Thursday, April 8, 2021

More limits on human rights? This is my shocked face.

Creepy Unca Joe has mouthed the words 'gun control' and 'executive orders' in the same paragraph.  Specifics are thin, but topic areas are mentioned.  The 'Circle Around' girl with the nice smelling hair said details will be coming soon, but she says a lot of things.

The reaction by 'Murica this morning is typical.  Tell us we can't have something, and we'll buy the crap out of that something.  Especially when we know it's a load of BS.  The web sites of companies involved are slammed this morning.  Suppliers order pages are lagging like it's Christmas and Stimmy day all rolled into one.

On the list of upcoming actions is 'Doing Something about AR-15 Pistols'.  The issue here is ATF competence and byzantine regulations.  They Made A Decision, and to their regret put it in writing.   Since then, they have been kicking themselves in the crotch and several judges have helped them along with the kicking.

The problem is definitions.  In order to enforce their arbitrary regs, they need to define the technical things they want to regulate.  IOW, what IS a firearm.... what IS a rifle.... what IS a pistol.  In those definitions there is trouble, when an agency seeks to obfuscate, confuse, and intimidate (my opinion here).

The ATF defined a rifle as something with rifled barrel, that shoots one projectile, with a barrel 16" or longer, and a stock designed to fire the weapon from the shoulder, and an overall length longer than 26".

Actually, I think the real regulation says anything shorter than 26" is not a rifle.   There's the rub.  

What they intended to do was put 'short barrel rifles' (SBR; Rifles with barrels less than 16") into a category that requires a $200 tax to buy.  Why?  No one is really sure on that.  The best guess is sometime around 1938 a bunch of lawmakers no brighter than the ones we have now were trying to 'Do Something', and this is part of what they drunkenly vomited onto paper.

So... a short barrel rifle is any rifle with a barrel shorter than 16".  Yeah..... BUT..... a rifle has a stock designed to be fired from the shoulder.   No shoulder stock..... no rifle..... thus no SBR.  So what is it?

Well, if it's designed to be fired from one hand, and does NOT have a stock designed to be shouldered, then it's a pistol.  Get that... a pistol. *Not* an SBR requiring a $200 tax, but just a pistol that any qualified buyer can buy at any gunshop in the nation.

You think 'Murican shooters didn't glom onto that little fact?  Once the ATF put out a written ruling that clarified 'Wrist Braces' are not shoulder stocks, we'uns set about making MILLIONS of AR-15 Pistols.  Every manufacturer of AR rifles tossed their hat in the ring.

Yes, they LOOK like short barrel rifles, except the shoulder stock is actually a wrist brace, and not a stock.  How do we know this? We have a letter from the ATF that specifically says so (Refer back to ATF self-crotch-kicking)

Yes, the ATF has tried to backtrack, and it hasn't worked well for them.  They tried making the case in court, and under clear indications the ruling would go against them and set precedent they dropped charges.  They tried taking it up the ladder to the president at that time, and were laughed out of the office.

At this point, there are millions, if not tens of millions, of people who own these things and love them.  Dozens of companies have invested heavily in supplying the market as well.

Now, fast forward to 4-8-2021, and Fotus is making hurty words at our 'Murican toys.

You know exactly what happened.  We began buying up every one of them in sight, and ordering in parts to make more.  Which is where we stand this morning.    

I imagine there is an army of lawyers warming up their bank deposit slips right now, just in case Fotus tries to make a few million Americans into criminals at the stroke of a pen (Oops.... not supposed to used the word 'stroke' where someone that old is concerned).

I also imagine there are a few D's in the hallowed halls who are both old enough and intelligent enough to recall what happened in 1994. A president pushed through an egregious limitation of citizens rights to own firearms, and it cost his party both houses in a landslide. 

Prepare for 'interesting times'.

(From the department of hypocrisy comes this note:  Someone messaged that I should consider treating the office of the president with more respect.  I responded:  "Confusing that you never said a word when I referred to Trump as 'Cheeto Jesus'.  Is your respect for the office conditional on the person holding it? "   No response is expected).


Anonymous said...

What also is interesting is the definition of rifle and receiver. Where is the serial number supposed to go? Think what the rifles were like back in the 1930s. ARs don’t fit the legal definitions of a rifle as the fire control group isn’t connected to the barrel and bolt. Fun times, fun times.

Carteach said...

JFM, I recall hearing of a case sometime within the last year or so where the ATF attempted to redefine a receiver in the middle of a criminal trial, and were handed their asses by the judge.

I don't remember all the details, but I was chuckling at the time. I recall the ATF dropped the case rather than get socked with another precedent against them.