With the Stroke of a Pen

 

The Attorney General of the United States just declared that 40 million firearms must be either

  1. Registered
  2. Altered
  3. Destroyed
  4. Or Surrendered

…to the Federal Government. Frankly, I am shocked that I am the first writing about it on Ricochet.

Here is the link to the Washington Examiner article discussing it.

There are an estimated 10 million gun owners affected by the “rule” that created a federal offense for an item that was totes legal just this past Thursday.

The offending item is a “pistol brace” that supposedly creates a “short-barreled rifle” out of what used to be a pistol.

Every owner who desires to keep their new shiny short-barreled rifle, must apply, submit to a background check, acquire a serial number, and (for now) the ATF isn’t going to collect the $200 fee. Oh, the fee isn’t waived or anything, they just aren’t going to demand it right now. Maybe later, maybe not – but it will be on record that one hasn’t paid. So you can comply and everything and still come up short.

Here is the language:

This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.

The same government that is unable to deport 20 million illegals is totally ready to create 10 million felons.

Overnight.

Like they did yesterday (well, to be fair, 120 days after they publish the “rule” in the Federal Register).

ATF Delenda Est.

Published in Guns
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 62 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Instugator: ATF Delenda Est

    Merrick Garland delenda est.

    • #1
  2. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    As leftists become increasing intolerant of dissent, they become increasingly interested in making the populace more helpless.

    Totally unrelated. 

    • #2
  3. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    • #3
  4. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Impeach, remove, and bar from office

    • #4
  5. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    There is some reporting that the pro-2nd Amendment crowd have the lawsuits all drawn up and ready to file, and seem confident the rule will be stricken.

    But the process is the punishment, and the gun grabbers don’t even bother to go to Congress any longer.

     

    • #5
  6. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    The Supreme Court may have an issue with this – see Heller and Bruen.

    • #6
  7. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Columbo (View Comment):

    The Supreme Court may have an issue with this – see Heller and Bruen.

    It generally takes decades to get there.

    • #7
  8. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    Why would you use a pistol brace? I thought a pistol brace was…you know…your arms and hands. 

    • #8
  9. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Well I can understand how reasonable this regulation is given the vast numbers of concealed weapons found on the January 6 insurrectionists. Oh, wait a minute.

    • #9
  10. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Good luck enforcing it. 

    • #10
  11. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    Why would you use a pistol brace? I thought a pistol brace was…you know…your arms and hands.

    Even the rule says that it is not intended to inconvenience, say, an amputee who straps it to his arm to improve his shot groupings.

    Even if I wanted it as a cheek rest, that doesn’t make it a short barreled rifle. Just a pistol with a brace.

     

    • #11
  12. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Funny how they put out this crap late on Friday afternoon.

    This may be a trial baloon to see how far they can get.  The next edict will be for AR-15s.

    • #12
  13. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Come and get ’em. Only have 250 million more weapons  to worry about. 

    • #13
  14. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Funny how they put out this crap late on Friday afternoon.

    This may be a trial baloon to see how far they can get. The next edict will be for AR-15s.

    I think it might be a ploy to classify pistols as assault rifles.

    • #14
  15. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    navyjag (View Comment):

    Come and get ’em. Only have 250 million more weapons to worry about.

    They’re pushing; just to see how far they can go…

    • #15
  16. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Instugator (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Funny how they put out this crap late on Friday afternoon.

    This may be a trial baloon to see how far they can get. The next edict will be for AR-15s.

    I think it might be a ploy to classify pistols as assault rifles.

    Could be….

    • #16
  17. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    • #17
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Haven’t you heard?  40 million “pistol braces” were just lost in unfortunate boating accidents.

    • #18
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    So the pistols in question are overwhelmingly those which are essentially AR-15s, but for the barrel length and the shoulder stock.  IIRC, the lack of a shoulder stock gets them around being classified as short-barreled rifles (SBR), which fall under a more onerous regulatory regime than pistols do.

    The subtext of the government’s concern is (I suppose) to avoid the armory-in-being of rifles which aren’t legally rifles UNTIL the SHTF and one stock and barrel change later (neither of which are “weapons”), suddenly the govt is facing a lot more rifles than they expected.

    Nobody* is putting “pistol braces” on their 9mm pistol-frame pistols.

    The problem I have with the government’s concern is predicated on my “Because [screw] you, that’s why!” response to their gun-grabber questions.

    * There’s always one.

    • #19
  20. Arthur Beare Member
    Arthur Beare
    @ArthurBeare

    Anybody here actually own one of these things?

    • #20
  21. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    BDB (View Comment):
    Nobody* is putting “pistol braces” on their 9mm pistol-frame pistols.

    More than one, I assure you. Most gun stores here have an entire section dedicated to these things.

    It is ATF overreach, plain and simple.

    • #21
  22. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Funny how they put out this crap late on Friday afternoon.

    This may be a trial baloon to see how far they can get. The next edict will be for AR-15s.

    Not funny- the Friday night dump has been going on as long as I can remember- both parties (a/k/a The Deep State).

    • #22
  23. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Impeach, remove, and bar from office

    Has the author of that infamous post ever apologized? One would think that the Editor in Chief of an online publication which deems itself a center right venue governed by a Code of Conduct would have, in light of all the information since January 6, had the simple civility to apologize for being so Bidenesquely wrong. But, I guess once a Never Trumper always a Never Trumper. 

    • #23
  24. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Columbo (View Comment):

    AMEN!

    • #24
  25. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    BDB (View Comment):

    So the pistols in question are overwhelmingly those which are essentially AR-15s, but for the barrel length and the shoulder stock. IIRC, the lack of a shoulder stock gets them around being classified as short-barreled rifles (SBR), which fall under a more onerous regulatory regime than pistols do.

    The subtext of the government’s concern is (I suppose) to avoid the armory-in-being of rifles which aren’t legally rifles UNTIL the SHTF and one stock and barrel change later (neither of which are “weapons”), suddenly the govt is facing a lot more rifles than they expected.

    Nobody* is putting “pistol braces” on their 9mm pistol-frame pistols.

    The problem I have with the government’s concern is predicated on my “Because [screw] you, that’s why!” response to their gun-grabber questions.

    * There’s always one.

    “and one stock and barrel change later (neither of which are “weapons”), suddenly the govt is facing a lot more rifles than they expected.”

    Gee, I wonder why the government might be worrying about that. . . ?

    Exactly what the Second Amendment is designed to protect.

    • #25
  26. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    Arthur Beare (View Comment):

    Anybody here actually own one of these things?

    Lost mine in a tragic canoe accident…

    Seriously though, I don’t even own an AR-15.  However, I saw this coming many years ago.  The pistol brace fad was indeed a way to skirt the NFA regulation of short barreled rifles.  It was only a matter of time before the ATF dropped the hammer on them.  Same with bump stocks.

    I’m not saying it’s a good regulation — the law is stupid, as is the regulation — only that it was predictable as the sunrise.  Here’s hoping the lawsuits succeed.

    • #26
  27. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    What is even the justification for banning short barreled rifles?   Long barrels mean more accurate fire and more powder burned , so generally a more lethal firearm.   Repealing that rule should be a pretty easy task.

    • #27
  28. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    I recommend this post be promoted to the Main Feed immediately.

    My position as a 2A Absolutist is well-known here, and so not much for me to add to the discussion thus far. This is an unconstitutional law, being implemented by an administrative entity (ATF) that is in itself unconstitutional. As @saintaugustine addresses above, such statutes are not valid law. However, the Administrative state will attempt to enforce it, unjust or not.

     

    • #28
  29. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    I recommend this post be promoted to the Main Feed immediately.

    My position as a 2A Absolutist is well-known here, and so not much for me to add to the discussion thus far. This is an unconstitutional law, being implemented by an administrative entity (ATF) that is in itself unconstitutional. As @ saintaugustine addresses above, such statutes are not valid law. However, the Administrative state will attempt to enforce it, unjust or not.

    The real Augustine is better.

    The Aquinas analysis is magnificent.

    • #29
  30. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Jim George (View Comment):
    Has the author of that infamous post ever apologized?

    I think he might have walked it back once or twice. His current position as I have read a while ago is to ignore criticism of it.

    I mention it only to state my preference of outcome for our Attorney General (or as Bongino puts it the AGINO – Attorney General In Name Only).

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.