ATF issues cease and desist on Q LLC Honey Badger Pistol

[Vandal320]

Does this help?

[Hambo]

The first time I attended the NRA National Firearms Law Seminar (about a dozen years ago), one of the presenters was the head of the ATF. During the question and answer period, he answered "I don't know" to a large number of questions for which I felt it was not excusable for someone in his position not to know.

What were the questions?

[HCM]

Regarding agents and employees not commenting, I wonder if that's because agents/employees have offered opinions inconsistent with actual rules, not that "nobody from ATF will respond". Like asking a street cop for an opinion when the prosecutor should be contacted.

That's a fair point to bring up - but I don't think that's an accurate or fair comparison to the ATF/Pistol brace situation.

The ATF have a comparatively very narrow and specialized lane, and within that lane, they're supposed to be the exact folks that FFL's and such look to regarding the legality of things like pistol braces.
On some oddball rare/weird/unusual situation, absolutely I can see the wisdom in a field agent or other first-line representative passing it up the chain or to the FTB because they don't know; but that should result in a definitive answer with empirical and repeatable criteria applied.

But pistol braces aren't rare/weird/unusual - It's a specific item that's in widespread common use. For the agency charged specifically with enforcing the laws within that lane, I'd expect them to have an answer for common stuff being sold en masse *right now*.
Worst case, a field agent that didn't know the empirical criteria off the top of their head should be able to get an FFL or anyone else a straight answer following a short phone call.

Hambo is correct. Most Federal LE agencies require Agents to refer public inquiries to the PAO and official policy statements are made in writing, on letter head under the signature of senior officials.

"ATF" is not a monolith. They have Agents and Intel people from the criminal investigations division and they have Inspectors from the Inspection division who do inspections and compliance stuff for FFLs. FFL will often interact with both but they are not interchangeable.

Second, it is not their job to speak publicly for the agency regrading something that is not settled law or policy. ATF has a technology branch and an office of legal counsel who are supposed to make those determinations.

As for a quick phone call, do you think the ATF / civilian government is that different from the army ? Can Sgt JRB make a quick phone call to a brigade commander or the pentagon to get a straight answer on something covered by conflicting Army regs ? ATF is no different. More likely they are told not to answer such questions pending guidance from higher. Speaking of which like the Army and the FBI, there is a big gulf between what grunts in the field think / do and what "players" in HQ or the pentagon do.

[JRB]

Hambo is correct. Most Federal LE agencies require Agents to refer public inquiries to the PAO and official policy statements are made in writing, on letter head under the signature of senior officials.

"ATF" is not a monolith. They have Agents and Intel people from the criminal investigations division and they have Inspectors from the Inspection division who do inspections and compliance stuff for FFLs. FFL will often interact with both but they are not interchangeable.

Second, it is not their job to speak publicly for the agency regrading something that is not settled law or policy. ATF has a technology branch and an office of legal counsel who are supposed to make those determinations.

As for a quick phone call, do you think the ATF / civilian government is that different from the army ? Can Sgt JRB make a quick phone call to a brigade commander or the pentagon to get a straight answer on something covered by conflicting Army regs ? ATF is no different. More likely they are told not to answer such questions pending guidance from higher. Speaking of which like the Army and the FBI, there is a big gulf between what grunts in the field think / do and what "players" in HQ or the pentagon do.

There's two issues at hand here. First, yes, a 'public' inquiry e.g. some reporter shoving a mic into an agent's face and asking questions is absolutely best answered by a PAO instead, and it's in that agent's best interest and the org's best interest to offer no comment. No question there.

The second, and the hypothetical in which I was speaking, was a much less public inquiry and something along the lines of official business - say I'm getting my bound book and inventory inspected for compliance, if I've got an AR pistol in my inventory that has an SBA3 installed on it, and I ask the inspecting agent 'what's the deal on those right now'? The good faith answer sure as hell isn't 'no comment'.

On something as common as pistol braces they should have a publicly-available reference, a POC for that reference, and a way to explain how or why something is legal or illegal based on written law. Whether or not the agent individually answers that question 'on the record' is one thing, but having absolutely zero answer at any level available that is clear as to what is legal or is not is straight up draconian horse shit.

The military comparison you make is flawed, because if I was in an IG/OSJA/CID etc role where it was my lane and job to give things a go/no go status, yes, I absolutely would have a phone number and a POC at a much higher level to get clarification in a scenario as you describe. Now, those situations in the Army or any other branch have their own horse shit going on, no debate there - but the inability to provide any answer at all is not one of them.

[StraitR]

Weird. I get a log in pop up.

Attachment 62162

Letter has been attached so all good.

It seems that if you've ever had a FB account, and then permanently deleted it, FB blocks you from viewing without a login. I had an account, deleted it, and I'm blocked at home. I can, however, view FB links at work or on my phone while not on my home network without a login. They're total douchebags like that.

[HCM]

There's two issues at hand here. First, yes, a 'public' inquiry e.g. some reporter shoving a mic into an agent's face and asking questions is absolutely best answered by a PAO instead, and it's in that agent's best interest and the org's best interest to offer no comment. No question there.

The second, and the hypothetical in which I was speaking, was a much less public inquiry and something along the lines of official business - say I'm getting my bound book and inventory inspected for compliance, if I've got an AR pistol in my inventory that has an SBA3 installed on it, and I ask the inspecting agent 'what's the deal on those right now'? The good faith answer sure as hell isn't 'no comment'.

On something as common as pistol braces they should have a publicly-available reference, a POC for that reference, and a way to explain how or why something is legal or illegal based on written law. Whether or not the agent individually answers that question 'on the record' is one thing, but having absolutely zero answer at any level available that is clear as to what is legal or is not is straight up draconian horse shit.

The military comparison you make is flawed, because if I was in an IG/OSJA/CID etc role where it was my lane and job to give things a go/no go status, yes, I absolutely would have a phone number and a POC at a much higher level to get clarification in a scenario as you describe. Now, those situations in the Army or any other branch have their own horse shit going on, no debate there - but the inability to provide any answer at all is not one of them.

That has not been my experience with CID and AFOSI personnel in such situations.

The fact that there is no publicly available refence is and agency / HQ / policy level issue - it has nothing to do with field level personnel.

There is no such thing as an "Inspecting Agent" there are inspectors and there are agents. Inspectors are not LE. They are admin auditors.

Either way, if there is no written / publicly policy on something "No comment / I don't know" IS the good faith answer.

Giving an FFL hearsay, rumor or personal opinion is setting them up for problems.

[Bratch]

It seems that if you've ever had a FB account, and then permanently deleted it, FB blocks you from viewing without a login. I had an account, deleted it, and I'm blocked at home. I can, however, view FB links at work or on my phone while not on my home network without a login. They're total douchebags like that.

I have never had an account but my wife does and has probably logged in on my phone at some point.

[BillSWPA]

What were the questions?

The one that sticks out in my mind is applicability of the Firearms Owners Protection Act to air travelers who were arrested after flights were diverted to NY or NJ, and they declared their guns in their checked baggage before boarding their next flight. These travelers were arrested and convicted of illegal gun possession despite the fact that their presence in those states was completely beyond their control.

If I am ever flying with a gun and if my flight is ever diverted to one of the more liberal states, I will rent a car and drive to an airport in a more gun-friendly state, or perhaps back home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

The one that sticks out in my mind is applicability of the Firearms Owners Protection Act to air travelers who were arrested after flights were diverted to NY or NJ, and they declared their guns in their checked baggage before boarding their next flight. These travelers were arrested and convicted of illegal gun possession despite the fact that their presence in those states was completely beyond their control.

If I am ever flying with a gun and if my flight is ever diverted to one of the more liberal states, I will rent a car and drive to an airport in a more gun-friendly state, or perhaps back home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Port Authority of NY/NJ is the one arresting those people. The flight gets diverted, they pick up their bags and then when they try to re-check the gun the airlines ask for permits (because NY/NJ) and call the Port Authority cops if they don't have one.

While IMHO the FOPA should apply. Best option might be to just refuse to claim your bag.

[fatdog]

The Port Authority of NY/NJ is the one arresting those people. The flight gets diverted, they pick up their bags and then when they try to re-check the gun the airlines ask for permits (because NY/NJ) and call the Port Authority cops if they don't have one.

While IMHO the FOPA should apply. Best option might be to just refuse to claim your bag.

That is a workable approach, happened to me about 12 years ago, I followed the path Bill suggested. I got diverted to Newark, declined to claim my bags, rented the car drove to my destination instead of waiting on the flight they offered the next morning, and made my bag the airline's problem. Had to find a Walmart in NH to buy by essentials and a clean shirt since the bag never caught up with me and finally got routed to my home airport in Birmingham 5 days later, but that was better than spending the night in the Essex Co. lockup since the nazi fascist totalitarian authorities in NJ have decided Federal law does not apply in their state.