Didn't it get pulled before even getting a vote in committee/subcommittee? It didn't make it to the house floor and it reportedly had support from the president's family.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5pins
Printable View
Didn't it get pulled before even getting a vote in committee/subcommittee? It didn't make it to the house floor and it reportedly had support from the president's family.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5pins
Mitch and Ryan clobbered any progun legislation. The HPA, reciprocity and the SAGA act (would have stopped AWBs) were never considered. The rationale being the moral panics after rampages made them unpassable and the filibuster would have stopped them, so why try? Note, they went after Obama care 4 million times just to make the point.
Real reason - progun legislation that is comprehensive would put a nail in SEND A CHECK! God Forbid Justice Amy leads the court into taking a case that does these things! The issue vanishes from fund raising.
The statute says what it say. To be a rifle, the firearm needs to be "designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder . . . ." No one who ever set out to design and make a stock made anything that looks like a pistol brace.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
The other problem is ATF's completely arbitrary way that they've gone about reviewing braces. They should have come up with a framework in 2012 after approving the first brace to make compliance by the public possible. Instead, even attorneys who having been working on this since 2012 have no idea whether a given product will be ok or not under ATF's current "process."
Wait, wait, wait... you're saying that none of these braces were designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder? Nor that the people buying them are intending to do so? :confused::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by joshs
The House did pass reciprocity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
I was on the Metro headed to the committee hearing on the SHARE Act (included HPA) when the congressional baseball shooting happened.
You may think that the fiibuster is dumb, but it has prevented restrictive gun control from passing in the past and it may do so again in the future.
There is more "Send A Check" done on ACA repeal/replacement than on gun issues, so I guess I don't get your second point. Also, we're clearly trying to get cases to SCOTUS to overturn carry, gun, and mag bans. We've also worked for the last two decades to get more judges and justices on the federal bench that respect the 2A. I love my job, but if we were to wipe out most gun control in the US, I'd happily take that trade to do something else.
I respect and think you are quite sincere about wanting the cause to win. However, I do not trust the likes of Mitch and Ryan to have the same dedication as compared to personal careers.
The Senate might have at least taken up the bills as a statement of the issues. They didn't do that. Theorists have said it is tragic that we have to turn to courts to act as mini-legislatures as the Congress is paralyzed by self-interest.
Of course, both parties use Send a Check for their self-interests. One has also has to wonder why Roberts acted the way he did. His ego, legacy, true belief against gun rights - who knows.
Perhaps, the Congress needs a lecture on moral panic vs. understanding the theory behind various issues vs. only considering their own re-election.
If we really believed that the "braced pistol" was a pistol we wouldn't be talking about it in the Rifles and Carbines section.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
Dude. Every time I say "brace" in a conversation, I have to fight the urge to make little air quotes with my fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_s
Honestly, there was a better argument that the bump stock didn't violate the letter of the NFA than there is an argument that a "braced" pistol isn't a thinly disguised SBR.
Don't get me wrong, Washington doesn't allow SBS, so I've been super tempted to put a brace on a a TAC-14 "firearm." But eventually either 1) the states are going to swim against the feds on this issue, probably after a mass shooting or 2) ATF will drop another letter.
If ATF were to propose a rule saying that a brace had to be no more than 13.5" from the face of the trigger to the end of the brace measured parallel to the barrel, 2) able to attach to or otherwise brace against the forearm to provide actual support for the gun, and 3) have no component that exists for the sole purpose of facilitating shouldering the gun, and then, after proposing the rule, accept comments from the public, and then issue the final rule, there would be nothing unreasonable the way the current statutes are written.
Fair notice and an opportunity to conform one's conduct to the law are basic elements of due process. Josh hit the nail on the head: if attorneys who have been working on this since 2012 cannot tell whether a brace will pass muster or not, that is a constitutional violation.
The safest course of action under today's mess, if one wants a braced pistol, is probably to buy one in that configuration from a dealer, making sure that there is no way - correct or incorrect - to measure a length from the trigger to any part of the brace greater than 13.5 inches, and then make no modifications to that brace whatsoever.
Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5pins