Bypass Congress to take your guns, here is how:

[shurshot]

"Again, you either have not read the definitions or you fail to understand why the TAC14 IS NOTthe same type of firearm as the Handigun or Autoburgler.
Why? OVERALL LENGTH my friend. The TAC14 and the Mossberg Shockwave avoid being AOW's like the Handigun or Autoburgler because they exceed 26"OAL. Thats the reason for the birdshead grip."

Valid point, you got me, I missed the OAL. I lost this debate.... You Texas boys do your homework.

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
I believe ATF currently believes the pull is a separate function than the release. Hence the current legality of binary triggers.
I believe you are correct.

I also believe that it would not require an act of Congress to change that determination into considering a full cycle of the trigger (pull and release) as the "single function."

A Determination Letter doesn't require an act of Congress. It's merely the opinion of ATF at that time, on that particular firearm.

Take a "standard" firearm -- say a 1911. To fire it once, you pull the trigger, and hold it. Now you want to fire it again ... but you can't, because the sear hasn't reset. To reset it, you have to release the trigger.

I'm just suggesting that the BATFE could determine that the "single function" includes both pulling the trigger and releasing it -- a complete cycle.

That's pretty much the widely accepted understanding of "single function". Thats why the ATF determination was surprising if not actually shocking. BTW, there are fiirearms that fire on the release of the trigger, not the initial pull.
Once I heard about "release triggers" on shotguns, ATF determination made a litttle more sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Yet, the tiger writes the rules.
That's why it's not smart to pull the tiger's tail. Or to poke the bear, or whatever other metaphor you wish to use.

I have mixed feelings on this philosophy........either its legal or its not. And if ATF says its legal, it does remain that way until they issued a new determination saying otherwise. Thats not poking the bear or pulling the tigers tail. If Thompson Center hadn't marketed a kit containing a rifle bbl and shoulder stock with a pistol bbl and pistol grip we would never have had the ability to convert a pistol>rifle>pistol. Thats thanks to US vs Thompson Center. Was TC poking the bear? No, they were following ATF's own advice in how to assemble and configure the firearm without violating the National Firearms Act. Only later did ATF go "huh, maybe it isn't legal to go from pistol>rifle and then........back to pistol because thats making a "firearm made from a rifle" which is regulated by the NFA. The US Supreme Court saw the stupidity of that argument, Thats when the rule of lenity came into play, an interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant. In short ATF lost, we won and ATF then took nineteen years to issue a ruling that clarified pistol>rifle>pistol was okey dokey.

And thats why poking the bear is what we should be doing every day. A 1934 law that was intended to prohibit all concealable firearms is what guides ATF. When handguns were removed from the NFA before passage it created the situation we are in now. Adding a shoulder stock to a handgun makes it LESS concealable...and you would think that wouldn't violate the NFA...but it does unless you pay a tax.

 

[zoo]

And thats why poking the bear is what we should be doing every day.

I agree with that 100%, Tom. We should not be living in fear of what our government will do to us other than to recognize the natural tendency for governments to become tyrannical. Make no mistake about it, they ARE afraid of us and that is the way it should be. They just aren't afraid of us enough at this point in time.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yet, the tiger writes the rules.
That's why it's not smart to pull the tiger's tail. Or to poke the bear, or whatever other metaphor you wish to use.

I have mixed feelings on this philosophy........either its legal or its not. And if ATF says its legal, it does remain that way until they issued a new determination saying otherwise. Thats not poking the bear or pulling the tigers tail.

I agree -- if something is legal, we should be able to use it and enjoy it to its fullest extent.

What I'm getting at with my comments about pulling the tiger's tail goes to those who push the envelope. Wrist braces are an excellent example.

You have commented on definitions. The BATFE definition of a "rifle" includes mention that it is a firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The definition of "pistol" includes mention that it is a firearm designed and intended to be fired with one hand.

So along comes an enterprising young man (or company) and he goes to the BATFE with this thingie that fits on the buffer tube of an AR pistol, and he says "I want to sell this thingie so people can use it on AR pistols to help offset the muzzle-heavy balance of an AR pistol." The BATFE looks at it, sees that it has a strap to affix it securely around the wrist when firing one-handed, and they say, "Okay. It's a wrist brace, not a shoulder stock, so you have our blessing."

So bunches of people immediately rush out and buy these wrist braces, put them on their AR pistols, and start shooting them with the "wrist brace" positioned against the shoulder rather than strapped to the wrist. Not only do they do that -- they post YouTube videos, bragging about doing it. That's pulling the tiger's tail. That's basically the same as sending the BATFE a registered letter that says, "Nyah, nyah. Fooled ya!"

The definition of a rifle is a firearm designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. If someone takes an AR receiver, installs an upper with a 10-inch barrel, and then attaches a "wrist brace" with every intention of using said "wrist brace" as a shoulder stock -- how has he not built a rifle?

 

[zoo]

What I'm getting at with my comments about pulling the tiger's tail go to those who push the envelope.

So to you, AG, abiding by the letter of the law is the equivalent of "pulling the tiger's tail"?

No sir, I don't agree. Not even a little bit. No offense but it doesn't apply to you because you probably don't have a brace on an AR pistol so why care, right?

When it comes to our rights, it is more complex that that.

 

[zoo]

I don't mean to sound angry but when it comes to this kind of abuse of power, I support full prosecution of such officials under the full weight of the law.

And when the powers that be won't do it, it is time for a change. And no offense, AG, but I believe your attitude is why governmental bureaucrats think they can pull these kinds of shenanigans.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So to you, AG, abiding by the letter of the law is the equivalent of "pulling the tiger's tail"?

No, not at all -- and I didn't say that.

The letter of the law is that short barreled rifles are NFA firearms. The definitions in or adopted pursuant to the law are that "pistols" are designed and intended to be fired with one hand, and "rifles" are designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

So if you build an AR-15 that has a barrel shorter than 16 inches, and you equip it with a thingie (doesn't matter what you call it) on the back end that you intend to place against your shoulder when firing the ... whatever it is ... how have you abided by the letter of the law?

That thingie was not approved for use as a shoulder stock, it was approved for use as a wrist brace.

And no offense, AG, but I believe your attitude is why governmental bureaucrats think they can pull these kinds of shenanigans.

To you they are pulling shenanigans. To them, they are enforcing the law. The problem is the law. Rather than waste time trying to prosecute BATFE agents and officials for doing their jobs, IMHO it would be more constructive to work on changing the law. My great grandfather was a professor of law; my grandfather was his student. That's the way I was brought up -- if you think a law is unjust, you don't just go merrily along breaking it -- you fight it, through the appropriate channels.

Many years ago I was part of a group that sought to have a thoroughly ridiculous state law repealed. The law had been on the books for 80 years and, in that time, it had only been enforced one time -- and that case was dismissed when it reached court because it became obvious that neither the police who made the arrest or the prosecutor who was handling the case even understood what the law actually prohibited. But -- the law was on the books and, as lawyers like to say, it had a "chilling effect" on other people. So we went to the legislature and asked to have the law repealed. I contributed to the legal fund, and I was one of the people who testified before the legislative committee that was considering the repeal.

We won. The law was repealed.

More recently (2017), I took on my town over a local ordinance that prohibited possession of a loaded firearm on any town owned property. Town roads are town property, and there was no exception for carry on public roads, even if you had a permit. In fact, there was no exception for police officers, so the local PD was routinely breaking the law every day while out on patrol. The chief of police said outright that he considered the ordinance to be so poorly worded that it was unenforceable -- but it was on the books, and a new police chief might have decided to enforce it.

So I went to the town's governing board and asked them to repeal it, or at least fix it. They initially refused -- their attitude was that they didn't like guns, and they weren't happy that I was pointing out flaws in their pet anti-gun ordinance. So I hired a lawyer and threatened to sue.

They revised the ordinance. I didn't get everything I wanted, but at least now I can walk out to my mailbox (which is within the public right-of-way on a town road) without breaking the law.

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca....The definition of a rifle is a firearm designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. If someone takes an AR receiver, installs an upper with a 10-inch barrel, and then attaches a "wrist brace" with every intention of using said "wrist brace" as a shoulder stock -- how has he not built a rifle?

In my opinion yes.

Attaching anything to a handgun with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock has required a tax stamp since 1934 and it still does.

I think the arm brace debacle has embarrassed ATF.....they approved a wrist brace without realizing it was really a crappy shoulder stock.

When asked for a clarification on usage, they issued another embarrassing letter saying shouldering the brace made the firearm come under the purview of the NFA. The ensuing hubub caused them to issue yet a third determination letter clarifying letter#2. Literally clown shoes at FATD.

This latest nonsense is their attempt to put the cat back in the bag.

 

[zoo]

One must have the specific intent described in the corpus delecti (elements) of the statute to be guilty of the crime. We’re talking about pistol braces, right?

Being prosecuted when following the letter of the law is clearly a case of unlawful shenanigans on the part of a tyrannical authority. To accuse the victims of such unlawful prosecutions of taunting the system is the equivalent of blaming rape victims for being raped, AB.

 

[shurshot]

The rules will become more confusing and the enforcement FAR more intense and aggressive. The agenda was already planned. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction... hard.(Me)

"OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! 
I've been hearing that for the dozen years I've been an FFL. The pendulum swung farther under Trump than it did Obama."(Dogtown)

I sincerely hope you are right. But I doubt it. Bidens team has an Agenda and it isn't very friendly towards the 2nd Amendment. I guess what happens in Georgia may determine the future.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If so, be scared.
Trump in four years managed to implement more anti Second Amendment actions than Obama did in eight years.

I am scared. Biden may take a page out of the Trump playbook and direct the BATFE to begin to redefine things as the Shockwave which was a rather liberal interpretation of current definitions?

 

[dogtown tom]

zoo One must have the specific intent described in the corpus delecti (elements) of the statute to be guilty of the crime. We’re talking about pistol braces, right?

Wrong.
The judge/jury decides if the accused had specific intent and his guilt. If it makes it that far the accused has already spent considerable $$$ on his defense. So the ride may be expensive.

Just because you don't plan to use your shoulder stock as a shoulder stock doesn't change the law.

Not just pistol braces are at issue.

Being prosecuted when following the letter of the law is clearly a case of unlawful shenanigans on the part of a tyrannical authority.

While the accused may think they were following "the letter of the law", I'll bet 99% of those who bought "arm braces" never read a single paragraph of ATF regs or the NFA, instead relying on the information provided by the manufacturer. And that's scary.

Since 1934 the NFA has required a tax on pistols with a shoulder stock. So "the letter of the law" is eighty six years old. The manufacturers and sellers of "arm braces" are relying on an ATF determination letter that represents ATFs current opinion on the legality of the arm brace design that was submitted.

Those determination letters are not law or regulation and subject to change at any time. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of these determination letters and believe it or not.......no central file, registry or database where they can be viewed. Why would they not be published or part of public record? I believe because ATF would be embarrassed at the conflicting opinions they are giving out.

Often a determination letter is issued only to have one a few months or years later with a different determination. Being an FN/Browning Hi Power collector I'm aware of these conflicting determination letters on attaching a shoulder stock to certain Inglis Hi Power pistols:
1981 letter saying reproductions are okay:http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter58.txt
1999 letter saying reproductions require NFA tax: http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter70.txt

More than a few Hi Power collectors hold to the belief that the 1981 letter is law and conveniently ignore the 1999 letter.

To accuse the victims of such unlawful prosecutions of taunting the system is the equivalent of blaming rape victims for being raped, AB.

I disagree. That's a common statement when someone points out that the victim of a property crime might bear some responsibility for the actions that made them a victim.

Man next door sends $5000 via Western Union to a Nigerian prince to get his inheritance.
Kid leaves his bike in the front yard, bike is stolen.
Store owner leaves his doors unlocked, store is ransacked.
Gun show seller leaves his guns unsecured, someone walks off with one.
Rich guy who's had too much to drink, with a bankroll and a Rolex leaves a bar in a sketchy area, gets robbed in the parking lot.
Dad leaves his loaded pistol in nightstand, four year old finds it and a tragedy occurs.

Not a one of us would say "You can't blame the victim!!!" in the above examples. Yes, there is a victim in each, but there is an assumption of risk, a negligent act or lack of action in each of those. That's wholly different than rape or sexual assault where the overwhelming majority are NOT committed by strangers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...To accuse the victims of such unlawful prosecutions of taunting the system is the equivalent of blaming rape victims for being raped....

Nope --

1. What "unlawful prosecution"? Your opinion that prosecution under certain circumstances would be unlawful is irrelevant. That a question for a court, not you, to decide.
   
   
2. The "don't blame the victim" meme merely means that the victim's failure to take appropriate care for his/her own safety doesn't excuse the criminal liability of the perpetrator.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

One must have the specific intent described in the corpus delecti (elements) of the statute to be guilty of the crime. We’re talking about pistol braces, right?

Right. "Pistol" braces.

Being prosecuted when following the letter of the law is clearly a case of unlawful shenanigans on the part of a tyrannical authority. To accuse the victims of such unlawful prosecutions of taunting the system is the equivalent of blaming rape victims for being raped, AB.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that using something that was approved for a "pistol" brace as a shoulder stock -- thereby creating a short barreled rifle as defined by federal law -- is "following the letter of the law"?

 

[dogtown tom]

And just like that it's over for now.....

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download

 

[TXAZ]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download

Thanks Tom.
The operative words being "for now".

 

[Frank Ettin]

If it starts up again, so can we. But for now we're done.