What is the process for battling an EO?

[HeavyDuty]

It’s looking inevitable that Biden is going to win. Assuming he follows through with his threat to go after semis and standard capacity mags via an executive order, what is the process for fighting that? Legislative or via the supremes?

[Robinson]

It’s looking inevitable that Biden is going to win. Assuming he follows through with his threat to go after semis and standard capacity mags via an executive order, what is the process for fighting that? Legislative or via the supremes?

An executive order can be overturned by a President, or by Congress if the President was acting with Congressional authority, or by the courts. These rarely succeed, but it's possible.

So either a case is taken up by the court(s) or we wait until there is a different President with sufficient motivation to overturn it.

[Duke]

With 47 years of jack shit accomplished - we’re giving the man * a lot* of credit to start worrying already

[WobblyPossum]

I’m curious what kind of executive order people believe President Biden would be able to issue to attack semi auto firearms and their magazines. All I can think of is ordering the ATF to ban imports of foreign firearms and accessories.

[camel]

I’m curious what kind of executive order people believe President Biden would be able to issue to attack semi auto firearms and their magazines. All I can think of is ordering the ATF to ban imports of foreign firearms and accessories.

I agree. I see Biden going for something like the 34 NFA act or 68 gca. And let’s face it even with who we have on the Supreme Court I don’t see a roberts court effectively protecting the 2nd amendment

[LittleLebowski]

With 47 years of jack shit accomplished - we’re giving the man * a lot* of credit to start worrying already

It’s not like he knows what’s going on, it’s Kamala and the rest of the Cong that will indeed focus on guns.

[HeavyDuty]

I could have sworn seeing a tweet from him about reclassifying items via EO, like what Trump did with bump stocks... maybe it was a fever dream.

[wvincent]

Not so easy to rescind EO's, look how DACA turned out.

Try this on for size. "Firearm violence is a national health issue, (just like Covid-19), therefore, in the interest of public safety, using my emergency presidential order powers, all fire arms except for LE or the military must be turned in to a secure GOV facility for safekeeping".

Have fun dancing for the Supremes trying to get that rescinded.

[HCM]

It’s looking inevitable that Biden is going to win. Assuming he follows through with his threat to go after semis and standard capacity mags via an executive order, what is the process for fighting that? Legislative or via the supremes?

EO's are not blank checks. If that could be done via EO Obama would have done it after Sandy Hook or during his 2nd term. This is basic Civis / checks and balances stuff.

Given Congress passed the 1994 AWB then allowed it to sunset, it would be impossible to argue congress has been failed to address the issue.
A new AWB or mag ban would have to be enacted via legislation. An EO on a subject Congress has addressed directly like that would be a loser in the courts.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/what-are-executive-orders-what-are-their-limits.html


An executive order is one way a U.S. president can make changes to the nation's policies. But there are limits as to how far such orders can go.

As history has shown, executive orders can be used in many different ways. Here's a quick summary of what you need to know:

A Way for Presidents to Set Policy

For most national policy changes to occur, a bill must be approved by Congress and then signed into law by the president. An executive order is a way of sidestepping the legislative process to accomplish limited policy objectives.

Legal support for these orders comes from both the Constitution and acts (or the inaction) of Congress. Many executive orders base their authority in the U.S. Constitution's broad grant of executive power to the president.

The president can also make executive orders relating to organizations under the executive branch, like the Food and Drug Administration or the National Security Administration. Executive orders have also historically been used in times of war or military conflict, like President Franklin Roosevelt's order that led to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Critics often take issue with a president's use of executive orders. For example, President Obama issued executive orders relating to issues ranging from fighting HIV to forming a council on Native American affairs. These and other executive orders were often met with criticism.

Limits on Executive Orders

Executive orders are not unchecked strokes of power from the president's pen; they can be challenged and deemed unlawful by federal courts. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court determined during the Korean War that executive orders must fit within a certain sphere of power and cannot simply defy Congressional intent.

Although this area of law remains in flux, executive orders have the most legitimacy when the president is acting with the implied or express authority of Congress. However, these executive orders may still legally shape policy if the laws or Congress have been silent on an issue.

Because Congress is rarely silent on major issues, executive orders are most common in areas where the president has been granted discretion by Congress. Regardless of the president's relationship with the federal legislature, executive orders will only allow a very small policy window in which to make changes.

See: United States Supreme Court YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER(1952) No. 744 Argued: Decided: June 2, 1952

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html

[HCM]

Not so easy to rescind EO's, look how DACA turned out.

DACA is a bad example because it was not a stand alone EO.

DACA is based on the discretionary authority congress provided the executive branch via legislation (The Immigration and Nationality Act) to grant aliens deferred action.

[RevolverRob]

It probably behooves all of us to understand what an Executive Order is and what it can and cannot do:

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/heritage-explains/executive-orders

The long and short is - absent a federal law allowing them to regulate semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, a president would not have authority to issue an executive order banning them. Worst case scenario is DanM suggests, since POTUS is empowered to oversee foreign trade, they could ban the importation of firearms via EO.

But currently, no law exists allowing the president to regulate magazines or semi-automatic weapons (NFA weapons, use, but not semi-automatic). Attempts to pass a ban via EO in this way is likely to result in the Supreme Court overturning it, because there is no law allowing the president to regulate such things. And it is certainly not enumerated in that pesky thing called the 'constitution'. Which I know a lot of politicians haven't read, but fortunately, it seems like the bulk of SCOTUS and COA Justices have.

[HCM]

I could have sworn seeing a tweet from him about reclassifying items via EO, like what Trump did with bump stocks... maybe it was a fever dream.

Bump stocks were unique because 1) a part, like an auto sear can be legally defined as a machine gun per the definition in the NFA as passed (legislated) by congress and 2) Bumpstocks were a grey area from the start, they were initially classified as MG, then not MG, then reclassified back to MGs.

Congress has clearly spoken in the NFA - it covers MG, SBR, SBS, AOW and Silencers. To add title 1 firearms such as semi auto rifles or pistols to the NFA would require legislation via congress. It is not within the scope of an EO.

Politicians lie and exaggerate to feed their base what they want to hear all the time. If Title 1 firearms could be re-classified as NFA items that easily Obama would have done it with his pen and phone.

The only real EO concerns I have are restrictions on imports and a re-classification of pistol braces as stocks and even then you could just take the brace off rather than register it and an SBR or AOW.

[wvincent]

DACA is a bad example because it was not a stand alone EO.

DACA is based on the discretionary authority congress provided the executive branch via legislation (The Immigration and Nationality Act) to grant aliens deferred action.

And the power to modify that act still resides with the executive branch, correct?
Yet, SC put the brakes on that modification.

[Lex Luthier]

Not so easy to rescind EO's, look how DACA turned out.

Try this on for size. "Firearm violence is a national health issue, (just like Covid-19), therefore, in the interest of public safety, using my emergency presidential order powers, all fire arms except for LE or the military must be turned in to a secure GOV facility for safekeeping".

Have fun dancing for the Supremes trying to get that rescinded.

Irish Democracy will be the very best that they could hope for in response.
It wouldn't surprise me if the entire ammunition supply for both the Canadian and Mexican armed forces showed up missing shortly thereafter...

I too would wonder if Mackey Sagebrush's pal still has that epic mustache, and I've never even met him.

[HCM]

And the power to modify that act still resides with the executive branch, correct?
Yet, SC put the brakes on that modification.

No, that is not what the SC ruled on. The Act (INA) is legislation / the law passed by congress modification of the act/law itself would require legislation by Congress.

The SC found that the Trump administration abused the discretion congress gave it via the INA via the manner in which it terminated DACA, not that they couldn't terminate DACA. Specifically, the SC ruled the Trump administration terminated DACA in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

IME most of the Trump administrations early strategic moves on Immigration issues could have been legally implemented but failed because they were rushed and/or poorly executed.

[kitchen's mill]

The guy to watch is Mike Bloomberg, gun control is his issue. He put millions into Biden's campaign, he didn't do it for love. He'll be looking for some payback.

My guess, Bloomberg will keep after the states to enact gun laws.

Biden, if he's still President, will wait until the next chance to flip the Senate in two years, he'll have bigger fish to fry. Like stealing from the energy companies.

How solid are the Republicans on the issue. One big shooting close to the elections and they're liable to cave in, that's how the AWB got through.

Gun owners might be ok for a couple of years depending on the state they live in, might plan accordingly.

[Clusterfrack]

I guessing the Democratic leadership hasn't forgotten the consequences of the Clinton AWB. An executive order for confiscation of guns and magazines isn't going to happen because it's too risky. If Republicans keep the Senate, we're probably safe. If not, it's going to be bad unless SCOTUS makes a ruling.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/when-bill-clinton-passed-gun-reform/488045/

[HeavyDuty]

Good info, thank you - I was a little concerned that they might try a back door route. It doesn’t sound like that is a possibility.

[wvincent]

No, that is not what the SC ruled on. The Act (INA) is legislation / the law passed by congress modification of the act/law itself would require legislation by Congress.

The SC found that the Trump administration abused the discretion congress gave it via the INA via the manner in which it terminated DACA, not that they couldn't terminate DACA. Specifically, the SC ruled the Trump administration terminated DACA in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

IME most of the Trump administrations early strategic moves on Immigration issues could have been legally implemented but failed because they were rushed and/or poorly executed.

Yeah, I just did a bit of a deep read on that. The admin basically did a sloppy job, according to the SC decision.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

[randyho]

That article is amazing.

[DrkBlue]

I guessing the Democratic leadership hasn't forgotten the consequences of the Clinton AWB. An executive order for confiscation of guns and magazines isn't going to happen because it's too risky. If Republicans keep the Senate, we're probably safe. If not, it's going to be bad unless SCOTUS makes a ruling.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/when-bill-clinton-passed-gun-reform/488045/

First, good and reasoned discussion. Thanks!

Second, the Senate is not the only challenge for legislation. A much narrowed House Democratic majority is a huge liability in the 2022 Midterm election. The Assault Weapons Ban experience for the Democrats scared them off almost all federal gun control for two decades...

Pressure on 10 purple-state Democratic Representatives +/- will be all that it takes to prevent almost any gun controls bills. That is why the purple battleground states are so valuable to building a legislative coalition, not just for Presidential elections. So if you have a Democrat as your Representative, be nice and start a dialogue ASAP.

[kitchen's mill]

Joe Biden will be a lame duck from the first day in office, not much control of Congress, little chance of running for reelection.

Harris takes over is a different animal and may surely be part of the plan.

But initially Biden is going to be a dud round in D.C.

[BWT]

It’s not like he knows what’s going on, it’s Kamala and the rest of the Cong that will indeed focus on guns.

Just replying to like the fact you refer to Congress as “The Cong”.

Humorously accurate. Don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

[blues]

Just replying to like the fact you refer to Congress as “The Cong”.

Humorously accurate. Don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

Maybe a sign that we should invest in B.F. Goodrich (sandals)

[5pins]

If Biden ends up winning I think I will SBR my two AR pistols. I don't see the brace thing lasting very long.

[benEzra]

I’m curious what kind of executive order people believe President Biden would be able to issue to attack semi auto firearms and their magazines. All I can think of is ordering the ATF to ban imports of foreign firearms and accessories.
One possibility would be to order BATFE to change the internal standard currently used to define “readily convertible” in 26 USC § 5845 to something that could rope in some semiautos (say, can be converted to full auto in 16 or 24 or 32 hours in a machine shop, or by availability of a bump stock or auto sear for the design plus “high capacity” magazines, or by interchangeability of X percent of parts with a full auto, or any other BS they come up with), thereby reclassifying selected closed-bolt semiautos as machineguns under the NFA. If I’m not mistaken, that is the rationale under which BATFE halted the manufacture of some simple open-bolt semiautos in 1982 or whenever, though I understand they showed some restraint and didn’t reclassify existing guns as Title 2.

Magazines would be a much thornier problem for them to ban by EO, but I wouldn’t put it past them to declare normal-capacity STANAG or Warsaw Pact magazines “essential machinegun parts” and treat them like a DIAS, and see if the courts would give them a pass long enough to do a lot of harm.


Attempts to pass a ban via EO in this way is likely to result in the Supreme Court overturning it, because there is no law allowing the president to regulate such things. And it is certainly not enumerated in that pesky thing called the 'constitution'. Which I know a lot of politicians haven't read, but fortunately, it seems like the bulk of SCOTUS and COA Justices have.
This is the silver lining in the current situation, and is why ACB being seated on SCOTUS was so vital. Without a pro-Bill-of-Rights majority on the Court, and with at least one house of Congress in prohibitionist hands, a BS EO redefinition of AR’s and such as Title 2 would have been much more feasible than now, when there is a SCOTUS watching that likely would disapprove of such treachery. But that doesn’t mean that the zealots won’t issue such orders anyway, even if it’s just to be able to do what they want until it’s struck down.

[RevolverRob]

If Biden ends up winning I think I will SBR my two AR pistols. I don't see the brace thing lasting very long.

We'll see where things stand. So far the media hasn't clued in on "braces". So there wouldn't be much reason. Remember politicians only like doing things that get them press, money, or both.

All we need though is one fucking mass shooter with a braced AR and it's all over but the crying.

[11B10]

It’s not like he knows what’s going on, it’s Kamala and the rest of the Cong that will indeed focus on guns.





So very much this^^^^. Biden is the puppet to end all puppets. The left figured he was the only one who had any chance to beat DJT and then manipulated the other candidates (goodbye to Bernie a-GAIN) to make that happen. However, slipslidinbiden had to agree to the extreme agenda epitomized by the aforementioned Kamala Harris & co. IF Biden is able to last 4 years as a functioning POTUS, it will be a miracle to some, but a nightmare to AOC/Harris/Omar.Talib/Pressley, aka "the squad," who are planning to have Harris in the White House by 2024 at the latest.

[StraitR]

We'll see where things stand. So far the media hasn't clued in on "braces". So there wouldn't be much reason. Remember politicians only like doing things that get them press, money, or both.

All we need though is one fucking mass shooter with a braced AR and it's all over but the crying.

The Dayton shooter used a braced AR. Anderson marked lower and what looked like a 10.5" barrel.

I don't disagree with your assessment, just pointing out that it has happened already.

[5pins]

We'll see where things stand. So far the media hasn't clued in on "braces". So there wouldn't be much reason. Remember politicians only like doing things that get them press, money, or both.

All we need though is one fucking mass shooter with a braced AR and it's all over but the crying.

ATF is already going after them like they did with Q. If Biden wins I don't think a stretch for them to be more aggressive and just call them a stock.

[HCM]

One possibility would be to order BATFE to change the internal standard currently used to define “readily convertible” in 26 USC § 5845 to something that could rope in some semiautos (say, can be converted to full auto in 16 or 24 or 32 hours in a machine shop, or by availability of a bump stock or auto sear for the design plus “high capacity” magazines, or by interchangeability of X percent of parts with a full auto, or any other BS they come up with), thereby reclassifying selected closed-bolt semiautos as machineguns under the NFA. If I’m not mistaken, that is the rationale under which BATFE halted the manufacture of some simple open-bolt semiautos in 1982 or whenever, though I understand they showed some restraint and didn’t reclassify existing guns as Title 2.

Magazines would be a much thornier problem for them to ban by EO, but I wouldn’t put it past them to declare normal-capacity STANAG or Warsaw Pact magazines “essential machinegun parts” and treat them like a DIAS, and see if the courts would give them a pass long enough to do a lot of harm.


This is the silver lining in the current situation, and is why ACB being seated on SCOTUS was so vital. Without a pro-Bill-of-Rights majority on the Court, and with at least one house of Congress in prohibitionist hands, a BS EO redefinition of AR’s and such as Title 2 would have been much more feasible than now, when there is a SCOTUS watching that likely would disapprove of such treachery. But that doesn’t mean that the zealots won’t issue such orders anyway, even if it’s just to be able to do what they want until it’s struck down.

Creative thinking but those theories don’t comport with the definition of a machine gun in the NFA.

See the phrases “readily” and “ designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use ” There is case law narrowly defining what these phrases mean.



(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

[RevolverRob]

The Dayton shooter used a braced AR. Anderson marked lower and what looked like a 10.5" barrel.

I don't disagree with your assessment, just pointing out that it has happened already.

Well, I guess I meant a new mass shooter.


ATF is already going after them like they did with Q. If Biden wins I don't think a stretch for them to be more aggressive and just call them a stock.

Yes, but if the ATF gets more aggressive, they'll get slapped in court, like they are already have been and are likely to again. It's worth drawing the distinction here, between some low brow shit the ATF does which can be stopped with a lawsuit (or two), and an Executive Order. It's much harder to halt an EO with a lawsuit.

I just want folks to have their ducks in a row, when they're thinking about what legal challenges we may face, how, and when those challenges may appear. A 'random' EO banning braces is unlikely, continued assault on them via ATF, more likely. A mass shooter using a braced pistol and significant media coverage of that fact? The EO banning braces won't be 'random', but rather is a direct 'response' to the issue (i.e. it's 'doing something').

We can fight the ATF easier than we can fight POTUS, but the risk(s) from POTUS are narrower than those from the ATF so it should be like that overall. POTUS will lack the authority to pass an EO to ban semi-automatic guns and magazines. The only reason a brace ban via EO would stick is because the NFA exists and thus POTUS has the ability to pass mandates on the enforcement of that existing law, by mandating the ATF reclassify braces as a stocks.

The best legal challenge to that will subsequently be someone with a genuine, documented, disability, who resides in a state where SBRs are illegal, subsequently suing the ATF for removing a device which is designed from the outset to aid disabled individuals (a protected class of citizens) in using their firearms. Such a legal argument will need to be careful crafted and constructed, but could be successful. But each box I mentioned above needs to be checked, otherwise the the counter argument the ATF will make is, "Anyone can use a brace, they just have to register the gun as an SBR under the NFA."

[kitchen's mill]

Atlanta has kept counting ballots until they got both Georgia Senate races headed towards a run off January.

One race looked solid yesterday, now not so much.

Democrats win both those and Biden wins they have control of the Senate.

Executive order won't be needed.......

[HCM]

Atlanta has kept counting ballots until they got both Georgia Senate races headed towards a run off January.

One race looked solid yesterday, now not so much.

Democrats win both those and Biden wins they have control of the Senate.

Executive order won't be needed.......

If you read the thread, EO's are not a legitimate concern. Very much a case of "Thant's not how that works."

However, a Biden white house and a Dem controlled senate are a real threat.

[kitchen's mill]

If you read the thread, EO's are not a legitimate concern. Very much a case of "Thant's not how that works."

However, a Biden white house and a Dem controlled senate are a real threat.

Been reading the thread with great interest from the beginning.

Given the current environment I would thnk anything is possible.

There are three ways an executive order can be overturned, they all hardly ever succeed. The first the president may change, supersede or revoke an executive order. Congress may revoke an executive order if the President was acting with the authority that is given to Congress. A suite brought to the courts may declare an executive order as illegal.

With control of Congress, an EU being questioned by Congress is doubtful. Even if it does come to the court, I have no faith in John Roberts. He as already refused to hear Republican complaints on Pennsylvania election changes twice.

But my point is, with control of Congress the use of Executive Order would not be a concern. Biden would first try to make more permanent Law. An EO could possibly be over turned by future Presidents, if you believe a Republican President could ever be elected again.

My feeling is, if these tactics are sucessful, we'll see them used again. Including in the upcoming Georgia run offs.

I'm mostly a know nothing, just really disgusted like half the country.

[kitchen's mill]

Researching the crap, if the Democrats pick up the two seats in Georgia we end up with a 50/50 Senate.

A split Senate would mean that no party has complete control even though the VP is the deciding vote.

In the past 50/50 Senates have been largely ineffective, and a split is probably the best the Democrats could do.

So it will likely be confusion, or not much different than it is now:rolleyes:

[Duke]

If you have a canvas, some paint and a brush there comes a time to get your Bob Ross on.


“You can have all the the trees you want in your world”



Serious folks. We can give ourselves another ulcer for the next 3 months


Or we can say my clothes are clean and We hope they stay way but We know how to paint.

[fatdog]

...All we need though is one fucking mass shooter with a braced AR and it's all over but the crying.

looking back at this thread ref the Biden gun control thread and speculation about what Biden's new guns EO is going to encompass.

I think RR may have been prescient on this if the pistol brace ban/ATF rules retraction, etc. becomes part of the upcoming Biden EO since apparently the Boulder shooter used one....

[RevolverRob]

looking back at this thread ref the Biden gun control thread and speculation about what Biden's new guns EO is going to encompass.

I think RR may have been prescient on this if the pistol brace ban/ATF rules retraction, etc. becomes part of the upcoming Biden EO since apparently the Boulder shooter used one....

I hope I'm wrong.

[olstyn]

I hope I'm wrong.

Me too, but I'll be surprised if you're not. Braces have always been on pretty shaky ground in terms of "isn't that really just an SBR by a different name?" I will be in full on "bored look/this is my shocked face" mode if/when they're reclassified into legally being SBRs. That's not to say I want it to happen, just that I expect it to. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if at some point they try to make a determination that a bare receiver extension with no stock or brace counts as a stock, too.

[Odin Bravo One]

It’s looking inevitable that Biden is going to win. Assuming he follows through with his threat to go after semis and standard capacity mags via an executive order, what is the process for fighting that? Legislative or via the supremes?

Ignore it.......

Ain’t no one coming here to arrest anyone for giving Biden and his EOs the finger......

[Borderland]

I’m curious what kind of executive order people believe President Biden would be able to issue to attack semi auto firearms and their magazines. All I can think of is ordering the ATF to ban imports of foreign firearms and accessories.

Trump got the ATF to make bumps stocks contraband. I don't think that was an EO, just pressure on the ATF form DOJ/Trump. So I think it has to be an ATF ruling which will be a stretch.

Who's going to enforce it anyway, the US Fish and Wildlife Service? I suppose a person could be arrested for possession of a magazine but how will that person be prosecuted if there's no violation of federal code? What if Biden wrote an executive order to make bidets contraband, how do you prosecute that?

This is one of those run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes situations. I don't think anyone is going to salute this but one never know, do one?

This new adm learned a lot from the Trump adm. Just put it out there and see what the media does with it. They may love this one.

[WobblyPossum]

Trump got the ATF to make bumps stocks contraband. I don't think that was an EO, just pressure on the ATF form DOJ/Trump. So I think it has to be an ATF ruling which will be a stretch.

Who's going to enforce it anyway, the US Fish and Wildlife Service? I suppose a person could be arrested for possession of a magazine but how will that person be prosecuted if there's no violation of federal code? What if Biden wrote an executive order to make bidets contraband, how do you prosecute that?

This is one of those run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes situations. I don't think anyone is going to salute this.

This new adm learned a lot from the Trump adm. Just put it out there and see what the media does with it. They may love this one.

HCM has already addressed why the bump stock ban had more solid legal ground to stand on than an EO banning semi-autos or their magazines. He’s got a great post on either page 1 or 2 of this thread about EOs in general and the bump stock one in particular.

The president can’t just issue an EO and make something contraband. There has to already be legislative framework in place allowing the executive to regulate a subject matter. In this case, the executive has authority to regulate importation of firearms and their components and accessories like ammunition. I believe it’s the ‘68 GCA that grants this authority. The president could sign an EO instructing the BATFE to deem foreign made “assault weapons” and their components and accessories as not having a “sporting purpose.” The “sporting purpose” clause of the GCA basically prohibits the importation of most things gun related unless they’re deemed to have a “sporting purpose” and that term is quite nebulous.

The ‘34 NFA already defines things like machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, etc. In order to change those definitions or to re-classify semi-autos as NFA firearms, they would need new legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.

[VT1032]

I agree it will most likely focus on pistol braces and import controls. I also wonder whether 80% lowers could be impacted, ie. the ATF reinterprets regulation to classify them as firearms requiring a serial number and background check or something similar.

[littlejerry]

I agree it will most likely focus on pistol braces and import controls. I also wonder whether 80% lowers could be impacted, ie. the ATF reinterprets regulation to classify them as firearms requiring a serial number and background check or something similar.

Then perhaps we'll see 79% lowers