More "Pistol" Fiats In the Works.........
Like Tree6Likes
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: More "Pistol" Fiats In the Works.........

  1. #1
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,865

    More "Pistol" Fiats In the Works.........

    https://comms.wiley.law/8/3583/octob...v4xkUSdIzucPLE

    Does not bode well for anyone who owns a rifle caliber or PDW/PPC "pistol".

    Conspiracy theory alert: This really comes down to the election.

    If Trump gets re-elected, this likely gets tabled for the next 4 years....though Trump has shown a willingness (ala the bumpstock ban) to circumvent the legislative process and let the boys at ATF have free reign especially after a "high profile" mass shooting.

    If Biden wins....and this ATF edict on pistols goes through first, it could well be a stepping stone for declaring a formerly lawful gun owner a felon and the ensuing blood baths that will likely follow during "confiscation/apprehension" will give all the press coverage the Dems need to push a full semi-auto ban like Canada's. Then it's just a hop, skip and jump to civil war 2.0. The one where everyone loses.

    I wonder what the used market is for pistols right now? Might be time to "divest".


    Text from link above:

    CLIENT ALERT


    ATF Interpretive Change Restricts Handgun Imports and May Require NFA Registration

    International Trade

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has recently changed the manner in which it interprets the statutory and regulatory definition of “handgun,” thereby further limiting the types of firearms eligible for importation. These determinations are not public, so it is difficult for the regulated community to assess and track shifting agency positions.



    The Gun Control Act at 18 U.S.C. § 922(l) broadly prohibits the importation of all firearms into the United States. However, so long as a firearm is not military surplus nor subject to the National Firearms Act, section 925(d)(3) provides a limited exception for those firearms considered by ATF to be “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." Over the past half century, ATF has issued several studies and criteria on how it evaluates whether shotguns, rifles, or handguns qualify as “sporting” under the law. The handgun factoring test is the most straightforward of these, with a point tally system that rewards larger and bulkier handguns. If a handgun receives 75 or more points, it is considered “sporting” and approved for importation. However, there is no ATF-issued “sporting purpose” test for a firearm that fails to fit within the definition of handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Accordingly, ATF has long held that such a firearm is not importable.



    Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how long or heavy a handgun should be to qualify as “sporting” under section 925(d)(3), ATF private classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “handgun.” In company-specific letters, ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy, it fails to meet the definition of “handgun” under the Gun Control Act, as it is not “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty.



    This approach is resulting in inconsistent determinations, of which the regulated community should take note. Within the past few months, at least one HK91 pistol-style submission as light as 8 pounds, with a barrel length of 8-3/4 inches and an overall length of 21-3/4 inches, has been determined to fall outside the definition of “handgun.” This is a change from previous determinations where firearms weighing over 8 pounds, with 20-inch barrels, and an overall length of approximately 31-1/2 inches were held by FATD to be “handguns.” Since the letters are not publicly available, it is impossible for regulated companies to know the full range of FATD’s determinations. This has serious implications for regulated businesses.



    In some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:



    Incorporation of rifle sights;
    Utilization of "rifle caliber ammunition" (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);
    Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1
    The “weapon’s heavy weight;”
    Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and
    Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”


    However, ATF also noted in the most recent private ruling that the above design features are “neither binding on future classifications nor is any factor individually determinative[.]” ATF explained without elaboration that “the statutory and regulatory definitions provide the appropriate standard in classifying the firearm.” ATF concluded that “a firearm that is too large, too heavy or . . . otherwise not designed to be held and fired in one hand (as demonstrated by the objective features) cannot be a handgun under the statutory definition and cannot be subject to importation criteria governing handguns.” In light of ATF’s subjective and inconsistent analysis of size and weight, it is difficult to predict how the agency will classify any given firearm under this standard.



    Revocation of Existing Import Permits



    ATF acknowledged in one letter this month that certain firearms previously approved for importation and determined to be handguns “may wrongly have been approved for importation” and that “[s]uch firearms may require reevaluation.” Beyond that, ATF has not acknowledged a change in policy. Instead, it argued that “consideration of the objective design features of a firearm to determine the designed and/or intended use is clearly not a change in policy.” Although “ATF has not developed a definitive list of features that determine whether an item is a ‘pistol’ or ‘handgun[,]’” the non-public letters leave importers to consult the above-mentioned list to assess whether their existing import permits may be revoked or whether new applications will be denied.



    Consideration of Certain Handguns as Any Other Weapons (AOW)



    The new interpretation of the handgun definition could have additional significant effects on manufacturers and gun owners.



    Under the National Firearms Act, a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and is neither a pistol, rifle nor shotgun is classified as an “Any Other Weapon” (AOW).2 This means that if a firearm under 26 inches in overall length is determined not to be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, it would necessarily be classified as an AOW.3 AOWs require the payment of a tax and registration with the federal government.



    Under ATF’s new reading of the definition, firearms previously classified as large-sized handguns by ATF may now require registration under the National Firearms Act as an AOW.4 Possession of such a firearm without registration is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Since ATF has not articulated a standard, it is difficult to definitively know whether a large handgun is now an AOW because it may be deemed by the agency to be “too large, or too heavy” to fit within the statutory definition of handgun. The only definitive way to know is to submit the firearm to ATF for evaluation, a process that can take over a year.



    Interim Final Rule on Improper Agency Guidance



    ATF reportedly believes that its new analysis is the only way to conduct evaluations in light of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Interim Final Rule on Improper Agency Guidance (IFR)—a procedural rule designed to increase regulatory transparency. That position appears to run contrary to the purpose of the IFR and so far, the agency has not put it in writing. Further, one ATF private letter from this month attempts to shield itself from DOJ’s IFR by indicating that the letter is “not a final classification of the firearm and is not final agency action.” It goes on to say, “if you submit an ATF Form 6 for the importation of the subject firearm, ATF will take appropriate action.” It appears that ATF is saying that the letter is not final agency action until a Form 6 is formally rejected. But given that this firearm was already evaluated pursuant to an ATF Form 6 application, it is unclear what additional steps are available to make this letter final agency action.



    * * *



    Under ATF’s new interpretation of the handgun definition, millions of AR-15 style pistols could be considered “too large, or too heavy” to fall within ATF’s new interpretation, thereby making them unregistered NFA weapons, and subjecting manufacturers and gun owners to criminal prosecution. Given the private nature of ATF’s classification rulings, and the subjective nature of the analysis, it is extremely difficult to know for sure whether specific firearms fall within the new interpretation. This appears to be part of a continuing trend at ATF to apply firearms statutes in a more restrictive manner without informing the public—a trend that appears unaffected by the IFR. In this uncertain regulatory environment, importers and manufacturers should consult counsel before making significant purchasing, importing, or manufacturing decisions for firearms that could be implicated by ATF’s heretofore unknown and undisclosed analysis.





    [1] It is unclear what constitutes a “rifle-length barrel” or “rifle caliber ammunition.”

    [2] See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e).

    [3] This firm is aware of two FATD determinations where the submitted firearms were determined neither to be pistols (because they were too large or too heavy) nor AOWs (because their overall length exceeded 26 inches). A third FATD determination was issued for a firearm considered too large or too heavy to be a handgun and under 26 inches in overall length. However, unlike the first two letters, this determination did not mention the AOW statute.

    [4] Note that while the GCA definition of “handgun” is worded differently from the NFA definition of “pistol,” the core elements are the same.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  2. #2
    XCR Guru TomAiello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    5,828
    I don't think that Trump has any real principled position on the 2nd Amendment or on the right to keep and bear arms.

    I suspect that there will be small scale gun confiscations resulting in lawsuits, and that the Supreme Court will have to rule on these issues.

    My suspicion is that we will see the court defer to the administrative law (i.e. ATF edicts) in a majority decision with some justices (Gorsuch, for example, has staked out his opposition to administrative law because of it's arbitrary nature) dissenting.
    - Tom Aiello
    [email protected]

    ...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

  3. #3
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,865
    Quote Originally Posted by TomAiello View Post
    I don't think that Trump has any real principled position on the 2nd Amendment or on the right to keep and bear arms.

    I suspect that there will be small scale gun confiscations resulting in lawsuits, and that the Supreme Court will have to rule on these issues.

    My suspicion is that we will see the court defer to the administrative law (i.e. ATF edicts) in a majority decision with some justices (Gorsuch, for example, has staked out his opposition to administrative law because of it's arbitrary nature) dissenting.
    Agreed. Trump is no supporter of the 2nd. He does what's politically expedient...just like most politicians.

    I'd wager you're right on how these issues will end up at SCOTUS...and those fucksticks saying exactly that....that edicts/fiats/diktats are all fine and dandy and hold the same force as law.
    RobertSlaughter likes this.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    XCR Guru TomAiello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    5,828
    The underlying jurisprudence at the court is interesting. And we're approaching a critical mass of justices who rule based on their principles, rather than the days politics. If I had to guess, I'd say that ACB will side with the bureaucrats, Gorsuch will be against them...I could go through the list but I'd just be guessing. For sure Kagen and Sotomayor will side with them, because they're politically motivated jurists. If the question was regulating marijuana, you'd see those two flip to the other side.

    I do think that we're making progress toward returning to constitutional values though. I can see Thomas and Gorsuch laying the groundwork for a reasonable challenge to Wickard, and overturning that piece of political trash would be the finest day the Supreme Court has had since overturning Korematsu (which only happened in 2016--these things move very slowly). I strongly suspect that ACB is on the court precisely for an eventual challenge to Wickard, at least from the standpoint of jurisprudential strategy.
    Sean K. likes this.
    - Tom Aiello
    [email protected]

    ...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

  6. #5
    XCR Guru TomAiello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    5,828
    Sean K. likes this.
    - Tom Aiello
    [email protected]

    ...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

  7. #6
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,865
    Quote Originally Posted by TomAiello View Post
    Good read....and I agree with the author: very surprised more people haven't seen the ramifications of the bumpstock ban on ALL semiautos as well as trigger upgrades (as one other obvious target).
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  8. #7
    XCR Guru fmunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kahleefonia
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K. View Post
    Good read....and I agree with the author: very surprised more people haven't seen the ramifications of the bumpstock ban on ALL semiautos as well as trigger upgrades (as one other obvious target).
    What are they going to ban next? fingers? since you don't need a stock or binary trigger to bumpfire.
    Sean K. likes this.
    Fool-proofing serves only one purpose: identify bigger fools.

  9. #8
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,865
    Quote Originally Posted by fmunk View Post
    What are they going to ban next? fingers? since you don't need a stock or binary trigger to bumpfire.
    Well, that's the exact legal argument to be made on the part of ATF as to why all semi-autos should be banned. See, the mechanical definition of semi and full auto were clearly laid out. One actuation (pull) of the trigger=1 bullet=semi auto. Full auto=1 actuation=multiple bullets.

    Now that they've determined bumpstocks are "full auto" b/c of the "rate of fire"...and never gave any number to quantify it (and even if they did...it would outlaw bumpfiring and people like Gerry Miculek who are just really fast....).....they can now push that logic to any semi-auto.

    Under that sort of litmus test...everything is subject to NFA. And wallah!....instant revenue stream and registration.
    fmunk likes this.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  10. #9
    XCR Guru TomAiello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    5,828
    At this point administrative law is still subject to judicial review, so in the end this will be adjudicated by an actual court. As I said, though, I'm not confident in forecasting the decision with the current SCOTUS membership, and I'd expect any legal process to take years winding through the courts anyway--it's definitely not a 'straight to the Supreme Court' kind of case.
    - Tom Aiello
    [email protected]

    ...I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

  11. #10
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,865
    Quote Originally Posted by TomAiello View Post
    At this point administrative law is still subject to judicial review, so in the end this will be adjudicated by an actual court. As I said, though, I'm not confident in forecasting the decision with the current SCOTUS membership, and I'd expect any legal process to take years winding through the courts anyway--it's definitely not a 'straight to the Supreme Court' kind of case.
    And the bad thing is, someone first has to be the "test case"....in order to have standing. Seems like in instances like infringing on natural, negative rights, one shouldn't have to wait until they are imprisoned for a violation before they can take the case to court, IMO.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •