Topic: Federal Judge Stays Entire ATF Pistol Brace Rule (Read 94 times)

Guns and gun equipment make a person feel safer in one way. And it isn't the 2nd Amendment way. All this focus on the 2nd Amendment is covertly pushed by the Government to take people's eyes off the real issue.

The real issue is the safety of Americans in private property. Private property is possibly the greatest right that people can have. The Amendments of this issue are the 1st and 4th Amendments. Also, part of the issue is the right to contract in the US, as upheld by the Contract Clause - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-1/contract-clause.

The important part of the Contract Clause regarding this issue is: "No State shall enter into any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts... ." Over the years, the courts have upheld the idea that the Contract Clause includes the rights of all Americans, and maybe any visitors to America.

Guns and gun equipment are private property (4th Amendment) except when this kind of property 'language' is contracted away. In other words, the US government and the States don't have the authority to call your private property a gun, even if it looks like a gun, and feels like a gun, and can be used the same way that a gun is used. If you own it, it isn't a gun. It's your private property until you agree with them that it is a gun... or if you have used it to harm someone or damage his property.

The government is using the 2nd Amendment to get people to forget about private property rights. They want to take all private property away, and make America into a civil government land rather than the common law land that it is. That's why they attempt to make people focus on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 4th Amendment and the Contract Clause.

What does the 1st Amendment have to do with it? The courts have adjudicated over the years that the 1st Amendment includes the Right to Travel for the people. The original idea was so that the people could travel to meetings to discuss government ideals, and to vote.

When you travel, you don't travel naked. You take your clothing with you, usually wearing some of it. So, the Right to Travel includes taking your private property with you. Your guns are your private property. You have the right to travel with your guns. It's a private property right... not a militia right (2nd Amendment). I and most Americans want to be safe in our private property.

I don't know you, but I assume you are a gun owner and fierce defender of the Second Amendment rights in your country. If so, could you please explain to us what is your personal position on bumpstocks and how they could make you feel safer or help you to defend yourself or your home from intruders, etc?
Also, I am not a gun expert but I have read online that those devoces actually sacrifice the accuracy of the rifle in order to dramatically increase the fire rate.
I don't have any doubt it must be fun to target practice while using bumpstocks, but beyond that, what is the advantage?

This is spreading. I wonder if the NRA is getting deeply involved. Seems like other gun organizations are. Is it about guns? Or is it because it was Biden's regime?


Bump Stock Case Could Nullify Other Biden Admin Gun Control Rules

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bump-stock-case-could-nullify-other-biden-admin-gun-control-rules
The case in question is Cargill v. Garland. In January of 2023, the 5th Circuit decided that bump stocks were not, in fact, machine guns, as they do not meet the definition of 'machine gun' as stated by federal law.

Gun Owners everywhere are saying: "Exactly!"

For those unfamiliar, a bump stock is a device that uses the recoil of a firearm to "bump" the trigger. This causes a semi-automatic firearm to shoot faster. While the ATF now considers this device to be a "machine gun" under federal law, it's worth noting that bump fire can be achieved with belt loops and pants pockets.

The 5th Circuit ruled against US Attorney General Merrick Garland and blocked the ATF's bump stock rule, which had been in place since 2019.

Before that decision, GOA had a nearly identical case in the 6th Circuit, GOA v. Garland. But the Supreme Court declined to hear our case when we petitioned them.

But because our case and Cargill's case are so similar, we've created what's known as a circuit split, which is when two federal courts issue opposite decisions. The circuit split has made it extremely difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore this case.
...

---

I did not know there were restrictions on the use or purchase of crossbows in the United States, I would have assumed that since people can acquire guns like AR-15s or semi automatic Aks relatively easy, then it would be no problem for them to also put their hands on a crossbow, which fire rate is minimum compared to those rifles.
The only explanation I can think of is the fact arrows are more likely to penetrate body armor, because the high mass they have in comparison to the mass of a typical bullet.

Keeping that point aside, I am not sure what is the political talking point which would push to federal authorities to ban silencers for civilians, I get it may have something to do with the conceal of assassination or making mass murder easy for perpetrators, by not alerting more victims in the surrounding, however, I would also could think about a couple of reasons a law abiding citizen would like to have access to a silencer.

In the end, it only depends on the balance the people of the United States wish to have between restriction on accessories/weapons and the security of innocent people trying to live a normal a peaceful life.

How many gun control measures are the ATF allowed to put out which bypass Congress? Not that the ATF creates laws, but only interprets them to their own imagination.

Soon they will be canceling the no-silencers rule, and the rules against crossbows.


Federal Judge Stays Entire ATF Pistol Brace Rule/url]

---

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/federal-judge-stays-entire-atf-pistol-brace-rule/#axzz8IjAKGsDG
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/federal-judge-stays-entire-atf-pistol-brace-rule/#ixzz8IlpC0GAs
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Late Wednesday, a Texas-based Federal District Court judge issued a nationwide stay preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing its rule on pistols equipped with stabilizing devices (2021R-08F).
The case, Britto v. ATF, challenged the “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces'” rule. The ATF created the regulation after an executive order by President Joe Biden directing the Bureau to deal with pistol braces. The ATF would reverse years of classification letters and revoke previous determinations issued to brace manufacturers.

The Britto case challenged the rule, claiming the ATF pistol brace rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The plaintiffs felt the final rule wasn’t a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. The proposed rule had a point system (ATF Form 4999) that helped individuals determine if their firearm would be considered a braced pistol or short-barreled rifle (SBR). Most of the comments during the public comment period addressed concerns with the form.
When the final rule was unveiled, the point system was removed. The ATF considered all braced pistols on the market to be SBRs and subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Gun owners had four choices.
...

---