ATF bans stabilizing braces on pistols that were legally purchased, turning millions of gun owners into instant criminals

(Natural News)
Joe Biden’s administration is continuing its war on the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners even as members of his party continue to adopt soft-on-crime policies that have turned large sections of major cities into shooting galleries, putting decent people more at risk.

Most recently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives implemented a new rule banning so-called “pistol stabilizing devices” which they claim transform short-barreled semi-automatic pistols into rifles without changing anything else about the gun itself (like rate of fire, for instance).

The new rule (ATF final rule 2021R-08F) was published on the ATF’s website today and is set to be posted on the Federal Register on Monday, one day before the industry’s largest trade show, SHOT Show,” Ammoland reported late last week. “The regulation will affect millions of Americans that currently own pistol stabilizing devices. What has been considered pistols for years will now be regarded as short barreled rifles (SBR) and be subjected to the National Firearms Act.

“The proposed rule used a form known as ‘Worksheet 4999’ to determine if a firearm equipped with a pistol brace would be considered an SBR by using a point system. The ATF ditched the form in favor of a widespread declaration that almost every pistol equipped with a brace of any kind would be considered an SBR,” the outlet continued.

The final rule says:

Worksheet 4999 was intended to ensure uniform consideration and application of the statutory definition of those terms. Based on the comments received, the Department agrees that the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system did not achieve these intended purposes.

Under the rule, any gun that is “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and is intended to be fired from the shoulder” will be considered an SBR. The designation now includes any device including the stabilizing braces which the agency has to assume was installed by the owner to shoulder-fire the weapon. In addition, if a firearm simply has the surface area that may allow it to be fired from the shoulder, the ATF could consider it an SBR if it has a length or a weight that is consistent among rifles.

“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations,” says the rule.

Meanwhile, a rule put into place by the Trump administration has just been soundly rejected by a federal appeals court, and not by a little but by a lot.

During the previous administration and after a madman used rifles equipped with bump stocks to massacre nearly 60 people attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas on Oct. 1, 2017, then-President Donald Trump, responding to a tidal wave of public pressure, acquiesced to the gun control left and ordered his Justice Department to pronounce the stocks verboten. Suddenly, millions of Americans who owned the pieces of equipment, which are used to create the appearance and function of a fully automatic weapon, were in violation of the ‘law.’

But as is most often the case, one of those owners who did nothing wrong on Oct. 1, 2017, filed a lawsuit alleging that the previous administration mischaracterized the bump stock and thus, under the guise of current federal law, had no authority to issue the ban.

And now, a federal appeals court has agreed — overwhelmingly.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a 13-3 decision Friday striking down the regulatory gun control that banned bump stocks under former President Donald Trump,” reported Breitbart News last week.

In its ruling, the “court intimated that actions on guns should be taken by Congress rather than the executive branch,” the outlet added.

With all the problems our country has under the current regime, why is it so focused on attacking a fundamental constitutional guarantee?

Sources include:

Ammoland.com

Breitbart.com

Reakcja

0%0Pozytywnie0%0Neutralnie 0%0Negatywnie

Twoje emocje

0%0Lubię to!

0%0Super0%0Ekscytujący 0%0Ciekawy0%0Smieszny0%0Smutny0%0Wściekły0%0Przerażony0%0Szokujący0%0Wzruszający0%0Rozczarowany0%0Zaskoczony

Co sądzisz?

0%0Prawda0%0Manipulacja0%0Fake news

0

0Ulub

Oryginalne źródło ZOBACZ