SBRs - The War on Guns

Brace Yourselves

They say that the court cannot enjoin the ATF from enforcing legal theories, only final agency rules. They argue that because the pistol brace rule no longer exists, the court has no authority to block the ATF’s interpretation that brace pistols are in fact SBRs. In other words, they are not denying that they hold that legal view at all. They are only saying that the court cannot stop them from using it. And that is a huge red flag. And so in this case, they’re saying, you know, the rule is dead. Throw this case out, but you cannot touch any underlying legal theories that we have because that’s not an at issue in this case. [Watch]

In other words:

@mgmplus
“I’ll be back.” – @Arnold 🫡 Watch #TheTerminator on #MGMplus #ArnoldSchwarzenegger
♬ original sound – MGM+

[Via Jess]

That Explains It

From Rep. Paul Gosar to a constituent via email:

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, where Congress implements budget resolution policies that are required to be related to permanent spending and revenue programs. Additionally, the Byrd rule, which was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, prohibits provisions that are “extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies.” Consequently, provisions in a reconciliation bill cannot include policy changes that do not affect the budget or spending programs.

Consequently, this is why the full versions of the SHORT and Hearing Protection Act were not included in the bill, as the portions that affect non-tax provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) violate the Byrd rule.

Per the recipient:

“Now the only thing I need to figure out is how they managed to pass a bill out of the House that removed both the tax AND the registration. If you have any news on that, it sure would be worth a blog post.”

I don’t. How about you? And why not do the same with SBRs?

A Modest Proposal

The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]

The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.

Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…

Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.

HOW THINGS WORK AROUND HERE

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Anyone not happy with anything on this site at any time will get 100% of all money they paid to me refunded, no questions asked. (No gratuities solicited or accepted.)

Comment House Rules

Keep them on topic. Trying to hijack threads really grinds my gears. No spam.
I moderate them so I’ll get to them when I can.
No threats against anyone except me. No fights–this is my place and if things get ugly, I treat unruly visitors the same way as I would in my home. Do not feed trolls–I’ll take out the trash.
Try to keep it clean.
I’m the final arbiter. If you don’t like the rules, start your own damn blog.

WarOnGuns Correspondents

Story tips received via email and social media messages will be credited. Just let me know how you want to be recognized (real name, first name/last initial, or screen name.)

Link Policy

I maintained a WogRoll at the old Blogspot place predicated on reciprocity with like-minded RKBA-related sites. Truth be told, I never got much in terms of site visits to make the effort worth the time. I may try to do something again in the future, but for now, my hands are more than full trying to get a new site started.

Advertising Disclosure

This is a placeholder for now because I have not done ads on the old blog for years. In case I ever start them up here, this will be the policy in effect: The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don’t think we’re getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you’re stupid, too. I have had a few ads on the old site in the past and may do so again if I think it’s worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn’t buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don’t mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now–you’re not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer without complete disclosure.

About “The Only Ones”

So named from a comment by DEA agent Lee Paige, who told a classroom full of kids he was “the only one” qualified to be armed and then promptly shot himself in the foot, the purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it’s also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank, or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.