testtest

ATF Apparently Contradicting Themselves About SB Tactical Braces

Talyn

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
An article popped up recently from Ammoland that alleges the ATF is singling out SB Tactical and their products. However, there may be a greater issue below the surface. The ATF seems to be re-evaluating previous determinations and contradicting information previously provided to manufacturers and consumers. Let us take a look at the problem and point out the fallacy of the ATF.

ATF Apparently Contradicting Themselves About SB Tactical Braces
 
Scottrun said:
I am worried about the ar ban. New to gun world, how are they going to enforce it? Going through the dealer's logs? I mean how do they know that a person own an ar
Click to expand...
I would also imagine it as more of a battle of attrition. Lots will turn them in and the rest will be confiscated during traffic stops or anytime a cop comes to your house on an unrelated call.
 
My guess is they will not try to confiscate (or do a "mandatory" buyback on) existing guns, but they'll either go back to the "assault weapons" ban like in the '90s - which didn't take away existing guns, just banned the sale of new ones - or they will attempt to put the AR under the NFA act and require the tax stamp. If you want, you can not pay the tax stamp and no one will probably know (in other words, they'll probably not come to your house looking for it), but if you get checked for it any time you are out shooting or use it in a defensive situation or hunting or whatever, you'll get charged with a felony. Any of these options suck...
 
Ex Post Facto

Definition

Latin for "from a thing done afterward."

Overview

The United States Constitution specifically prohibits ex post facto laws. The Constitution's Article 1, Section 9 prohibits ex post facto federal laws, and Article 1, Section 10 bans ex post facto state laws.

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
  1. Art 1, § 9
    1. This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
  2. Art. 1 § 10.
    1. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Retroactive Judicial Decisions

At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions.
 
I find it interesting that this Executive Agency can make and change rules, and then incorporate that decision into law by including it into the NFA law that Congress passed some time ago. With agencies such as the ATF, IRS, and others, able to enact rules that morph into laws somehow, and Presidents issuing Executive Orders, it is making Congress irrelevant. It's becoming like the line from the movie "Mars Attacks" where the Martians eliminate all of congress, and President Dale (Jack Nicholson) declares afterwards: "We still got two out of three branches of Government, and that aint bad!" :rolleyes:
Perhaps there some hope here with the brace issue with some Senators asking questions. We shall see:

www.guns.com

Senators to ATF: Explain Pistol Brace Issue :: Guns.com

A group of 16 Republicans in the U.S. Senate last week fired off a letter to federal regulators seeking answers on the growing fuzziness over pistol stabilizing braces.
www.guns.com www.guns.com
 
Bassbob said:
Cops can’t just search your house without a warrant. And the warrant has to state specifically what they’re looking for.
Click to expand...
I currently agree @Bassbob, but some in Government seem to be doing a good job on trying to limit or eliminate several Amendments in our Bill Of Rights. Who knows what lengths the OBiden :sneaky: Administration might go to get these guns if they decide to pursue that course of action.
 
Scottrun said:
I am worried about the ar ban. New to gun world, how are they going to enforce it? Going through the dealer's logs? I mean how do they know that a person own an ar
Click to expand...
Good question @Scottrun. Here's a link on how they're doing it in Canada, and that Country has significantly less number of now banned MSR (ARs), then we have here. It would cost a fortune if they try to ban all they say they want to in this Country, including high capacity magazines and whatever else they unconstitutionally (my opinion) throw into the mix.

thegunblog.ca

Bill Blair Says Mass Gun Confiscations Won’t Be Run By Police; Ministry Q&A | TheGunBlog.ca

Bill Blair says Liberal gun bans won't be run by police.
thegunblog.ca thegunblog.ca
 
BET7 said:
I currently agree @Bassbob, but some in Government seem to be doing a good job on trying to limit or eliminate several Amendments in our Bill Of Rights. Who knows what lengths the OBiden :sneaky: Administration might go to get these guns if they decide to pursue that course of action.
Click to expand...


I think if it gets to the point where police start searching people's houses there will definitely be massive " Civil disobedience".
 
BET7 said:
Good question @Scottrun. Here's a link on how they're doing it in Canada, and that Country has significantly less number of now banned MSR (ARs), then we have here. It would cost a fortune if they try to ban all they say they want to in this Country, including high capacity magazines and whatever else they unconstitutionally (my opinion) throw into the mix.

thegunblog.ca

Bill Blair Says Mass Gun Confiscations Won’t Be Run By Police; Ministry Q&A | TheGunBlog.ca

Bill Blair says Liberal gun bans won't be run by police.
thegunblog.ca thegunblog.ca
Click to expand...
I don’t think we’ll follow this path. Canada does not have a 2nd Amendment to overcome and the U.S. does not have any National Firearms Registry to reference.

The U.S. will be much more measured and incremental than Canada or Australia for that matter.
 
They won't leave us be since they've already detailed what they want to do.

They'll do what they can administratively right out with BATFE, but will need legislation do do other stuff. But if the Repubs hold the Senate that will throw a wall up on all that.
 
uspatriot1960 said:
I don’t think we’ll follow this path. Canada does not have a 2nd Amendment to overcome and the U.S. does not have any National Firearms Registry to reference.

The U.S. will be much more measured and incremental than Canada or Australia for that matter.
Click to expand...
Well that's kind of my point. If they (Canada), are having difficulty getting these guns that have been banned with registries in place, etc., I think it will be extremely difficult to try to something similar here. And that's not including the legal 2A suits that you rightly reference with your comment about no 2A in Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top