ATF proposes rewriting what is and isn't a firearm through regulations, without legislation or passage of a law.

[Raylan]

Bull Crap - can't redefine a firearm using regulations and then enforce them as felonies without first passing a law to formally change the definition in law. Time to stop all this; hey we made new regulations, so now these things and those things are illegal and we can arrest you for them without so much as any legislation or the passage of a law. Also long past time for it to be made clear that "shall not be infringed" means what it damn well says.

 

 

 

[Dantankerous]

Blame... oh wait, that would be political.

 

But the answer IS political.

[Raylan]

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Sorta preaching to the true believers.  Unfortunately Biden does not read the SASS wire and is not a true believer.

[Raylan]

Members and friends of members and family can comment on the government website once they actually open the comments and representatives and senators can be called and written to let them know that many people don't agree. Links and information can also be shared via social media and email and text.

[Pat Riot]

I don’t recall the Constitution allowing bureaucrats to create laws or regulations, but it seems that is the status quo when you have weak politicians who are more worried about getting re-elected than fulfilling the oaths they took to get into office in the first place. 

[Raylan]

A recent circuit court case overturned federal regulations (I believe it was the bump stock ban) saying it was not in the perview of the regulating agency to proglumate regulations that resulted in people being in jeopardy of imprisonment for felonies without legislation being passed into law. Also such regulations have been defeated in the recent past due to an upswell of complaints in federal comments and people contacting their representatives and senators. Or we could all just sit down and shut up and obey our unelected masters as they violate our rights. 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Any politician that opposes the 2nd Amendment has broken his/her oath of office. 

You know the one that says: I solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

 

They should be impeached, and removed from office, if they fail that oath....or have a recall vote, and removed from office.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know....ain't gonna happen. What "should be", and "what is" are many light-years apart.

 

Lincoln's words have turned out to be incorrect. We no longer have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We have willfully ignorant liberal/leftists, that want to reshape, and redefine, our country, and us, in their image, of what they think is best for us. They want to become our parents, and control us from cradle to grave, and make us totally dependent on the government, and them.  

 

Worst of all, the American people seem to be willfully ignorant, and/or too lazy, to study up on the candidates, and vote for those that uphold the Constitution, and what our Founding Fathers wanted, and stood for. I blame the American voters for this mess that we are now in. Of course this also presumes that they have a modicum of interest about the Constitution, and American history....which most do not!!!

"Bread and circuses" is all the majority seem to want now...or to say it in modern terms, all I want is my three "B's"...my Buick, my beer, and my ball games. 

And of course, anything free that I can get, without working for it. 

 

We are going to wake up, some morning, and be shooting SASS matches, with virtual firearms, on-line. 

 

Alas...I believe I am wasting my breath...perhaps not here on this medium, since most or all of us treasure our freedoms and firearms. 

 

The future sure ain't what it used to be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Texas Joker]

Two things. On restrictions to 2a. Replace gun with vote and see the hypocrisy.

 

ID and background check to own gun. Check.

ID and background check to vote. Heads explode.

Both intrinsic civil rights.

 

And we are at the point where the majority can vote themselves free stuff from the government coffers. There are several historical precursors for what happens to an empire when that occurs.

Gonna be a bumpy ride

 

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

Agency "Regulations" have for many years been a common and sneaky way to create enforceable governmental rule.  I can not call it law, but once published in Federal Register and comment period has passed Federal agencies can adopt their new regulation and as a regulation it is what is used to define those parts legislation which read "as determined be the XXXXhead of XXXX Agency" or something close.  The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official and complete text of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register. These regulations are established by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The CFR is divided into various titles that represent broad subject areas of Federal regulation. This is how laws that seem vague or written poorly are actually defined and enforced.

 

 

[Ozark Huckleberry]

1 hour ago, Texas Joker said:

Two things. On restrictions to 2a. Replace gun with vote and see the hypocrisy.

 

ID and background check to own gun. Check.

ID and background check to vote. Heads explode.

Both intrinsic civil rights.

 

And we are at the point where the majority can vote themselves free stuff from the government coffers. There are several historical precursors for what happens to an empire when that occurs.

Gonna be a bumpy ride

 

Both intrinsic civil rights, except -

 

For one, the Constitution only lists reasons that CANNOT be used to limit the right, and;

 

For the other, the Constitution bars using ANY reason to limit the right. 

[Texas Joker]

Don't disagree^. And for a right that says 'shall not be infringed' at the end of a clause there seem to be a lot of ' you can't do thats' attached to it.

 

I figure it's a matter of time before the States rights question gets asked and answered again.

 

We just created 3trillion more dollars and got told that inflation wouldn't happen. Maybe what we are seeing isn't inflation, but limited goods on the shelves ( look at the number of totes and laundry baskets filling shelf space at walmart) and 25% price increase on everything.

 

Walks like a duck talks like a duck call it whatever you want I call it a duck.

[Dubious Don #56333]

I'm looking at a copy of those proposed regs right here on my desk. It's on aft (lol) dot gov if you care to read it. Four pages of nonsense designed to "do something about" 80 percent "kits". Raylan and Waxahachie have it right.

 

It is, in fact, a bit odd what aft considers a "receiver" currently. An AR it's the lower. An FAL or L1A1 it's the upper and so on. They actually have definitions that cover this now and they do in fact work, and they do in fact, comply with the 1968 GCA which the proposed regs do NOT. Under the proposed regs, a SLIDE could be defined as "receiver". Think about that. With it's OWN SN. LOL.

 

If they were going for 80 percent kits, they would have simply changed what is defined as "80 percent". We know where they are going. They don't WANT people to have firearms they can't know about. SOOOO, go to the comments page when it opens, contact your ELECTED representatives and do what needs to be done because currently, that still works. Currently. I make no promises to what is to come, considering the current political "climate" of our Country. Nuff said on that.
 

[Texas Joker]

GSA and GCA  are unconstitutional on their face.

 

Arguing that something is in line with either puts the authority to continue to infringe back in their court.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I don't think any of this will go through. 

 

(Fingers crossed though)

[Subdeacon Joe]

I've been saying it for two decades, all the alphabet soup regulatory agencies must be reined in and all "regulations" that have the force of law suspended until they are run through Congress, debated, voted on, and signed into law.  Any future "regulations" that have force of law likewise must be run through Congress as the Constitution requires.

Sort of like the word games the CA Legislature plays calling a tax a "fee" to avoid supermajority requirements.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

16 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I don’t recall the Constitution allowing bureaucrats to create laws or regulations, but it seems that is the status quo when you have weak politicians who are more worried about getting re-elected than fulfilling the oaths they took to get into office in the first place. 

They have been doing for my entire life time....coming up on 80 years now.

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

HISTORY is a wonderful thing.  Look at the dates and see if you see anything coincidental.

Congress, in 1935, passed the Federal Register Act, which empowered the Archivist of the United States to establish a division within the National Archives to be responsible, with the Government Publishing Office, for the publication of a daily Federal Register under the authority of a newly established Administrative Committee of the Federal Register.

The Federal Register Act requires that the Federal Register, begun on March 14, 1936, be the Federal government’s comprehensive vehicle for publishing all agency promulgated rules and regulations as well as all Presidential proclamations and executive orders or other such documents that the President determines has general applicability and legal effect or as may be required by Act of Congress.

 

After the enactment of the Administrative Procedures Act in 1946, notices of proposed rule making are now also required to be published.  The proposed rules are to be accompanied by a description of the subject and issues involved and from 1947 to 1972 these descriptions in the preamble to the proposed rules were about the only place to find an explanation or rationale for a rule.

[Pat Riot]

3 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

They have been doing for my entire life time....coming up on 80 years now.

I know. That’s the problem. 

[Bad Bascomb, SASS # 47,494]

  At the risk of sounding political, reading Thomas Jefferson enough will expose current affairs for what they are. 

Time to re-purpose the phony "War on Terror" which didn't work well  enough to quash our liberties and freedom into the REAL War on Tyranny.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

I never saw any need for me to buy an AR-15 80% lower.  I could buy a complete lower from Anderson for less money and no risk of screwing it up.  However since they are making such a big deal out of it, I am feeling the urge.  

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

Me too....

Never really had an interest in owning an A-R until ole "beto" (not his real name, by the way) started plainly telling us what the liberal/leftist-demo-rats really wanted to do, much to the leftists horror at the truth finally being revealed (as if most of us, that have two brain cells working in synch didn't already know). 

So, I went out and bought two.

 

They will be passing out Eskimo pies in hell, before they take them, or even find them. 

 

"The RIGHT of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."

 

  

 

[Pat Riot]

If you would kindly go to this link you will find a description of the the proposal as well as a link for commenting on that proposal. 
 

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver

 

I have commented on ATF proposals in the past. Boogeymen in black did not show up at my door after I submitted my responses to their proposals. 
 

If you think this proposal is a bad idea, an infringement, a waste of time, or whatever you think about it, send them a comment. 

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

We are experiencing similar attacks here in Canada, with our leftist government making law without benefit of debate in Parliament by elected officials.

Instead, we are getting "Orders In Council" (OICs) that enjoy the full force and effect of actual laws passed by elected Members of Parliament.  

A recent one has banned ARs and all similar firearms, pending a buy-back they are discussing, at rates to be decided. Meanwhile, those owning ARs etc. can't legally take them to the range of use them anywhere.

 

[Still hand Bill]

After reading the proposed rule summary, this is a way to create a registry.  Not sure what the penalty is, but all user made firearms have to have a government issued serial number and the records kept forever.   I assume that is the end goal, who owns what.