Iraqveteran8888 pistol brace
Courtesy Iraqveteran8888
Previous Post
Next Post

 

[ED: Following is the comment submitted to the ATF by Eric Blandford regarding their proposed rule 2021R-08, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces.” Eric is better known as Iraqveteran8888. This is the proposed rule that would all but outlaw the use of pistol stabilizing braces through a byzantine scoring system designed to kill the market for such devices. As Jeremy noted earlier today, you have until tomorrow at noon eastern time to submit a comment of your own.]

RE: ATF 2021 R-08

To whom it may concern,

My name is Eric Blandford and I am a concerned citizen and veteran who runs a very well-known YouTube channel called “Iraqveteran8888” and would very much appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns with the ATF’s recent proposal regarding the legality of pistol braces and their subsequent potential constitution of an SBR. As an owner of these devices this has a negative and unfair impact on my ability to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.

Braced Handguns and FBI Crime Statistics

We are somehow expected to believe that in the nearly eight years that these braces have been available, they are suddenly some sort of threat to public safety or that they are used in an extraordinary number of crimes. The NFA was, after all, created with the specific intent of curbing “gang-related crime.” According to the FBI’s annual report published September 28th, 2020, the rate of violent crimes in the U.S. is on the third year of decline.

When comparing data on murder victims from 2013-2017, the firearms are broken down into their respective categories. Nowhere in the reports are braced firearms mentioned. Since the FBI does not deem it necessary to make the distinction, it shows clearly that it has never been a data point worthy of mention.

There are also no distinctions in the handgun category, even in the 2019 report for braced handguns of any type. If the ATF genuinely cared about the potential of a braced pistol having a higher chance of being used in criminal activity, why didn’t they pressure the FBI to make that distinction in their reporting?

The number of pistol braces in circulation is easily in the millions, and the data simply cannot back up the ATF’s reasoning for the proposed reclassification. It is much more likely that if the public outcry were severe enough, or if the ATF determined back in 2012 it was any issue regardless of configuration, they would never have approved the initial design at all.

A Political Line Toed Perfectly

The law deserves more respect and our checks and balances must be adhered to. Opinions are not laws. Alphabet agencies are not political parties. Yet this is clearly a political play and a seizure of an opportunity to enact mass registration of the items in question, perfectly in line with the Biden/Harris gun grab agenda.

This proposed classification change also comes on the heels of a hotly debated and widely opposed confirmation battle regarding David Chipman. He is a known anti-gun political activist. This spirit of this proposed rule change is neither constitutional nor bound in good taste. He’s not even at the helm, yet his wishes and those of the Giffords foundation are all of a sudden the marching orders.

This is about control, back door registration, and capitalizing on the confusion and fear caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the present delicate social climate.

The Illegitimacy of the 1934 National Firearms Act

When the NFA was passed in 1934, its original intent was to impose a tax on the items in question so high that it would make them prohibitively expensive and too regulatorily burdensome to own. The fee to register an item under the NFA has always been referred to as a “tax.”

The Supreme Court, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), ruled “The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” A similar ruling was made in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262, in which the court determined, “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

Self-preservation is one of the most important human rights on this planet, and the brilliant framers of our Constitution chose to recognize it clearly and concisely. The NFA is not constitutionally sound. It violates natural rights, and converts those rights into a privilege under Federal law enforcement duress.

The $200 tax is no different than a poll tax, purposely and knowingly applied to disenfranchise gun owners specifically. In 1966, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes were unconstitutional. So, it should be made clear that before I give my opinion on these “objective factors,” I want it known that I view the NFA as illegitimate to begin with, and it is likely the Supreme Court will too when the matter finally gets that far.

Opinion

Braced pistols are in “common use” by a large subset of Americans. The gun industry has changed for the better as a result and many innovations have been made. Braces increase the safety of pistols by helping the shooter control the firearm more effectively. They help new shooters get accustomed to controlling pistols and help with recoil management for small statured shooters and those with disabilities.

The language of your “objective factors” proposal constantly mentions one hand being used to fire a handgun as a criteria. I am not sure where the ATF receives its training, but most pistol shooters use both hands to achieve proper control of a handgun. The points system also makes a large proportion of available pistols fail immediately. This is clearly a system that is designed neither in the interest of safety nor compliance, but an arbitrary word game with no solution.

I have personally witnessed wounded veterans use braced pistols in the field to take wild game where they otherwise would have been unable to use a firearm. I have witnessed wheelchair-bound veterans use braced pistols to continue exercising their Second Amendment rights after serving in combat.

The spirit under which these measures are proposed is purposely and willfully biased and ambiguous. The best course of action the ATF can take is to acknowledge that braced pistols are in common use among gun owners and in this modern era do not fall under the purview of the 1934 NFA.

The ATF has asserted before that certain collectible pistols that use shoulder stocks such as the Mauser C96 and the slotted Inglis Hi-Power do not fall under the purview of NFA regulation. The ATF has shown it can use common sense on these types of measures in the past.

The economic impact of this proposed rule change cannot be overstated. At a time when more Americans than ever are struggling financially we should not be placing unfair economic burdens on those who want to protect themselves. Placing more regulatory red tape on gun manufacturers seems a very crippling and low blow considering the Federal Government just allowed billions of dollars in military equipment to fall into enemy hands. It’s impossible to not see the moral dilemma created by imposing further restrictions on Americans who are repulsed by these actions. Many firearms companies have had record setting sales as a result of millions of Americans choosing to arm themselves.

As the amount of NICS checks proves more Americans are choosing firearms for self preservation at a time when law enforcement attrition is higher than ever, violent criminals are being released from prison. Droves of potential criminals and military aged males are illegally crossing the southern border at record rates. Law enforcement can barely handle the task at hand now with the current laws on the books and the spike in crime nationwide. The proposed rule change will only turn more honest people into felons overnight and place an unwanted task on the bulk of current LEOs.

I am at your disposal should you need further comment or clarification.

Sincerely,
Eric Blandford

 

Previous Post
Next Post

54 COMMENTS

  1. Putting on my federal bureaucrat hat…..TLDR would be my justification for ignoring the entire thing. A logic I would apply to any comment over more than, maybe, five lines.

    Things would be different if I were required to respond, in detail, to every comment received.

    • Various writers, here and elsewhere, have posted guidelines for effective comments (no profanity, ad hominem attacks, etc.). Your point about brevity is well-taken. I’d also add “know your audience”.

      Any football coach’s challenge must rest on the grounds that the call deviates from the rules of football as currently written and applied. It doesn’t matter how sincerely the coach believes a given rule is contrary to the spirit of the game. It doesn’t matter if most fans or Hall of Famers would agree, or even if that’s objectively true. The coach has to realize that the ref was hired by the group that wrote the rules, and chose – from among all the opportunities available to a contemporary American – the tiny sliver of the job market employed and committed to enforcing the current rules of football, making any “the rules are wrong” challenge dead on arrival.

      I hate the SBR prohibition as much as anybody, but basing one’s feedback on attacking NFA is actually more unwise than in the football analogy. There is some possibility that a ref in 2021 might be an old-school player from the 80s who hates a rule made in 2013. The possibility that a senior leader in the agency responsible for enforcing a 1934 law will change his mind based on a categorical attack on that law (in force since before he was born) is infinitesimal.

      • Overall, I thought IV8888’s comment was informative (for readers here). Also, looking at the surrounding politics, I, as a fed drone, would be mindful that the president has not pulled Chipman’s nomination for ATF director. That being the case, Chipman may yet become Director. I wouldn’t want to be shown not aggressive enough in supporting the latest power grab. That is, finding a way to “prove” the gun community supports (or does not object in large numbers) the proposed ban on pistol braces.

        • Focusing on one of IV8888’s comments in my first response, I didn’t give fair recognition to his points that ARE informative for a TTAG audience and even an ATF audience. It’s just that the NFA unconstitutionality point is pitched for a TTAGish audience, and guaranteed to turn off the ATF audience.

          I think comments need to be written not only for a Fed drone (who may well be junior, and not completely onboard with the program – just like not everybody in the Navy was a student of military history, systems, and tactics, diehard patriot, or lover of the sea) but also for a Fed decision-maker. One might reasonably suppose (due to the December reversal, Green Tip, etc.) that the latter might be willing to listen, but also that he IS onboard with the laws providing the basic framework for his profession. Comments (like Eric and others have made) explaining how a braced pistol isn’t an SBR, doesn’t pose the risks the drafters of SBR laws feared, helps disabled and inexperienced shooters, etc. are much more likely to receive a fair hearing.

        • “…be mindful that the president has not pulled Chipman’s nomination for ATF director.”

          by the same token, the nomination hasn’t been brought up for a vote yet.

          We stand a reasonable chance that his nomination will never be brought up for a vote…

      • Umm Not so fast…I hate people who drop to their knees using bozo football logic and wave a flag of surrender. Especially when it is surrendering to Gun Control which is an agenda that History confirms is rooted in racism and genocide. History that probably predates your ancestors setting foot on this continent.

        I mean waving such a flag of surrender amounts to rolling over for a rule in football where Black Americans were not allowed to play. That kind of crap was once the rule and it changed. Yes or No?

        Your go along to get along reasoning is exactly what made such bigoted rules possible throughout history. And your brand of “reasoning” did not end there. It remains alive and well today in the Gun Control that by your own words you are on your polite knees for.

        Your attempt to justify rules that sprouted from an agenda rooted in racism and genocide with a damned football is pathetic…and I’m being polite.

        • Debbie W.,
          I’m not “justifying” anything, simply stating the difference between arguing to persuade and arguing to argue.

          Approaching a senior bureaucrat with a reasoned, factual argument may occasionally succeed. Attacking his whole organization as a Nazi Party / Klan is guaranteed to fail – every single time.

        • Umm…Gun Control zealots are along the lines of alcoholics needing intervention.

          Intervention usually starts with the Truth. Telling the “to whom it may concern” people that the agenda they are selling is rooted in racism and genocide is not offensive when History Confirms Gun Control is a racist and nazi based turd.

          The fact that Gun Control is something very wrong is something they need to seriously contemplate before getting into a vehicle and driving drunk…So to speak.

          There are probably a few ratbassturds at the ATF top using an agency to advance their personal preferences like ratbassturd Newspapers whose opinions appear to be many when the voices heard are the few at the top.

          Gun Control did not drop out of Gummy Bear behinds. Where it came from, where it’s been and where goes is what matters. That is unless of course you are blind to a history of slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps, gas chambers, swaztikas and other such filth attributed directly or indirectly to Gun Control.

        • “Gun Control zealots are along the lines of alcoholics needing intervention.”

          Agreed. Would it be preferable to wait until the alcoholic is sober and explain how his habit is hurting his wife and kids, lost him his license, sent his insurance through the roof, cost him job opportunities, etc., or to start the intervention with “You drunk dumbshit!”? I value candor above just about everything else, and might well choose the latter approach with a best friend or immediate family member – but never with a total stranger, especially one who considers himself an authority figure.

          Again, venting anger ≠ arguing to persuade (win).

        • Umm…Once again because of its long, long history of racism and genocide Gun Control has no standing whatsoever. Therefore when it’s Gun Control related there is nothing to argue or to persuade.

          Like a drama queen slipping into an abyss you alone used the word ALL. It’s All-Involved in an agenda rooted in racism and genocide. Unlike leftists who run around plastering labels on people…When your agenda is a turd called Gun Control you alone and no one else made yourself a racist and a nazi lint licker.

        • I used the word “all” in the phrases “from among all the opportunities available to a contemporary American” and “making all COA B supporters sound emotional and unreasonable” (arguing FOR rationality, i.e. AGAINST being a drama queen). What about that makes me a drama queen?

    • With all due respect as a former state bureaucrat brevity was never a criterion, while clarity was. Also, frankly, the goal of these comments is not to make life easier for the ATF bureaucrats.

      • “Also, frankly, the goal of these comments (to the ATF) is not to make life easier for the ATF bureaucrats.”

        It is all too easy to dismiss rants (or alleged rants), which should encourage direct, factual, cold text. Explaining history to the bureaucracy, instructing in constitutional principles, regurgitating what can easily be tagged as political posturing is lost on the minions. Citing case law (as IV8888 did) makes things more difficult (but still not insurmountable) to ignore, or classify as ranting. However, the “duplicative” label would apply if others forwarded the same citations.

        If the intent of the government is significant enough, and there is sufficient political capital to be gained, agencies will do as they please, and respond with, “So, sue me.”

        In a case close to me (at the time) a federal contracting officer was required to adjudicate a contract dispute. The Federal Acquisition Regulation directly authorized contracting officers the power to do so. Thus, the contracting officer was acting as a duly deputized agent of the government. As such, an agent operating within authority cannot be sued individually (acting illegally is not within agency authority, and cannot shield an agent doing so); the suit must name the agency.

        As it happened, the agency, in direct contravention of federal regulation, stated that the contracting officer did not have authority to decide disputes, and was acting outside of agency rules. The losing party then sued the contracting officer individually. The agency refused to provide legal representation, citing the fraudulent claim that the contracting officer did not have authority to use authority designated by federal regulation. The contracting officer was presented with the choice of dismissal from the agency for misconduct, or dealing with a personal law suit. The suit was eventually dismissed at court, but only after racking up non-trivial personal legal costs.

  2. Too long isn’t a valid reason for them to toss a comment. By law, they have to respond to every one of them as long as they’re not obscene/abusive or a duplicate of another comment. No matter how long.

    • “…or a duplicate of another comment.”

      If “duplicate” isn’t tightly defined, there is room for bureaucratic mischief, and, as a fed, I would have a broad definition. The drones (like me) in the bureaucracy are cunning; there is always a means for justifiably evading strict scrutiny of regulations.

      Computers are great resources for identifying duplicative comments. For instance, one can search a bank of comments for case law citations, and declare every comment that contains those citations as being “duplicates”. In that instance, I would have a boilerplate response available such as, “Your comment was duplicated 320 times. Thank you.”

      Underestimating politicians is one thing. Underestimating the bureaucracy is not prudent.

  3. Glad this was posted. While maybe too long for a ‘submission’ it is very educational on the issue/s and provides factual education readers can use to submit a more brief effective comment.

  4. I’m sure the ATF will read his comment, and all the others submitted, and take them into consideration when evaluating their proposed rule change on braces.

    • “I’m sure the ATF will read his comment, and all the others submitted, and take them into consideration when evaluating their proposed rule change on braces.”

      Nice. Sarc tag not required.

  5. The ATF does not pay the slightest attention to the letters it receives. Biden ordered this and the ATF obeys just as they have obeyed other presidents or gone ahead completely on their own when they wanted to ban weapons like the shotguns the street sweeper, the Spas-12 , and even leather wallet holsters that are not even a firearm, now that was really far out.

    Its a done deal and those that do not agree live in the twilight zone.

    • To my knowledge the SPAS-12 was not banned but was not a sales success. It is joked more ended up in Hollywood movies than anywhere else. They were even available downunder at one time but sales were few because they were expensive, unreliable, complicated, and not well balanced. I did hear a few were used in IPSC shotgun matches.

  6. OK legal eagles, my question is this,
    IIRC, the NFA in it’s draft form included pistols, when it was pointed out that rifles and shotguns could be shortened to pistol length SBRs and SBSs were added to the bill.
    Later pistols were removed from the bill but the language prohibiting shortened rifles and shotguns remained.

    Is this accurate?

  7. @Uuummm
    “Comments (like Eric and others have made) explaining how a braced pistol isn’t an SBR, doesn’t pose the risks the drafters of SBR laws feared, helps disabled and inexperienced shooters, etc. are much more likely to receive a fair hearing.”

    Not convinced the ATF has a mindset of being “fair”, or even helpful. The potential new director is absolutely control-oriented.

    • Sam I Am,
      Agreed, but I think writing to them is predicated on the assumption that there’s some sliver of a chance they may listen (Full disclosure: I haven’t commented, and am not sure whether I will, for that very reason). The rational alternative would be to save one’s breath.

      • A brief, factually oriented comment would be well worth it, if only to swell the numbers. The more comments they receive that are against it (and that they’re required to sort through, one way or another), the harder it becomes for them to justify ignoring the public and getting their jackboots on. And the more justified gun owners will appear if it comes down to a decision not to comply.

        • That is a very sensible approach. Thanks!

          In light of that I’d amend my previous comment to say one’s options should be: A. People who think they’ll get a fair hearing (or even hope in numbers, as you expressed better than I am) should comment; or B. People who have nothing but emotional or insulting comments should save their breath.

        • “…the harder it becomes for them to justify ignoring the public and getting their jackboots on.”

          Actually……not. All the negative comments can be labeled, “The usual suspects. The nattering nabobs of negativism. If there were serious opposition, we would have comments by the millions. These are the same people who just object to be contrary; not representing majority opinion.” And so on.

          The M885 kerfuffle didn’t have sufficient leftist political interest, so the regulation was withdrawn (even govt agencies have political capital considerations). Law-abiding gun owners creating unregistered SBRs has lotsa upside in imposing restrictions.

      • “The rational alternative would be to save one’s breath.”

        Even as a fed drone, I found that to be the best approach.

        “But, why?”, you might ask (you didn’t, but I am answering anyway). The reason is that when government is determined, opposition rarely ends anything. The Alinsky rule is to double down on failure…until your opponent tires. The bureaucracy is like water in a balloon.

        • Having been there myself too, I think the Ing approach may have some merit.

          Even in a big and authoritarian bureaucracy, there are usually multiple courses of action (at least variations on a theme) under consideration. There are staffers arguing for each – sometimes out of principle or reasoned preference; sometimes just because they were assigned to put together that particular Power Point presentation. Making it sound like there’s a groundswell of support for COA B may be a point in favor – just as making all COA B supporters sound emotional and unreasonable is a big point for COA A.

  8. This came to me while reading Iraqveteran8888’s comment…

    “Gun Control is Civil Rights Terrorism”

    Think I’ll put that on a t-shirt.

  9. “The proposed rule change will only turn more honest people into felons overnight and place an unwanted task on the bulk of current LEOs.” Thought OP was writing to point out negatives of proposed legislation. Quoted comment will be seen as a positive feature to invoke yet another step of tyranny.

  10. FWIW:

    The ATF’s proposed rule redefining pistol braces is an attempt to hold literally millions of law-abiding gun owners responsible for the ATF’s past decision to allow such braces and braced pistols to be sold. The ATF’s notice estimates that 3 million such braces have been sold over a period of nearly 9 years, while the Congressional Research Service cites estimates of 10-40 million.[1] All these braces or braced pistols were bought under the belief that they were legal, based on the ATF’s earlier determination. For the ATF at this late date to request a do-over is an unfair imposition on brace owners, and would inevitably result in some owners becoming unwitting felons if they fail to receive notice that the legal status of their braced firearms has changed and thus do not register them. It would also overwhelm the ATF in processing millions of registrations, and create legal uncertainty for gun owners and law enforcement during the period while registration is pending.

    While the ATF’s proposed rubric provides greater detail than its 22DEC20 proposal, it still has many criteria that are subjective, are dependent on the individual owner (such as criteria based on how the braced firearm is held), and/or change the status of the firearm as the owner configures it for particular uses (for example, switching from a low-capacity magazine for hunting to a standard-capacity magazine for home defense). Again, some number of owners will become unwitting felons for failing to register under the belief that their braced pistol does not require registration, but where the ATF’s evaluation differs.

    It also appears that the criteria are intended to define the majority of braced pistols as SBRs, including numerous models that have been sold for years under the apparent approval of the ATF. If the ATF’s view is that the vast majority of braced pistols are, in fact, SBRs, then it is clear that SBRs should not be subject to the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act, as they are not dangerous and unusual weapons, nor particularly suitable for criminal use. The ATF has essentially conducted an unintended experiment to see how gun owners would respond to having access to SBRs without registration, and overwhelmingly gun owners have shown that they find such firearms to be useful enough to be worth purchasing millions of them, placing them into common use, but without any corresponding increase in criminal use.

    The Notice cites two mass shootings conducted with braced pistols. However, even in these 2 attacks (out of several million braced pistols), it is unclear whether the weapons were selected because they could serve as SBRs, or they were merely what appealed to the murderers from available options at the time of purchase. There is no evidence that these attacks would not have been equally deadly if perpetrated using either an unbraced pistol or a conventional carbine. Or, for that matter, if perpetrated using a pistol illegally equipped with an actual rifle stock.

    The clear result of the ATF’s experiment is that the NFA is outdated and in need of reform.[2] Such reform, of course, is the responsibility of the legislature, not the ATF. However, until such reform is enacted, the ATF should focus on the purpose of the law, which is to register dangerous and unusual firearms to reduce their availability to criminals. Since the widespread ownership of several million braced pistols by responsible owners for lawful purposes shows that these firearms are not particularly dangerous or unusual, the ATF should choose at this time to maintain the legal status of braced pistols.

    It is possible that the ATF’s motivation in trying to assert, several years late, that braced pistols fall under the NFA is to instill respect for the law by prohibiting what has become a recognized work-around to NFA registration. However, any such desire should be balanced by the adverse impact of inconsistent definitions, where the ATF changes its approval or disapproval of particular configurations well after the public has relied upon them when purchasing firearms and/or accessories. Inconsistent, capricious changes to the legal status of firearms can only undermine respect for the ATF and the laws it is obliged to uphold, and would do far more damage to respect for the law than does allowing a legal work-around.

    [1] – https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11763
    [2] – Problems arising from the defintions of the NFA are not limited to the distinctions between braced pistols and SBRs. For example, the legal status of firearms with 2-piece receivers has been a recent issue of contention.

    • Well said, I have been thinking of some of these thoughts as well. If the agency was to advise Congress, I would expect they would issue a memo asking Congress to remove restrictions on SBRs and SBS guns, as we haven’t seen 9 million or more attacks with them, even the couple they site, as you put, are these really examples where an SBR or braced pistol provided a serious advantage, or just as these are in common use, we shouldn’t be surprised when, like any weapon, they get used? Killing unarmed, frightened people in a grocery store likely doesn’t take overwhelming force of arms.

      Most criminals after lazy so they are just going to use whatever gun they can get. Otherwise I would expect they would use a true stock over a brace, an AR stock can be had for cheap prices and easily put on AR pistols with a buffer tube swap, why wouldn’t a criminal slap together an illegal SBR instead? Take braces away, they could still have illegal SBRs.

      But these possession laws are silly anyway, it doesn’t matter what gun someone uses to commit a crime, the crime is the issue. And as non criminal with a gun shouldn’t matter, regardless of configuration.

      Braces are popular because people were actually trying to comply and paid extra to do so, otherwise everyone would have just put a stock on their gun and called it good.

      • “If the agency was to advise Congress, I would expect they would issue a memo asking Congress to remove restrictions on SBRs and SBS guns…”

        No government agency, in its right mind, would ever request Congress limit the agency’s power. Even the United States Board of Tea (and its official tea taster) did not apply for elimination. The agency was established by the Tea Importation Act of 1897. Congress abolished the agency in 1996, as part of budget considerations. 1996; almost 100yrs of silliness.

  11. The ATF does not have the Constitutional power but the reality has proven hundreds of times the Constitution is only good for wiping your ass with it. The ATF is a law unto itself.

    Yes its illegal I agree but that never stopped the ATF from acting and getting away with being jack booted thugs. They almost always win UNLESS people from Congress threaten them as when they tried to ban .223 green tip ammo. There were too many cheap ass Republican Congressmen that liked its low price. It was one of the rare occasions when Congressmen grew balls and stepped in.

    But lets face reality no Congressman in their right mind is going to sanctioned short barreled rifles, the rifles of choice for drug gangs and Mass Murderers. That would be pure political suicide. And the ATF already knows this.

    Lets face cold hard facts even the majority of gun owners know the short barreled rifle is of no use what so ever to law abiding people. It cannot be carried comfortably like a pistol nor is it very concealable either. It has no sporting use at all and for home defense Biden really was correct as there is nothing more deadly on earth than a shotgun at point blank range. And shotguns usually do not over penetrate and sail projectiles through several walls and out through the neighborhood killing innocent people either. Short barreled rifles give decent law abiding gun owners a bad name and add more fuel to the fire to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. Anyone who cannot see that needs to be put in a straight jacket and the key thrown away.

    The sane gun owners who are in the majority know Biden is actually doing them a favor by banning short barreled rifles but the ban is not really a ban at all, just register it and get vetted as that is keeping the weapons out of the hands of gangs and nut cases. Its a win , win for everyone , that is if your sane enough to understand it.

    • “Lets face cold hard facts even the majority of gun owners know the short barreled rifle is of no use what so ever to law abiding people”

      Apparently you are not a law abiding gun owner because it is very useful for home defense, to carry in your car or backpack.

      There I just showed you three useful places to be of very good use.

      Joe Biden’s dumb advice for a shotgun was to fire a few shots randomly into the air to scare someone away. Great advice is you want to be unsafe and dangerous.

      Also just guns could spray someone you did not intend to shoot.

      Handguns can over penetrate also, but are considered a great choice for home defense!

      If your chamber your short barreled rifle in 9mm you won’t have over penetration.

      Women prefer the shootability of the AR platform so a short barreled rifle would be great for them to handle.

      Do work for Bloomberg?

  12. “even the majority of gun owners know the short barreled rifle is of no use what so ever to law abiding people. It cannot be carried comfortably like a pistol nor is it very concealable either. It has no sporting use at all” – And yet millions of buyers are mistaken and think they have a use for them, and in their ignorance actually do go on to use them for hunting, plinking, home defense, etc.

    Believe what you want, but please spare us the unsupported claims that your opinion represents some majority.

    • “even the majority of gun owners know the short barreled rifle is of no use what so ever to law abiding people. It cannot be carried comfortably like a pistol nor is it very concealable either. It has no sporting use at all”

      The 2nd A has NOTHING to do with “sporting use”. This is a classic anti-gunner” swerve/grift. It’s one of their favorites too.

      Reality from what I’ve seen from several women that have come out with our shooting group for the first time? Within a year or two most have a <18" barrel AR-15 as a home defense gun. Usually with an RDS, laser, LPVO, or a combination.
      Shows how much the far left really hates women, attempting to take away their preferred home defense firearm.
      "Sporting use"🤪 Fudd fodder.

  13. The next step if and when ATF acts will be a law suit, probably by a disabled vet. What is missing here is that the comments submitted is a big crowd sourced list of ideas for his or her lawyers.

  14. I seriously doubt the BATFE gives a flying fck about someone not being able to use a gunm because of a disability. As a matter of fact they probably get satisfaction from it.

  15. “it is likely the Supreme Court will too when the matter finally gets that far.”

    Fabulously optimistic. They’ll just cite to their literal show trial and never give cert.

  16. Aint nobody, specially the ATF, reading that shit. They already know you. You’ve been in the top 100 on their list for a long time. You want to share a long winded letter like it’s gonna do shit? Fucking Youtubers…

  17. As with this post and to agree with everyone else, nobody in the ATF will read that or care.
    Also adding the bleeding hearts for disabled vets is like pee’ing in the wind.

    A better letter would be “Nobody cares what the ATF thinks.”

    Short, simple, to the point.

    Might as well write a letter to big oil and ask them to stop making fuel because its hurting the environment and the trees are suffering. Not one person there gives a $#!^

  18. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “We stand a reasonable chance that his nomination will never be brought up for a vote…”

    As a fed drone, however, I can never go wrong acting as if the nomination will be successful. Do you remember an ATF director who launched a review of rulings…. and changed the ruling to benefit gun owners?
    (note: I didn’t do the research)

    The acting director is likely just as anti-gun, and the Chipman nomination can be held until the 2022 elections, in hopes the makeup of the Senate will be more beneficial.

  19. They, the FEEBS, will ignore the comment after all it’s well-reasoned, articulate, packed with common sense, and cites supporting USSC rulings. Our overlords have already made their decision (th night of Nov. 3rd 2020), the indication of that was when they publicly announced the proposed regulation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here