Pistols to be reclassified as AOWs per military arms channel FB page

[Fatal_Bert]

Ok batoncolle I think I found it for you. Since you want to talk about it so bad here it is

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...aw-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents

Now tell us what part the ATF is violating to spite trump? It seems to me they are just following the example set by trump to investigate if a firearm or accessory violates the spirit of the law vs the text of the law.

Like I said, he appointed an anti 2A man to head the ATF so we should expect this.

I guess it is honorable though that he insists they make it transparent when they do decide to ban stuff just like he made it very transparent when he banned bumpstocks.

 

[batoncolle]

Ok batoncolle I think I found it for you. Since you want to talk about it so bad here it is

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...aw-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents

Now tell us what part the ATF is violating to spite trump? It seems to me they are just following the example set by trump to investigate if a firearm or accessory violates the spirit of the law vs the text of the law.

Like I said, he appointed an anti 2A man to head the ATF so we should expect this.

I guess it is honorable though that he insists they make it transparent when they do decide to ban stuff just like he made it very transparent when he banned bumpstocks.

That wasn't so hard now was it. There are actually two EOs that Trump signed to curb bureaucratic abuse https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...c-abuse-holding-federal-agencies-accountable/, but the DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule on Improper Agency Guidance (IFR) from the EO you linked. And if you would read the letter, you will see where the law firm explains how the ATF's actions run contrary to the purpose of the IFR and thus the EO.

Of course it's obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively, but for those suffering from TDS, I doubt it will matter... Because we also know that many Unconstitutional government agencies have ignored Trump's directives, some agencies and many individuals have actively participated in a coup to remove him from office.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

That wasn't so hard now was it. There are actually two EOs that Trump signed to curb bureaucratic abuse https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...c-abuse-holding-federal-agencies-accountable/, but the DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule on Improper Agency Guidance (IFR) from the EO you linked. And if you would read the letter, you will see where the law firm explains how the ATF's actions run contrary to the purpose of the IFR and thus the EO.

Of course it's obvious to anyone who looks at it objectively, but for those suffering from TDS, I doubt it will matter... Because we also know that many Unconstitutional government agencies have ignored Trump's directives, some agencies and many individuals have actively participated in a coup to remove him from office.

The law firm makes that vague claim, but I want to hear from you what specific part they are violating, particularly in order to undermine his election.

Seems to me they are just following the example trump set to examine the spirit of the law as well as the text when determining if something falls under the NFA restrictions. If they start taking the "sporting clause" of the 1986 NFA serious we could be in big trouble.

They are the agency in charge of determining what guns can be imported to the US, and trump did hire an anti 2A man to head them, so it stands to reason they would seek to limit importations of guns that fall in that grey area. They've been given the green light by potus to examine the spirit of the law as well as it pure text.

All his EO states is they have to be transparent, much like he was about banning bumpstocks. Praise be to orange man I guess.

 

[Justin87]

Right. This is a pistol. Get it? Just like any other pistol, and that's all there is to it.
Anybody who questions that this firearm that shoots .308 / 7.62 NATO ammo out of a 50-round drum magazine, and can shoot 1000 yards with decent accuracy due to the 6X (or whatever) scope atop it, is just a pistol,
must be an Elmer Fudd who ought to stick to hunting wascally wabbits.

A rose by any other name... is still a gun that shouldn't be regulated and taxed because of arbitrary gun "laws".

 

[batoncolle]

The law firm makes that vague claim, but I want to hear from you what specific part they are violating, particularly in order to undermine his election.

Seems to me they are just following the example trump set to examine the spirit of the law as well as the text when determining if something falls under the NFA restrictions. If they start taking the "sporting clause" of the 1986 NFA serious we could be in big trouble.

They are the agency in charge of determining what guns can be imported to the US, and trump did hire an anti 2A man to head them, so it stands to reason they would seek to limit importations of guns that fall in that grey area. They've been given the green light by potus to examine the spirit of the law as well as it pure text.

All his EO states is they have to be transparent, much like he was about banning bumpstocks. Praise be to orange man I guess.

So thanks for proving my point and all about TDS. The same law firm that brought this to everyone's attention is only "making a vague a claim" when they explain how they believe the ATF is not following the IFR and thus the EO. It looks like a pretty cut and dry explanation to me. But to simplify it even further for you, the ATF is trying to redefine a part of (no limit to how long or heavy) what they've always used in determining a handgun. But they've issued no guidance on how they are trying to make this new determination which is in direct violation of the IFR/EO for increased regulatory transparency. Or to really dumb it down - they're hiding it...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

So thanks for proving my point and all about TDS. The same law firm that brought this to everyone's attention is only "making a vague a claim" when they explain how they believe the ATF is not following the IFR and thus the EO. It looks like a pretty cut and dry explanation to me. But to simplify it even further for you, the ATF is trying to redefine a part of (no limit to how long or heavy) what they've always used in determining a handgun. But they've issued no guidance on how they are trying to make this new determination which is in direct violation of the IFR/EO for increased regulatory transparency. Or to really dumb it down - they're hiding it...

Im sure trump is gonna do something about it too, then I'll feel really silly and you can rub it in my face
GLWS

 

[batoncolle]

Im sure trump is gonna do something about it too, then I'll feel really silly and you can rub it in my face
GLWS

Well I'd be willing to bet he knows nothing about it, unless his son clued him in. You know because of this little thing called an election...

But hey I get it - TDS make me say orange man bad.

 

[Control for Smilers]

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Well I'd be willing to bet he knows nothing about it, unless his son clued him in. You know because of this little thing called an election...

But hey I get it - TDS make me say orange man bad.

People thinking trump is gonna reign in the ATF from making dumb decisions defining guns as nfa items that they previously said wasn't are the ones with TDS.
If someone sat down and explained braces to trump, and how they are just away around existing law, trump would have them banned faster than you can bump fire a 30 round mag.

 

[lostchild]

People thinking trump is gonna reign in the ATF from making dumb decisions defining guns as nfa items that they previously said wasn't are the ones with TDS.
If someone sat down and explained braces to trump, and how they are just away around existing law, trump would have them banned faster than you can bump fire a 30 round mag.

But, he would have looked sooo Presidential at the signing ceremony!
Can’t argue that.