XCR Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
23,256 Posts
I just don't see this reclassification holding water considering the EPA case.
I'm not so sure courts will agree. Reason being: ATF allowed 'braces' to be considered non-NFA items. If they allowed it at one point, they can disallow it at another (is the way courts may view it). NFA says nothing about braces nor does it say anything about the ADA which was used as a way to circumnavigate the restrictions on what effectively became de facto stocks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I'm not so sure courts will agree. Reason being: ATF allowed 'braces' to be considered non-NFA items. If they allowed it at one point, they can disallow it at another (is the way courts may view it). NFA says nothing about braces nor does it say anything about the ADA which was used as a way to circumnavigate the restrictions on what effectively became de facto stocks.
That's sort of out of character for how ADA works. That law tends to mandate that all things must be handicap accessible, not that handicap accessible things must be allowed. Like: All (public) buildings with stairs must have ramps or elevators, and All areas of a national park must have ramps. Based on the previous pattern, if they had argued ADA for braces, they would have required them on all firearms to make all firearms accessible.

But handicap accessibility makes a very good argument against charging a $200 fee for a firearm having a brace. That's straight out discrimination against handicapped persons. If a person can prove they need the device to operate a firearm because of their condition, and the government mandates a $200 fee for the thing that allows a handicapped person to operate a device, that is discrimination and a direct violation of ADA, the same as charging someone in a wheelchair more for an airline ticket.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
23,256 Posts
That's sort of out of character for how ADA works. That law tends to mandate that all things must be handicap accessible, not that handicap accessible things must be allowed. Like: All (public) buildings with stairs must have ramps or elevators, and All areas of a national park must have ramps. Based on the previous pattern, if they had argued ADA for braces, they would have required them on all firearms to make all firearms accessible.

But handicap accessibility makes a very good argument against charging a $200 fee for a firearm having a brace. That's straight out discrimination against handicapped persons. If a person can prove they need the device to operate a firearm because of their condition, and the government mandates a $200 fee for the thing that allows a handicapped person to operate a device, that is discrimination and a direct violation of ADA, the same as charging someone in a wheelchair more for an airline ticket.
Exactly....ADA was never intended for the 'able bodied' to use it as a way to utilize devices intended to make the disableds' lives easier in a quest to do an end run around existing law. And I'd bet that's what the government will argue in its brief and I also believe courts will agree.

Agreed that it's discrimination to force them to pay $200 to operate a firearm by the installation of a brace. I do wonder if the court will then require ATF to allow braces for the handicapped without the tax stamp for the reason you just stated. If that happens, I wonder how that shakes out....are doctor's notes required to prove you're disabled enough to need the brace to exercise your 2A rights? Legal can of worms.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: captain92

· Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Since the EPA case pretty much squashed chevron deference it would also squash ATF’s ability to make up law as they go along. So since the NFA which is law makes no reference to such things it means that ATF has zero authority to regulate such accessories.

Of course in light of the Bruen finding the entire NFA could come crashing down with the right challenge as unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

· Registered
Joined
·
23,256 Posts
Since the EPA case pretty much squashed chevron deference it would also squash ATF’s ability to make up law as they go along. So since the NFA which is law makes no reference to such things it means that ATF has zero authority to regulate such accessories.

Of course in light of the Bruen finding the entire NFA could come crashing down with the right challenge as unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NFA doesn't say anything about weight restrictions, point systems, optic considerations/red dots, etc. like the Form 4999 does.... I hope you're right. The whole thing is unconstitutional...but then so is NFA in the first place.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
I believe court challenges to this new ATF brace rule are on computers now at the various Second Amendment defense groups. Often they need to shop for one or more plaintiffs with “standing”.

Both the EPA and BRUEN cases bear directly on ATF rule making. One or more lawsuits alleging unconstitutionality will likely result in a stay of the ATF ruling until either ATF drops it, stops appealing at some federal level, or loses at the Supreme Court. Hopefully the court delays will not go so long that the makeup of the Supreme Court changes.

Meanwhile, braces will have multiplied so in general use under the current free-for-all scheme that a newly restrictive federal registration scheme is sure to fail. The ATF having previously granted permission for brace use, which promoted sales, is now on shaky legal ground to unring the bell. Think, “Entrapment”. Slippery slope. There is no compelling evidence that these parts by themselves or assembled cause so great a harm to the general public that their use must be limited, taxed and registered.

#1 ATF does not have such authority (EPA) and #2 unless ATF can prove historical precedent of the same type of ban in the Constitution as written, the issue becomes a states right issue (Like abortion).

The ATF answer is an amendment to the federal Constitution that would allow all kinds of additional negative gun laws and restrictions the ATF could actually enforce. That likelihood is very low.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top