He was already an extremely poor choice based on just track record, but reading a little from that AMA shows why his track record is so poor because he is retarded and cares little for civil liberties whatsoever.
So he's gonna kill hundreds to thousands of American jobs and millions of dollars of commerce from an American industry (again) by going after 80% kits and pistol braces.
That'll probably have the secondary effect of making literally hundreds of thousands of Americans into de facto criminals; and will result in very little confiscation or turn in, because honestly they don't have the manpower to go after every one of the literally millions of 80% kits that are in people's hands.
And put out what are effectively nothing but guidelines on how to establish laws that circumvent people's 4th Amendment protections because they make other people uncomfortable.
He's also gonna recommend a known stepper to head honcho of the ATF.
my guess is there's millions in those plans sent to rebuild Democrat states that were burned and looted last summer. they did their part, and now they get bailed out by the taxpayer.
Wonder how they'll enforce any of this in 2A sanctuary states and counties. Police and sheriffs, backed by the citizenry potentially getting into a shootout with fed bois will definitely be interesting and likely not in the feds favor.
Social Security, Medicare, the entire Welfare system is collapsing and will be defunct in less than 10 years. They have to take the guns. They have to do it now. USA will be a weird mix of Britain and China in less than 5 years. You will not even be allowed to leave the country or immigrate away.
Not a US citizen, so apologies in advance if these questions come across as a bit ignorant...(probably because they kinda are):
If 80% kits are a problem because they don't have serial numbers and don't have background checks, why not just change the legislation to have them treated the same as a normal firearm so that they do require both?
How does treating a pistol with a brace as a short barrelled rifle change things in terms of the law? Does it make it illegal to own one? How does that make it worse than using an AR-15 with a longer barrel, but with a bigger magazine, larger calibre bullets, and being more accurate due to it being shoulder mounted?
Red flag laws, on their face, seem kinda open to abuse. I get that the idea is get guns out of the hands from people with mental issues, but what's to stop disgruntled family members (e.g. separated spouse) from using this to mess with someone? Or LEO's using this as a de facto method of disarming people they don't like?
If a court rules any of these unconstitutional, are they immediately struck down?
An 80% is ultimately just a partially milled block of aluminum. Where do you draw the line? 60%? 40%? 0%, where all blocks of aluminum are now regulated?
And nowadays there's been a surge in popularity of small desktop cnc machines, which can be had for a few hundred dollars. As long as the milling area is at least as large as a receiver, making a receiver from a block of aluminum is pretty trivial.
That all only addresses metal receivers - there's been a lot of strides made for 3D printed receivers, with people making Glock frames and AR receivers (fairly mature), and AK receivers (still being improved - functional but needs improvements for durability based on the last updates I saw).
Changing the definition of an 80% does absolutely nothing.
Braces:
So for this one we need to go back to the NFA and US v. Miller, a court case challenging it.
The NFA in it's original proposed text intended to address violence by the mafia that arose during prohibition, poaching, and keep handguns out of the hands of those pesky poor people.
To do that, it required registration and a tax stamp for machine guns, handguns, rifles and shotguns shorter than a specific length, and suppressors. All required a tax stamp of $200, which when adjusted for inflation would be in excess of $4000 nowadays, putting any out of the price range of the vast majority of people.
Now, the NRA managed to successfully get handguns removed from the NFA. But short barreled rifles (SBRs, barrel length < 16") and short barreled shotguns (SBS, barrel length <18') remained on the NFA. The sole reason those were on the NFA was to prevent those dirty poor people from getting around the paywall on handguns
So now we come to US v. Miller, in 1934. It was challenging the restrictions on short barreled shotguns. There were a number of procedural irregularities that went on, but the chief among them was the fact that the defense and their counsel never actually got a chance to travel to the supreme court and make their arguments, so the state side of the case made their argument unopposed. The resulting conclusion was that SBRs and SBSs could be restricted because the second amendment only protects arms useful for military/militia purposes.
But then you might ask, didn't the US use trench shotguns during WWI? And didn't the use shorter barrels than allowed? And I'd say yes. And the military currently uses rifles shorter than 16". But the Supreme Court only really made any sort of 2nd Amendment rulings again starting with DC v. Heller in 2008, and that had to do with handgun bans. There has not yet been a case that could revisit and perhaps overturn the ridiculous ruling made in Miller.
So now that the historical background is dealt with, why braces? The answer comes from what the ATF has defined as rifles. Specifically - a rifle must have a stock, and they ruled that a stabilizing brace is not a stock, so what would be an SBR with a stock would be a "pistol" with a brace. And, during the last administration, they in fact updated their guidance to clarify that even if you use a brace as a stock, it is still a brace, effectively neutering the SBR restrictions.
Unfortunately, shortly after the election, the ATF began to make moves in the opposite direction to, seemingly, get in the good graces of the incoming extremely anti-gun Biden administration.
Treating a pistol with a brace as an SBR pretty destroys the point of braces, as at that point you might as well just get the tax stamp, wait a year for ATF to check the box saying you're approved, and slap a stock on it. Plus actually hurting the community of disabled shooters who actually use it as a brace because they need that stabilization for actual pistols.
Red Flag Laws:
Your take on it is pretty much spot on. They're ripe for abuse.
Ruling Laws Unconstitutional:
If the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional, it is immediately struck down with no exception. Though some lawa have provisions such that individual parts can be struck down without the the entire law being struck down.
If a lower court rules it unconstitutional, then it's only struck down as long as the state is not appealing the ruling, and they do not request a stay on the ruling, meaning it doesn't take effect unless the court appealed to upholds lower court ruling.
We've seen this multiple times in California in the past few years. One particular judge has been striking down California's gun laws left and right, the most notable of which was California's magazine ban on mags holding more than 10 rounds. That led to "Freedom Week", where the California residents were able to purchase standard capacity magazines. Shortly after though, the state requested a stay on the ruling, and appealed to the 9th Circuit, which traditionally has had a heavily anti-gun slant, because of some previous conventions of judicial nominations that were removed in the past four years, but this post is already too long to go into that. But the effective result is that we got lucky with the 3-judge panel at the 9th Circuit and they upheld the ruling, and after the state requested another stay, and now the case is proceeding to an 11-judge en banc panel. This is something requested by the judges of the circuit, in this case the majority anti-gun portion.
So what happens now? We wait, probably don't get lucky again, and the 9th Circuit rules the mag ban constitutional. At which point the plaintiff will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. If they take it, and rule the mag ban unconstitutional, the law is struck down. And it will apply to all states, not just California where the specific law that was challenged was. Though there may be some steps to the other state's bans being struck down that I'm not knowledgeable about.
So this turned into way longer of a post than intended, and anyone reading this, please correct anything I got wrong here, because I was pretty much going off of memory, with a few quick Google searches to get years right.
I think they need to clean house in the Democrat cities if they want to stop gun violence. All fun laws do is make good people criminals. Criminals by definition do not obey laws therefore they will keep their guns. So will I.
I don't trust the courts to help us, but the ATF backed down from a previous case about ghost guns when the defendant started questioning the definition of a receiver. Since neither an AR lower nor upper contains the bolt and fire control group, they are not definitionally firearms when seperate. The same goes for every semi-auto pistol frame.
That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.
The nominated director was, reportedly, involved in Waco. I'm sure he'll deal with other gun owners as honorably as he did them.
Alas, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident.
That piece of shit was involved in Waco, he belongs in a woodchirper in Minecraft.
I don't know about him being personally involved in the butchery of children and pregnant women on that black day, but I do know he did an AMA (on the cesspool that is r/politics no less) where he claimed the Branch Davidians shot down choppers with Barretts and, in general, did such a poor job defending himself & the ATF's record that even r/politics wasn't fully onboard with him.
He was already an extremely poor choice based on just track record, but reading a little from that AMA shows why his track record is so poor because he is retarded and cares little for civil liberties whatsoever.
A model ATF agent I'd say.
I wouldn't be upset if he got shoved in one irl. He's a lying piece of shit.
Woodchiper in Fargo be better me thinks
Every time I see this proposed, I have to remind myself that it's not a joke and that gun grabbers are really this retarded.
...And yet Pharmaceutical Companies are exempt from any liability with COVID-19 vaccines, and in many other situations.
coughallvaccines*cough
So he's gonna kill hundreds to thousands of American jobs and millions of dollars of commerce from an American industry (again) by going after 80% kits and pistol braces.
That'll probably have the secondary effect of making literally hundreds of thousands of Americans into de facto criminals; and will result in very little confiscation or turn in, because honestly they don't have the manpower to go after every one of the literally millions of 80% kits that are in people's hands.
And put out what are effectively nothing but guidelines on how to establish laws that circumvent people's 4th Amendment protections because they make other people uncomfortable.
He's also gonna recommend a known stepper to head honcho of the ATF.
President mumbles strikes again.
At that point just put a stock on it. If they want to play games then we'll play games.
Really sounds like a bunch of words and a lot of money to 'community' interventions, i.e reparations, for the ghettos in democrat-run cities.
my guess is there's millions in those plans sent to rebuild Democrat states that were burned and looted last summer. they did their part, and now they get bailed out by the taxpayer.
The ATF already raided a business a few months ago and then started visiting their customers.
https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2020/12/atf-sending-agents-to-houses-of-polymer80-customers-requesting-forfeiture-of-legally-purchased-ghost-gun-kits/
Wow... The fact that the result of this isn't an armed standoff is unbelievable. These snakes deserve a bullet to the back of the head
God, we are so fucked as a nation.
We are no longer a nation, but two nations fighting for control of one government, which acts in the interest of neither.
Wonder how they'll enforce any of this in 2A sanctuary states and counties. Police and sheriffs, backed by the citizenry potentially getting into a shootout with fed bois will definitely be interesting and likely not in the feds favor.
I mean, we all saw Ruby Ridge and Waco. They will commit horrible atrocities to enforce this stuff if provoked.
THIS is why you gather in large ARMED groups. Can't Waco an entire army, state or region of a country. Not enough ATF or even military.
GLORIOUS!!!!
Rofl, local police standing up to feds.
Has that happened even once in the last 100 years in America?
During Obama's bullshit. "I got my swat team, you'd better bring yours" comes to mind, though that was the county sheriff.
It's almost as though someone was having a bipolar manic event. Almost
Social Security, Medicare, the entire Welfare system is collapsing and will be defunct in less than 10 years. They have to take the guns. They have to do it now. USA will be a weird mix of Britain and China in less than 5 years. You will not even be allowed to leave the country or immigrate away.
this seems like the kind of guy the government should have given a nice retirement to with a condition that he never appear in public again.
talk about failing upwards.
nothing he does should be seen as legitimate and the entire organization should be defunded, disbanded, and dismantled.
Not a US citizen, so apologies in advance if these questions come across as a bit ignorant...(probably because they kinda are):
If 80% kits are a problem because they don't have serial numbers and don't have background checks, why not just change the legislation to have them treated the same as a normal firearm so that they do require both?
How does treating a pistol with a brace as a short barrelled rifle change things in terms of the law? Does it make it illegal to own one? How does that make it worse than using an AR-15 with a longer barrel, but with a bigger magazine, larger calibre bullets, and being more accurate due to it being shoulder mounted?
Red flag laws, on their face, seem kinda open to abuse. I get that the idea is get guns out of the hands from people with mental issues, but what's to stop disgruntled family members (e.g. separated spouse) from using this to mess with someone? Or LEO's using this as a de facto method of disarming people they don't like?
If a court rules any of these unconstitutional, are they immediately struck down?
80%'s:
An 80% is ultimately just a partially milled block of aluminum. Where do you draw the line? 60%? 40%? 0%, where all blocks of aluminum are now regulated?
And nowadays there's been a surge in popularity of small desktop cnc machines, which can be had for a few hundred dollars. As long as the milling area is at least as large as a receiver, making a receiver from a block of aluminum is pretty trivial.
That all only addresses metal receivers - there's been a lot of strides made for 3D printed receivers, with people making Glock frames and AR receivers (fairly mature), and AK receivers (still being improved - functional but needs improvements for durability based on the last updates I saw).
Changing the definition of an 80% does absolutely nothing.
Braces:
So for this one we need to go back to the NFA and US v. Miller, a court case challenging it.
The NFA in it's original proposed text intended to address violence by the mafia that arose during prohibition, poaching, and keep handguns out of the hands of those pesky poor people.
To do that, it required registration and a tax stamp for machine guns, handguns, rifles and shotguns shorter than a specific length, and suppressors. All required a tax stamp of $200, which when adjusted for inflation would be in excess of $4000 nowadays, putting any out of the price range of the vast majority of people.
Now, the NRA managed to successfully get handguns removed from the NFA. But short barreled rifles (SBRs, barrel length < 16") and short barreled shotguns (SBS, barrel length <18') remained on the NFA. The sole reason those were on the NFA was to prevent those dirty poor people from getting around the paywall on handguns
So now we come to US v. Miller, in 1934. It was challenging the restrictions on short barreled shotguns. There were a number of procedural irregularities that went on, but the chief among them was the fact that the defense and their counsel never actually got a chance to travel to the supreme court and make their arguments, so the state side of the case made their argument unopposed. The resulting conclusion was that SBRs and SBSs could be restricted because the second amendment only protects arms useful for military/militia purposes.
But then you might ask, didn't the US use trench shotguns during WWI? And didn't the use shorter barrels than allowed? And I'd say yes. And the military currently uses rifles shorter than 16". But the Supreme Court only really made any sort of 2nd Amendment rulings again starting with DC v. Heller in 2008, and that had to do with handgun bans. There has not yet been a case that could revisit and perhaps overturn the ridiculous ruling made in Miller.
So now that the historical background is dealt with, why braces? The answer comes from what the ATF has defined as rifles. Specifically - a rifle must have a stock, and they ruled that a stabilizing brace is not a stock, so what would be an SBR with a stock would be a "pistol" with a brace. And, during the last administration, they in fact updated their guidance to clarify that even if you use a brace as a stock, it is still a brace, effectively neutering the SBR restrictions.
Unfortunately, shortly after the election, the ATF began to make moves in the opposite direction to, seemingly, get in the good graces of the incoming extremely anti-gun Biden administration.
Treating a pistol with a brace as an SBR pretty destroys the point of braces, as at that point you might as well just get the tax stamp, wait a year for ATF to check the box saying you're approved, and slap a stock on it. Plus actually hurting the community of disabled shooters who actually use it as a brace because they need that stabilization for actual pistols.
Red Flag Laws:
Your take on it is pretty much spot on. They're ripe for abuse.
Ruling Laws Unconstitutional:
If the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional, it is immediately struck down with no exception. Though some lawa have provisions such that individual parts can be struck down without the the entire law being struck down.
If a lower court rules it unconstitutional, then it's only struck down as long as the state is not appealing the ruling, and they do not request a stay on the ruling, meaning it doesn't take effect unless the court appealed to upholds lower court ruling.
We've seen this multiple times in California in the past few years. One particular judge has been striking down California's gun laws left and right, the most notable of which was California's magazine ban on mags holding more than 10 rounds. That led to "Freedom Week", where the California residents were able to purchase standard capacity magazines. Shortly after though, the state requested a stay on the ruling, and appealed to the 9th Circuit, which traditionally has had a heavily anti-gun slant, because of some previous conventions of judicial nominations that were removed in the past four years, but this post is already too long to go into that. But the effective result is that we got lucky with the 3-judge panel at the 9th Circuit and they upheld the ruling, and after the state requested another stay, and now the case is proceeding to an 11-judge en banc panel. This is something requested by the judges of the circuit, in this case the majority anti-gun portion.
So what happens now? We wait, probably don't get lucky again, and the 9th Circuit rules the mag ban constitutional. At which point the plaintiff will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. If they take it, and rule the mag ban unconstitutional, the law is struck down. And it will apply to all states, not just California where the specific law that was challenged was. Though there may be some steps to the other state's bans being struck down that I'm not knowledgeable about.
So this turned into way longer of a post than intended, and anyone reading this, please correct anything I got wrong here, because I was pretty much going off of memory, with a few quick Google searches to get years right.
They rigged an election and now they're going after the constitution. I'm pretty sure these folks (rightfully) believe they're unstoppable.
I think they need to clean house in the Democrat cities if they want to stop gun violence. All fun laws do is make good people criminals. Criminals by definition do not obey laws therefore they will keep their guns. So will I.
I don't trust the courts to help us, but the ATF backed down from a previous case about ghost guns when the defendant started questioning the definition of a receiver. Since neither an AR lower nor upper contains the bolt and fire control group, they are not definitionally firearms when seperate. The same goes for every semi-auto pistol frame.
-Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Part 478, Subpart B, §478.11