This is going to have its ears cuffed by the courts, too. They know that.

I think pistol braces are silly but I think administrative usurpation of congress' role is even sillier.

(02-06-2023 10:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This is going to have its ears cuffed by the courts, too. They know that.

I think pistol braces are silly but I think administrative usurpation of congress' role is even sillier.

I think so too. I only carry a pistol cause an AR-15 won't fit in my waistband.

Amen.

If I lived in a city nowadays I'd dress like Neo from the Matrix with a 6.5 Grendel in the overcoat.

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

Care to expand on the bolded above?

For the record, I see the clear APA Act violation. Not necessarily on board with the bolded above, especially in light of explicit language in Heller.

(02-06-2023 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

Care to expand on the bolded above?

For the record, I see the clear APA Act violation. Not necessarily on board with the bolded above, especially in light of explicit language in Heller.

Dude, you know I'm not a lawyer. I count on you to explain these things to me. You tell me why it is NOT unconstitutional. Maybe this guy addresses it here...

(02-06-2023 10:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This is going to have its ears cuffed by the courts, too. They know that.

I think pistol braces are silly but I think administrative usurpation of congress' role is even sillier.

If you don't have massive forearms and biceps, holding an AR pistol like a regular pistol and shooting it accurately is extremely difficult. The braces, if used strictly as intended, help with that. I don't like them at all myself and feel like I should be able to put a rifle stock on them and treat them just like any other rifle. The larger problem I have is with the NFA as a whole. It is effectively a tool to be used as a means of instituting a national firearms registry.

We need to keep this thread going. IMO this is one of the most pressing issues of our time. If the ATF is allowed to get away with this massive end around congress then just imagine how emboldened other regulatory agencies might become.

Bump

(02-17-2023 07:52 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

Care to expand on the bolded above?

For the record, I see the clear APA Act violation. Not necessarily on board with the bolded above, especially in light of explicit language in Heller.

Dude, you know I'm not a lawyer. I count on you to explain these things to me. You tell me why it is NOT unconstitutional. Maybe this guy addresses it here...

But yet you say it is not just 'unconstitutional' -- it is *categorically* unconstitutional.

Is your answer now 'you dont know, and I just let that loaded language fly without restraint or background'?

You now say 'you dont know'? You are running away from it pretty energetically. Especially for someone that has said previously that it was '*categorically* unconstitutional.'

I think a previous poster laid it out well. Trump's bumpstock ban is on bad ground, because the law that it relies upon *defines* automatic weapons with regard to 'one trigger pull, one bullet downrange'. Bumpstocks break that definition.

With regards to the two previous pieces of legislation that seem to fit this, the issues regarding 'short barreled rifles' in those pieces of legislation arguably form a basis for supporting the brace rule. I cant tell you where the courts will find this.

Then the question falls to whether the limits in the GCA are themselves constitutional under Heller and its offspring. There is wriggle room to support the rule, since Heller specifically made exemptions to be able to regulate automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns -- both addressed in the 1934 act. Too close to call on this.

The final piece is whether the rule was promulgated in a legal manner. Seemingly it wasnt. It might very well fail because of that -- but it leaves the issue open to be reconsidered when/if redone properly in the federal Rules under the APA.

Bump

In related news...

Bump(stocks)

(02-22-2023 08:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 07:52 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

Care to expand on the bolded above?

For the record, I see the clear APA Act violation. Not necessarily on board with the bolded above, especially in light of explicit language in Heller.

Dude, you know I'm not a lawyer. I count on you to explain these things to me. You tell me why it is NOT unconstitutional. Maybe this guy addresses it here...

But yet you say it is not just 'unconstitutional' -- it is *categorically* unconstitutional.

Is your answer now 'you dont know, and I just let that loaded language fly without restraint or background'?

You now say 'you dont know'? You are running away from it pretty energetically. Especially for someone that has said previously that it was '*categorically* unconstitutional.'

I think a previous poster laid it out well. Trump's bumpstock ban is on bad ground, because the law that it relies upon *defines* automatic weapons with regard to 'one trigger pull, one bullet downrange'. Bumpstocks break that definition.

With regards to the two previous pieces of legislation that seem to fit this, the issues regarding 'short barreled rifles' in those pieces of legislation arguably form a basis for supporting the brace rule. I cant tell you where the courts will find this.

Then the question falls to whether the limits in the GCA are themselves constitutional under Heller and its offspring. There is wriggle room to support the rule, since Heller specifically made exemptions to be able to regulate automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns -- both addressed in the 1934 act. Too close to call on this.

The final piece is whether the rule was promulgated in a legal manner. Seemingly it wasnt. It might very well fail because of that -- but it leaves the issue open to be reconsidered when/if redone properly in the federal Rules under the APA.

See, this is why no one likes you. I admitted that yes, I didn't actually KNOW if it was in fact unconstitutional, and even deferred to you to explain whether it was or not, and you chose to belabor the point and belittle me in the process. I don't know if you consider something like that as a flair for the dramatic or what but it's off-putting.

You could just as easily have explained your thoughts on all of it and shown me which side of the issue of constitutionality to fall on. You missed a good chance to dazzle us all with your brilliant legal mind.

Kind of off-topic but not really, I don't understand why this topic doesn't generate more interest than it does. The issue of the 2A should be of paramount importance, especially to conservatives, because in my mind and maybe I'm wrong, so goes the 2A, so goes the rest of our rights.

(02-17-2023 08:04 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 10:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This is going to have its ears cuffed by the courts, too. They know that.

I think pistol braces are silly but I think administrative usurpation of congress' role is even sillier.

If you don't have massive forearms and biceps, holding an AR pistol like a regular pistol and shooting it accurately is extremely difficult. The braces, if used strictly as intended, help with that. I don't like them at all myself and feel like I should be able to put a rifle stock on them and treat them just like any other rifle. The larger problem I have is with the NFA as a whole. It is effectively a tool to be used as a means of instituting a national firearms registry.

I don't like the proposed ban but if someone is too frail to hold and shoot a platform effectively without an after market add on...purchase a different platform. This isn't exactly an ADA accessibility crusade.