13 thoughts on “I wrote an article about the ATF’s new brace rule for Townhall.”

  1. Well put!

    The new pistol brace rule is a blatant violation of the 2nd, 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments, and presumes to regulate items not listed in the law they’re trying to apply (NFA’34). It would require an Act of Congress to add braced pistols to the NFA — simply writing “this is now a short-barreled rifle” does not make it so, not when “short-barreled rifle” is clearly defined in that very same law. The BATFE* lacks the authority to do that themselves.

    Unfortunately, while they lack the authority, there’s no question they have the power — the armed agents, the mil-surp weapons, the APCs, the SWAT teams … and enough high-ranking like-minded people in Congress and the DoJ (and usually the White House) to use them all with impunity against peaceable American citizens.

    ———
    * – Always use the full acronym, if nothing else to remind the BATFE that they aren’t the big bad three-letter agency they pretend to be. 😉

  2. At what point do the federal agencies’ and employees’ deliberate refusal to respect the Constitution become its own actionable offense?

    1. I wish. I’d love to see a lower court, knowing appeals will overturn it anyways, call Miller what it was (a literal show trial where a judge who wrote the law denied the defendant his choice of plea and attorney and several judges that were publicly threatened by the architect of crimes against humanity) and say it’s not American law, just to force the appeals court to defend it.

    2. No. The court will not do anything about the BS NFA. They barely said we have the “right” to own a licensed, registered pistol.

        1. @Larry: I think “342” is reading Washington D.C.’s response to Heller as part of Heller, and not as a precursor to the crap NY and NJ (and others) are trying with Bruen.

          @342: Heller struck down D.C.’s categorical ban on handguns. SCOTUS said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right — not dependent on militia, military, or police service — and a locality cannot blanket-ban a whole category of firearms useful for militia service or self-defense (say, all handguns, or all rifles). They did not address licensing or registration, either to endorse or condemn it, nor did they address carry outside the home; they weren’t asked those questions in Heller, so they didn’t answer them.

          D.C., having its handgun ban struck down, responded by instituting the most draconian rules they could get away with: licensing, registration, training requirements (that you have to go out-of-district for), model and magazine limits, “safe storage” that mandated the gun be unloaded AND trigger locked or disassembled, and only allowing one FFL in town for transfers. (That’s probably not a complete list of restrictions; just what I remember off the top of my head.)

          Those restrictions were not part of Heller. They were D.C.’s petty, childish, and vindictive response to being rightfully forced to respect citizens’ Constitutional rights. Please don’t conflate the two.

    3. That’s where all these FPC,SAF, and GOA lawsuits are heading, and under Heller and Bruen, it’s hard to argue that the civilian versions of military guns have no militia purpose, and the most common guns in America aren’t common or useful.

  3. Enjoyed the book. As a follower of your comments (dating back to THR), I recognized much of the material.

    There is a big chunk of America that will never get it due to lack of critical thinking skills, cowardice, and plain dishonesty.
    See the New York Times piece, “A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths” (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/opinion/gun-death-health.html). It and associated comments broke me up. It’s like the author read your book and then used all the stupid you refuted. The comments – same-same.

    How can we even talk to these folks?

    1. How can we even talk to these folks?

      You can’t, not if they refuse to hear you. (I mean, you can, but you’d be wasting your breath.)

      As the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

      For most of them, their opinion isn’t based on fact, logic, law, or SCOTUS decision. Thus, all those things are useless to change it.

      (There are a blessed few anti-gun people who hold their opinion due to incomplete facts and flawed logic, that you might be able to reach and sway — they [mistakenly] reasoned themselves into their opinion, they can reason their way out. But they are an extreme minority.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.