ATF response to one of the cases filed.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
UPDATE 10/3 - Injunction covers all FPC members - ATF publishes their pistol brace rule
- Thread starter batoncolle
- Start date
If you don’t have a good argument, baffle ‘em with bullshiit.
They didn't mention anything about their love of shooting dogs.
“ Short-Barreled rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons, and their
use is not protected by the Second Amendment”
Can someone please explain to me like I’m 5 how a shorter barrel suddenly makes a gun more dangerous?
The dangerous and unusual classification came about for machine guns and the ATF just slapped the same phrase on SBRs and suppressors without any factual evidence proving either of them to be more dangerous than a standard firearm.
use is not protected by the Second Amendment”
Can someone please explain to me like I’m 5 how a shorter barrel suddenly makes a gun more dangerous?
The dangerous and unusual classification came about for machine guns and the ATF just slapped the same phrase on SBRs and suppressors without any factual evidence proving either of them to be more dangerous than a standard firearm.
That section right there will sink their argument if they get a fair judge.
Even the ATF admits there are millions of these 'SBRs' out there, and they could only cite two cases where they were used in crimes.
In CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS the SC said that just several hundred thousand 'stun guns' were enough to make them arms 'in common use' which couldn't be banned under Heller.
This statement in their reply completely fails the 'dangerous and unusual' test they mention on both parts. That alone means that it should fail on 2A grounds.
Even the ATF admits there are millions of these 'SBRs' out there, and they could only cite two cases where they were used in crimes.
In CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS the SC said that just several hundred thousand 'stun guns' were enough to make them arms 'in common use' which couldn't be banned under Heller.
This statement in their reply completely fails the 'dangerous and unusual' test they mention on both parts. That alone means that it should fail on 2A grounds.
ATF is following the law set down by Congress that says a gun that has a shoulder stock will only be called a "rifle" or "shotgun" if it meets other requirements as to barrel length, OAL, or having a rifled bore for a rifle.
ATF is correct in determining that nearly all things called "arm stabilization braces" for pistols are really shoulder stocks, and therfore they're only unregulated on rifles, but on a pistol you'd be making an SBR. This is fully consistent with the intent of Congress when they made the law about SBR's in the early 1930s, with what is called the National Firearms Act of 1934.
NOW, YOU ASK, WHY WOULD CONGRESS TREAT SBR's or SHORT SHOTGUNS differently from pistols, which are even more concealable and used in crime more often?
The answer, and I know this from actually having read original newspaper articles on microfilm from the library, and online transcripts of the Congressional hearings back then, is that GANGSTERS of that era actually used short shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and machine guns. And pistols. ON THE OHTER HAND, good private citizens used long-barreled rifles, and shotguns, and the only short-barreled things that were in common use among private citizens were handguns. Normal-looking handguns. Though concealable, they were NOT seen as being something only bad guys would want. Good guys did actually want them and did obtain them in huge numbers.
So, handguns were NOT PART of the law Congress passed, but short-barreled rifles and shotguns were.
Because Clyde Barrow used them. Because John Dillenger used them. And a couple others.
Which should be the argument for abolishing the NFA. We should be able to
Protect ourselves against these thugs!
Unfortunately I agree that this will not be overturned as a whole. I’m hoping that as an aid for disabled persons, that the original purpose will be upheld.
But I’m not holding my breath. They always looked like “bait” to me.
Why do we keep bringing up disabled people? Braces aren't illegal. Slap them on a 16 inch upper and they have solved that entire issue. The ADA approach doesn't work because there is no inherent need for a "disabled" person to be able to shoot an SBR because the logic is if they can shoot a 10 inch gun they can shoot a 16 inch. Trying to argue that in the reverse is an unbelievable reach. SBR's are classified as such now solely because of the barrel length issue not the brace itself. The ATF purposefully did it this way so that the ADA argument wouldn't overturn the ruling.
so a doctors note won’t do?
Exactly. The whole SBR classification is just bull****, needs to be rescinded. Put into effect to make people think the government was successfully fighting criminals a century ago.
