• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Send a message to bidens ATF

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Why don't we approve of it?
For all you lazy forum members who expect other members to take you by the hand and walk you through the governments intent of taking your rights away, here you go......
For all those who are that lazy to take time to read a document designed to take your rights away, here you go.
ATF proposes to replace the respective regulatory definitions of “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 because they too narrowly limit the definition of receiver with respect to most current firearms and have led to erroneous district court decisions.
Indeed, most firearms currently in circulation in the United States do not have a specific part that expressly falls within the current “frame or receiver” regulatory definitions. Most concerning is that the interpretation of these definitions by some courts, relying on the current regulations, would make it easier to obtain the majority of existing firearms, including some of the most advanced semiautomatic weapons, without complying with the requirements of the GCA, and make it far more difficult to trace those firearms after a crime. Should the current definition remain in place and courts continue to interpret it such that no part or parts of most firearms are defined as the frame or receiver, these unserialized parts, easily purchased and assembled to create functioning firearms, would be untraceable, thereby putting the public at risk. While a “frame or receiver” is clearly within the statutory definition of what constitutes a “firearm” under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), clarifying that this term includes how most modern-day firearms operate would help ensure that the regulatory definition of “frame or receiver” will not be misinterpreted by the courts, the firearms industry, or the public at large to mean that most firearms in circulation have no part identifiable as a frame or receiver.
In other words, since the ATF and Justice Dept. can't get Congress or the courts to change the law, they want to do it by regulation.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,847
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Don't "regulations" stem from the law itself? If these "regulations" have been "misinterpreted" by the courts, whos job it is to interpret such "regulations" in accordance with their originating law and judge alleged criminal conduct accordingly, it would seem that revising the "regulations" to conform to the law is appropriate.

The ATF is responsible for crafting regulations that comport with the law, but they are also supposed to clearly inform the public to ensure compliance. It is incumbent on the ATF to provide clear and accurate definitions of components that reflect the designs and configurations of firearms available to the consumer. The proposed rule reads like the ATF is whining about the variety of configurations available (some of which predate federal firearms laws) because these legal configurations don't match the existing rules.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
For all you lazy forum members who expect other members to take you by the hand and walk you through the governments intent of taking your rights away, here you go......

In other words, since the ATF and Justice Dept. can't get Congress or the courts to change the law, they want to do it by regulation.
Maybe it's not because I'm lazy, I just have other things on my plate but this is something of interest to me.

Maybe if all of you would stop being so antagonistic and rude, we would get more community in this forum.

Ya'll bicker back and forth like a bunch of holier than thou know it alls.

God forbid I don't understand something and I ask for help. Is that a crime?

Good grief.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Don't "regulations" stem from the law itself? If these "regulations" have been "misinterpreted" by the courts, whos job it is to interpret such "regulations" in accordance with their originating law and judge alleged criminal conduct accordingly, it would seem that revising the "regulations" to conform to the law is appropriate.

The ATF is responsible for crafting regulations that comport with the law, but they are also supposed to clearly inform the public to ensure compliance. It is incumbent on the ATF to provide clear and accurate definitions of components that reflect the designs and configurations of firearms available to the consumer. The proposed rule reads like the ATF is whining about the variety of configurations available (some of which predate federal firearms laws) because these legal configurations don't match the existing rules.
Generally correct. But it is complicated. Agency interpretation operates under the Chevron Doctrine. The Chevron Doctrine (1984) provides that courts should put a “thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the government’s view of the meaning of [a] statute . . .” as long as the interpretation is reasonable, also known as the Auer Deference. Lower courts have abused this doctrine screwing over the public on a regular basis. The U.S. Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie (2019) dealt a blow to Auer Deference, significantly limiting its scope. No longer can a court easily find that the regulation in question is not ambiguous and defer to the agency’s interpretation. Now, courts must go through an exhaustive three-step process to determine whether a regulation is ambiguous enough to be deemed “genuinely ambiguous.”

Should these regulations be adopted they could be challenged in court as being in conflict with congress's intent and already existing court interpretations.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Maybe it's not because I'm lazy, I just have other things on my plate but this is something of interest to me.

Maybe if all of you would stop being so antagonistic and rude, we would get more community in this forum.

Ya'll bicker back and forth like a bunch of holier than thou know it alls.

God forbid I don't understand something and I ask for help. Is that a crime?

Good grief.
Of your 1400+ posts since 2008, how many of those posts offered solid teaching information that other members could reflect or rely on?
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,223
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I, for one, have written several (with more to follow) emails to the batf voicing MY opinion. This is a complete redefinition of what a firearm is in an attempt to control them with more draconian laws. It is your choice to either comply or complain, but the noisy wheel gets the grease.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Of your 1400+ posts since 2008, how many of those posts offered solid teaching information that other members could reflect or rely on?
Why does that matter? Is your communication merit-based? Like, only 'certain' people are worthy of your response?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
I, for one, have written several (with more to follow) emails to the batf voicing MY opinion. This is a complete redefinition of what a firearm is in an attempt to control them with more draconian laws. It is your choice to either comply or complain, but the noisy wheel gets the grease.
And you can communicate a certain way to prove a point, or you could help a fellow forum member out with some infromation. I mean, you're taking the time to write a snippy reply to me, why not just give me some insight instead? Takes the same amount of time but it doesn't waste anyone's time.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,223
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
And you can communicate a certain way to prove a point, or you could help a fellow forum member out with some infromation. I mean, you're taking the time to write a snippy reply to me, why not just give me some insight instead? Takes the same amount of time but it doesn't waste anyone's time.
Hammer I cannot "tell you" what to think or what to feel. My comment was not "snippy", I was encouraging you to read it and make your own decision. I am not going to tell anyone how or what to think. If you ask what our individual thoughts are that is different, if you think I am wasting your time, why read my post? (now THAT was "snippy".
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,177
Location
here nc
So, what should our reply be?
'OUR' reply...
Maybe it's not because I'm lazy, I just have other things on my plate but this is something of interest to me.

Maybe if all of you would stop being so antagonistic and rude, we would get more community in this forum.

Ya'll bicker back and forth like a bunch of holier than thou know it alls.

God forbid I don't understand something and I ask for help. Is that a crime?

Good grief.
you asked for help...?

1620749822713.gif
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
you guys appear to be useless in connecting multiple people to take action.

you have no problem taking time to quote and correct me...but you can't seem to find the time to help me understand what it is i'm looking for in this document.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
you guys appear to be useless in connecting multiple people to take action.

you have no problem taking time to quote and correct me...but you can't seem to find the time to help me understand what it is i'm looking for in this document.
No one is keeping you from demitting from the forum.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,177
Location
here nc
you guys appear to be useless in connecting multiple people to take action.

you have no problem taking time to quote and correct me...but you can't seem to find the time to help me understand what it is i'm looking for in this document.

first hammer6...it is difficult to assist if one doesn't know where you are lost or didn't provide specificity to areas of a subject they don't understand!

therefore, did you read MSG's supplied cite in his initial post ~ not just the summary but the full text cited at the bottom of the ATF's blurb?

So now what didn't you understand in the full detailed ATF rule changes?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
first hammer6...it is difficult to assist if one doesn't know where you are lost or didn't provide specificity to areas of a subject they don't understand!

therefore, did you read MSG's supplied cite in his initial post ~ not just the summary but the full text cited at the bottom of the ATF's blurb?

So now what didn't you understand in the full detailed ATF rule changes?
I read it all. It's a lot of information for someone to take in, especially if they aren't reading these types of things on a daily basis. I don't regulalry provide "solid teaching information" but that's because i'm not a teacher. I'm here to learn. and ya'll don't want to help me learn. the world is changing. this forum is pretty much dead but other venues are quite alive. lots of action concerning gun rights on social media. here, just a bunch of finger pointing and bickering.

to be honest, solus, my first question should have been enough for you to formulate the appropriate response. I asked, "Why don't we approve of it?"
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I read it all. It's a lot of information for someone to take in, especially if they aren't reading these types of things on a daily basis. I don't regulalry provide "solid teaching information" but that's because i'm not a teacher. I'm here to learn. and ya'll don't want to help me learn. the world is changing. this forum is pretty much dead but other venues are quite alive. lots of action concerning gun rights on social media. here, just a bunch of finger pointing and bickering.

to be honest, solus, my first question should have been enough for you to formulate the appropriate response. I asked, "Why don't we approve of it?"
Please provide a list of ALL those other ACTIVE forums. And if they are so active I'm sure they will have the answer you are looking for.

Just curious, Do you have any children? That is just a yes/no question.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,177
Location
here nc
Why don't we approve of it?
Hammer6...
Sorry...specificity counts regarding questions as the subject matter at hand is quite broad...

so which part of the changes bothers you the most?

a thought occurred to me just now...do you understand the overall intent for the proposed ATF change?
 
Top