TexasCHLforum.com

I'm torn between two courses of action here:

1) Remove and PSB's and store them separately from any firearms. Don't register anything.

2) Buy a bunch of pistol length AR uppers and register them as SBR's with my PSB equipped lower(s).

I will likely wait a couple months to see how the legal appeals play out before I make a decision on this.

der Teufel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:39 am

carlson1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:21 am I am not for sure how the ATF came to just write a memo and it is law. What happened to the House, the Senate, and the Presidents signature?

There are three ways laws come into being. The categories are:
1) Legislative Law - Enacted by congress
2) Executive Law - Executive Orders and rulings by executive branch departments (this is where the ATF comes in)
3) Judicial Law - Rulings handed down by the court system

All of these become law when they are executed. They are not just opinions. They are, of course, subject to review. The courts can nullify or modify legislative and executive rulings. The Legislature can enact laws that countermand executive or judicial findings.

I agree that the West Virginia v. EPA SCOTUS ruling is likely to rein in some of the bureaucratic excesses that have occurred in the past, but we'll have to wait and see to learn just what effect that will really have.

I need to re-read my copy of the US Constitution. Because I could have sworn that the power to make law rested with the legislative branch. The judicial branch can not make law, it can only interpret laws as they apply to a given set of facts and also determine whether they conflict with other laws (most notably the US constitution as the supreme law of the land). The Executive branch, and its agencies, is empowered to execute and enforce the law. That necessarily requires them to apply judgment in determining how a law would apply to a particular set of circumstances - such as in the case of pistol braces. None of this changes the fact that the legislative is the only branch that can make law.

At least this is my understanding. I am pretty busy at work today, but will take another look this weekend.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:21 am I am not for sure how the ATF came to just write a memo and it is law. What happened to the House, the Senate, and the Presidents signature?

The answer is that its not a law. At least not until after it has been tested in a court. To my knowledge that has not even happened with "bump stocks" and the ATF told us their latest opinion on those a while ago (which contradicted their prior opinion on the same subject).

Until that happens, anything coming out of the ATF is just their opinion of how the law would apply in a specific situation.

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:18 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:55 amMr. Rothstein, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, 100%, and I won't argue against the second part, either. However, I'm sure you know that no law is any better than its enforcement. So what I am curious about is this: how many braced-type AR pistols do you think are out there right now? It has to be a pretty big number, six figures perhaps. Additionally, are law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas going to aid the BATFE in any significant manner to locate and arrest people who own AR pistols which might run afoul of those proposed rules? I understand the scenarios of "you get pulled over for a traffic stop on the way to the range and your now-illegal AR pistol gets you arrested", etc. But still, how practical is it for the BATFE to rely on such a strategy? And, if the number of AR pistols is a six-figure number, can they really jail even a significant proportion of those? All that said, what I'm getting at is that over-reach by a Federal agency might have more than one meaning, in this case, biting off more than they can chew. (Disclaimer, I don't own one of those, never could afford it compared to other things I wanted to purchase.)

Mr. Mooneyham, I believe you are correct that this law is effectively unenforceable on the vast number of braced AR pistols that exist right now. The ATF can only enforce that on people idiotic enough (I tried to think of a polite way to say that but I think that about describes it) to send their pistol to the ATF or local police for an evaluation. There is simply no way to enforce this against existing firearms now. The real question is if there is any way to enforce it against future firearms. I think ATF will be monitoring the market place and will go after the manufacturers of braces they feel violate their rules. Then they will get the list of the customers and will send them letters demanding they turn in the weapon (much like they just did with one company and its "autosear". I think the average gun owner is fairly safe from the ATF on this and it will primarily hurt manufacturers and some of them will end up in jail. But that will dry up the supply for future gun owners who want a braced pistol.

I think this proposal almost makes our legislature seem prescient. They did pass the bill, and I believe the governor will sign it, that stops state licensed peace officers from enforcing these laws or helping federal agents do so. I had not expected to see a benefit from it that quickly.

I'm confused as to how there could be any enforcement against manufacturers of pistol braces. A pistol brace, by itself, does not pass the prerequisites listed above ITT so you wouldn't even get to the scoring part of the test at all. As I read the proposed rule, the ATF is not claiming that this accessory by itself is a firearm, much less an SBR (this is different from their opinion that a "bumpstock" by itself is in fact a machine gun).

My understanding of the rule is that one only runs afoul of the tests here once the brace is attached to a firearm of some sort. As long as manufacturers are not selling a firearm that has a brace installed on it, they can't be selling an NFA item. But it is entirely possible that I do not fully understand the rule.

Also, as far as agency rules "clarifying" laws, I agree that executive agencies have zero authority to make laws. But I don't think that is what they are doing, either here or with the "bumpstock" rule. Instead, the agency is just saying "this is how we interpret the law", and in both cases ("bumpstocks" and braces) they are also saying "...and we think our previous interpretations of the law were incorrect". That is interesting, but it doesn't change the law at all. The law can only be interpreted and applied to a specific case by the judiciary, and until a judge and/or jury makes a ruling on what is or isn't a machine gun (in the case of "bumpstocks") or an SBR (in the case of braces), the ATF's interpretation of the law is just as valid as my interpretation of the law. The exception being that in both cases, the ATF is fully admitting that they have incorrectly interpreted these exact same laws before, which I would argue is pretty good evidence that they are incorrect now as well. Kind of like when a witness is caught in a lie and the opposing attorney argues that since they are an admitted liar, they are more likely to also be lying about XYZ now.

Again, I fully allow for the possibility that I am completely off base on this as well.