SIG Talk banner
41 - 60 of 133 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,987 Posts
Good to hear Alex Bosco, SB Tactical's history & perspective - Thank you for posting! Obviously, there's very limited upside to an early filing of our Form 1s, if this ever gets published in Fed Reg, and ATF filing is your chosen option. Those of us here that already have NFA items, I have 5, the 'firearms registry' issue is moot..

Cheers
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Good to hear Alex Bosco, SB Tactical's history & perspective - Thank you for posting! Obviously, there's very limited upside to an early filing of our Form 1s, if this ever gets published in Fed Reg, and ATF filing is your chosen option. Those of us here that already have NFA items, I have 5, the 'firearms registry' issue is moot..

Cheers
Same, I have multiple in there already so if they want to come for me they will anyway. Why they'd wait until they have tens of millions more to pursue I don't know, but hey okay. :)
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,640 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,061 Posts
Everyone is missing the most important point.

The ATF is not permitted to legislate (i.e. make rules for citizens to follow) and no amendment was ever approved to give it such power. Thus, it is unconstitutional (and thus illegal) for the ATF to make any rules regarding our right to keep or bear arms (or anything else). It does not matter if you call it a rule, a regulation or a law (these are legislative prerogatives only). The ATF at best is an enforcement agency only (which is what the executive branch is supposed to be). This means the rules we follow either come from Congress (at the federal level) or we pass constitutional amendments. You are familiar with the term "legislating from the bench", well the alphabet soup bureaucratic executive agencies can't legislate from the executive either. They do, but these are de facto rather than de jure acts of government, and they are completely unconstitutional.

Specifically, ATF regulations violate Article I, Section I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution (read them side-by-side).

This is not an opinion, it is an absolute fact (so long as we're using the rules of the English Language), and it's not hard to understand if someone (like me) tells you where to look.

I am familiar with Congress passing the unconstitutional/illegal legislation delegating authority to the executive branch and the case(s) where the Supreme Court rubber stamped the legislation: Fordney–McCumber Tariff and J.W. Hampton and Co. v. United States (also unconstitutional).

It would literally require a constitutional amendment in all three cases for the ATF rulemaking process to become legal (i.e. for Congress to pass such a law delegating its power, for SCOTUS to give a binding opinion regarding it and for the ATF to ultimately issue such a regulation). There is no constitutional basis for the ATF prescribing rules after merely posting them for 90 days. Even congress can't do this (because of the Second and Tenth Amendments).

Please do not dismiss this out of hand. No matter how futile it might appear to change our system, it should nonetheless be stressed in every conversation regarding the ATF creating rules we need to follow (or any other situation in which we experience government overreach, otherwise we're just showing the powers-that-shouldn't-be that we're illiterate when it comes to the Constitution.

This is also true of executive orders. There is nothing in the constitution allowing laws, rules, regulations etc. to be passed by the president (and, again, the Tenth Amendment prohibits this). EO's are for the president to issue to his employees in the executive branch and nothing else (in other words, it's purely administrative within the executive branch of government (or where it has constitutional jurisdiction over state and local agencies), but they cannot contradict the constitution which always supersedes everything according to the Constitution [i.e. Article VI and the Tenth Amendment]).

If people brought these points up at every turn we might finally reach a boiling point after seeing how many areas of our lives are affected by this. But the greater point is that 99.9% of Americans fail to understand the Constitution, and if we talked about this more, perhaps we can change that one day. Remember, the Constitution was written for the layperson. It is not written in legalese so there's no excuse to be ignorant of it. But if you wait for our "finest" educational institutions to point this out, you'll be waiting forever.

Again, what I am stating is a fact, and I challenge any lawyers on here (or anyone else) to produce a sensible counterargument (because there isn't one). I'm not trying to "win the internet" as someone once suggested of me. I am merely trying to help my fellow Americans understand how, as Jefferson put it, the Constitution became "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please" — Jefferson's letter to Virginia State Supreme Court Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 · (Edited)
That's kinda' been the point from the beginning, no? Like many of us have said from the very beginning of this months back, ATF is skirting things by 'redefining' existing laws so they technically aren't making new ones....how clever. The question is, will this be exposed loud and clear during the legal challenges to this, and will Congress or Supreme Court, etc. step in, call their bluff and put the kibosh on this?

Who can do that, and what can be done to get them involved? Is it only the president? That would kinda' suck because he's the one who essentially ordered ATF to start this whole fiasco. Would love to see him on the hot seat for that, though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,186 Posts
I watched the whole 45 minutes. I get the distinct impression that I watched something completely different than some of you! Many points missed completely across the board. First thing comes to mind is that federal agencies are using the NFA to create law through regulation and changes of definition. Complete ignorance of firearms, as well as disrespect of the Constitution and citizens is what's driving this. I seriously doubt this ruling will stand, in fact I believe this could backfire in ways that will remove many ATF regulations retroactively applied since the NFA of 1934. That's just my opinion. Do not comply 👽
I get that impression from just reading some post, here on SigTalk. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone back and re read the Title and OP, just to try and figure out where the responses came from. 🤷‍♂️
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
People didn't watch the video...or did and it didn't take. It's long, I know...but it's worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tpeters326

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
I get that impression from just reading some post, here on SigTalk. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone back and re read the Title and OP, just to try and figure out where the responses came from. 🤷‍♂️
Without a doubt it's frustrating. If I'm interested in a thread, I start at the op and read through it in order. Comprehension and context are everything if you plan on participating in a conversation. Many times I see people pop in the middle of a thread with no clue of what they're talking about. Mainly are just Interlopers trying to seek relevance. I try to avoid participating in subjects of which I have little knowledge. I just sit back and read. If I have something that I feel intelligent enough (or sarcastic enough) to respond to then I do. Otherwise I just zip it!:cool:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,987 Posts
Yeah, you're right - Thank you guys for your informative comments, and sure the humor's all good too! Inaccurate & thoughtless social media content is reckless, but IMO Sig Talk is much better than most.

Cheers
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
I think one of the problems is that there are so many 'hot take', reactionary 'GunTuber' or 'LawTuber' videos out there that are all going off the same single thing and trying to capitalize on the clicks. And then we get what, seven different threads on the same video...and dozens of reposts? So then any YouTube video gets lumped in with them on surface value. Harder for the ones that have real, unique and relevant insight to stand out, especially if one's just looking for the 'bullet points' and to add more fuel to the panic fire.

This video is an allegory to this whole mess, in that we need to be patient and see it through.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
YouTube is the sanctuary for empty Minds! Although there is a lot of relevant, useful, and accurate information to be found on the platform, unless you have common sense and a very good BS filter then you're just another idiot trying to fill your head with useless garbage. That is an epidemic in the world today. Too often we see people that consider themselves educated on a subject because of what they've learned from misinformed, twisted, uneducated clickbait mongers. And then go on to continue falsehoods on the premise that they are "informed". That then puts some of us in the position of Defending common sense, the Constitution, common law, or abandoning the conversation all together. Rarely with the effect of leading some misguided serf to reality 👽
 

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Strongly recommend folks find the time to watch/listen to this...maybe over morning coffee and lunch break. Very informative and insightful while staying practical and not hyped. Some of what we've discussed here but from someone who has actually been there trying to work this through with the ATF and reps, putting his own time and money on the line not to mention his entire business, involved with organizations in constant contact with ATF and will fight for our rights, not just make 'statements' on it.... i.e. not just some YouTuber looking for clicks.

[/QUOTE
thanks for sharing. Interesting discussion but I was hoping for some type of guidance and so in the end nothing to take away from it but two view points
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 · (Edited)
thanks for sharing. Interesting discussion but I was hoping for some type of guidance and so in the end nothing to take away from it but two view points
It's more than just 'two points of view', it's direct, first-hand knowledge on how it started, how it got to this point, why it did and who was involved. Hence the title of the thread, as opposed to 'the pistol brace solution'.

But aside from just being patient as this works its way through legal challenges, there's also some guidance as to what we can do to get involved if you watch it that far and are interested.

If you're just looking to comply, then you can find that info a lot of places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LEEEAGLE

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Everyone is missing the most important point.

The ATF is not permitted to legislate (i.e. make rules for citizens to follow) and no amendment was ever approved to give it such power. Thus, it is unconstitutional (and thus illegal) for the ATF to make any rules regarding our right to keep or bear arms (or anything else). It does not matter if you call it a rule, a regulation or a law (these are legislative prerogatives only). The ATF at best is an enforcement agency only (which is what the executive branch is supposed to be). This means the rules we follow either come from Congress (at the federal level) or we pass constitutional amendments. You are familiar with the term "legislating from the bench", well the alphabet soup bureaucratic executive agencies can't legislate from the executive either. They do, but these are de facto rather than de jure acts of government, and they are completely unconstitutional.

Specifically, ATF regulations violate Article I, Section I and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution (read them side-by-side).

This is not an opinion, it is an absolute fact (so long as we're using the rules of the English Language), and it's not hard to understand if someone (like me) tells you where to look.

I am familiar with Congress passing the unconstitutional/illegal legislation delegating authority to the executive branch and the case(s) where the Supreme Court rubber stamped the legislation: Fordney–McCumber Tariff and J.W. Hampton and Co. v. United States (also unconstitutional).

It would literally require a constitutional amendment in all three cases for the ATF rulemaking process to become legal (i.e. for Congress to pass such a law delegating its power, for SCOTUS to give a binding opinion regarding it and for the ATF to ultimately issue such a regulation). There is no constitutional basis for the ATF prescribing rules after merely posting them for 90 days. Even congress can't do this (because of the Second and Tenth Amendments).

Please do not dismiss this out of hand. No matter how futile it might appear to change our system, it should nonetheless be stressed in every conversation regarding the ATF creating rules we need to follow (or any other situation in which we experience government overreach, otherwise we're just showing the powers-that-shouldn't-be that we're illiterate when it comes to the Constitution.

This is also true of executive orders. There is nothing in the constitution allowing laws, rules, regulations etc. to be passed by the president (and, again, the Tenth Amendment prohibits this). EO's are for the president to issue to his employees in the executive branch and nothing else (in other words, it's purely administrative within the executive branch of government (or where it has constitutional jurisdiction over state and local agencies), but they cannot contradict the constitution which always supersedes everything according to the Constitution [i.e. Article VI and the Tenth Amendment]).

If people brought these points up at every turn we might finally reach a boiling point after seeing how many areas of our lives are affected by this. But the greater point is that 99.9% of Americans fail to understand the Constitution, and if we talked about this more, perhaps we can change that one day. Remember, the Constitution was written for the layperson. It is not written in legalese so there's no excuse to be ignorant of it. But if you wait for our "finest" educational institutions to point this out, you'll be waiting forever.

Again, what I am stating is a fact, and I challenge any lawyers on here (or anyone else) to produce a sensible counterargument (because there isn't one). I'm not trying to "win the internet" as someone once suggested of me. I am merely trying to help my fellow Americans understand how, as Jefferson put it, the Constitution became "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please" — Jefferson's letter to Virginia State Supreme Court Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819
Your points are well taken.

The Leftists tyrants pressing gun control politically on the ATF and DOJ simply do not care. They count on the complexity of our system, the expense, delay and risk associated with correcting their actions to reinforce their positions.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
IMO, The only reason braces ever got the OK from the ATF years ago was to get to this place today, to get people to register their pistols. They wanted people to shoulder braces, and when enough braces were sold, they made the move to force registration.


I'm sure they would like the rule to stand but it doesn't matter if it gets overturned in a year or two because they will have gotten millions of law-abiding citizens to register their pistols.

Gun control and taking away the 2A is not a sprint, it's a marathon and this brace thing has been a huge win for gun grabbers and the ATF.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Here is the core of one of the constitutional issues that will be raised when this ruling is finally published in the Federal Register.


There has been agency overreach ever since the principle of "Chevron Deference" to the executive agencies charged with carrying out the tasks assigned by laws passed by Congress was adjudicated with the EPA several years ago. This ATF rulemaking is a poster child for this issue from the point of view of overreach and ambiguity. It also begs the question by potentially making millions of citizens felons for owning firearms that are in common use.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 · (Edited)
IMO, The only reason braces ever got the OK from the ATF years ago was to get to this place today, to get people to register their pistols. They wanted people to shoulder braces, and when enough braces were sold, they made the move to force registration.
For free? Even that....okay there's more registered...but it's tens of millions more, what are they going to do now? They didn't have enough manpower or time to really do anything or go door-to-door with all the registered owners out there before...now there's what 20 million+ more doors. :p So if that was their 'master plan'....


I'm sure they would like the rule to stand but it doesn't matter if it gets overturned in a year or two because they will have gotten millions of law-abiding citizens to register their pistols.

Gun control and taking away the 2A is not a sprint, it's a marathon and this brace thing has been a huge win for gun grabbers and the ATF.
I don't think so, I think if it stood it would just cause more problems for the ATF and more impossibilities for them, exposing them more than bolstering them. I think they may be counting on it to fail so they don't have to step up to the plate and prove how little they can actually do facing such huge numbers. But they can say to the gun-grabbers that they did 'everything they could', it's just that pesky constitution that got in the way, Mr. President.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 · (Edited)
Here is the core of one of the constitutional issues that will be raised when this ruling is finally published in the Federal Register.


There has been agency overreach ever since the principle of "Chevron Deference" to the executive agencies charged with carrying out the tasks assigned by laws passed by Congress was adjudicated with the EPA several years ago. This ATF rulemaking is a poster child for this issue from the point of view of overreach and ambiguity. It also begs the question by potentially making millions of citizens felons for owning firearms that are in common use.
I agree and hope you're right, that this fallacy will have a spotlight on it. Problem though is that it's guns...something surrounded by ignorance, sensationalism and stigma especially amongst lawmakers, so if there's an area where they may let certain overreaching slide....

Just gotta convince them it's for 'the safety of the people'...
 
  • Like
Reactions: tpeters326

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
IMO, The only reason braces ever got the OK from the ATF years ago was to get to this place today, to get people to register their pistols. They wanted people to shoulder braces, and when enough braces were sold, they made the move to force registration.


I'm sure they would like the rule to stand but it doesn't matter if it gets overturned in a year or two because they will have gotten millions of law-abiding citizens to register their pistols.

Gun control and taking away the 2A is not a sprint, it's a marathon and this brace thing has been a huge win for gun grabbers and the ATF.
If you watch the video, the rational explanation from the person most impacted (the inventor) is that the agency initially followed a rational path and approved the product under the GCA, but external political pressure shifted the agency's position to ban the product, and force firearms with the product onto the NFA registry. The cause of this is external political pressure, not a rational analysis of the product. People in control (with the power to act) do not like what is being done with this configuration of pistols. They have chosen to act for political reasons.

In the process, they are opening up a huge can of worms that they may end up wishing they had never stepped into. Owners, at the receiving end of the rulemaking, are reacting in a range of ways from rational to emotional. The industry is reacting in a range of ways from not reacting (NSSF) to forming an industry group to respond and to raise money for defense actions.

Industry rights groups are preparing to file lawsuits on a number of grounds ranging from Constitutional rights violation to process issues. The courts, responding to prior ATF rulemaking actions, have been finding against the agency's overreach (Cargill v. Garland most recently).

It ain't over until it's over... and it ain't over until the Liberty Lady sings...

Statue Sculpture Wood Art Cross
 
41 - 60 of 133 Posts
Top