation -- and the anti-2A folks don't even know what a pistol brace is. My 2c.

I hope you're right, but people were saying the exact same thing with the bump stock bans, the whole "3D chess meme". Back then I bought into it because I was in a very psychologically vulnerable state and I NEEDED to believe it. But at this point I don't think Trump is playing 3D chess or even checkers, he's this dog playing Connect 4.

[Scoop]

Well, playing with politics is always at your own risk. I have no idea what their motivations were, I had to look them up, but what they were doing wasn't really regulatory like the ATF and bump stocks. Sound like they both ruined their careers though.

My only point was: Look up the word "overreach" related to government agencies, you'll find their pictures.

[Scoop]

I hope you're right, but people were saying the exact same thing with the bump stock bans, the whole "3D chess meme". Back then I bought into it because I was in a very psychologically vulnerable state and I NEEDED to believe it. But at this point I don't think Trump is playing 3D chess or even checkers, he's this dog playing Connect 4.

Trump has said absolutely ZERO about this because Trump has had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, so your "Orange Man Bad" comment is unwarranted.

[JDeko]

Trump has said absolutely ZERO about this because Trump has had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, so your "Orange Man Bad" comment is unwarranted.

My statement was directly replying to someone saying this is all a ploy so Trump can shut the ban down and gain favor with gun owners. The exact same thing was said at the time of the bump stock ban and thus I was positing that maybe if someone says "I'm going to stab you in the kidney" instead of coming up with 72-stage secret plans you think they are coming out with about how they really plan to buy you an ice cream cake that it might just be better to assume they are indeed going to stab you in the kidney.

[Scoop]

My statement was directly replying to someone saying this is all a ploy so Trump can shut the ban down and gain favor with gun owners. The exact same thing was said at the time of the bump stock ban and thus I was positing that maybe if someone says "I'm going to stab you in the kidney" instead of coming up with 72-stage secret plans you think they are coming out with about how they really plan to buy you an ice cream cake that it might just be better to assume they are indeed going to stab you in the kidney.

Trump had nothing to do with this, yet you commented on what he's apparently doing related to it.