Feds going to pull a Maura Healey?

[cjbenway]

ATF going to rule on bump stocks soon.
They have already deemed them legal.
This should be done legislatively.
It sets a bad precedent.

 

[greencobra]

a haiku!!! nice.

 

[CrackPot]

ATF going to rule on bump stocks soon.
They have already deemed them legal.
This should be done legislatively.
It sets a bad precedent.

It has been done legislatively. The ATF is responsible for interpreting/enforcing the laws in question to determine if bump stocks are covered or not. They have previously indicated they are not covered under any existing law. Should the legislature not agree with how the ATF is interpreting the laws they write, they can write a "better" law the makes their intent clear.

 

[Lank]

Congress should dissolve the ATF.

 

[PL-52]

As my avatar suggests ATF should be a 1 stop shopping store and not a Govt. agency

 

[cjbenway]

https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf-speak-up-now/[email protected]

 

[dans]

Congress should dissolve the ATF.

This

 

[deadLuke]

the ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

 

[Boris]

from the site:

All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Bureau has reviewed them.

Anyone wants to guess frequency of "f*** you", "jackbooted thugs", "go f*** yourselves"?

 

[swatgig]

Congress should dissolve

FTFY

 

[Bfatz]

The government just can't stop f***ing things up,! How about Congress go on a 6 month PAID vacation and for 6 months don't do a f***ing thing.

 

[Olympus Racing]

The government just can't stop f***ing things up,! How about Congress go on a 6 month PAID vacation and for 6 months don't do a f***ing thing.

Run for Congress. Run for anything. Get involved.

 

[Rehoboth Dave]

Didn't the NRA ask for this very thing right after the Vegas shooting?

 

[Junior314]

Why hasn't Trump named a new head of the ATF?

 

[Junior314]

Didn't the NRA ask for this very thing right after the Vegas shooting?

Yup.

 

[Waher]

Why hasn't Trump named a new head of the ATF?

Because the ATF may not exist for very much longer as we know it:

"Senior administration officials" have told the New York Times that the Trump Administration plans to strip out the tobacco and alcohol enforcement roles from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These functions would be returned to the Treasury Department as BATFE has ignored cigarette smuggling and bootlegging in favor "fighting violent crime".
Under the Trump administration’s plan, the Treasury Department would inherit the authority to investigate tobacco and alcohol smuggling. The A.T.F. would need a new name. One possibility: the Bureau of Arson, Explosives and Firearms, or A.E.F.

The move would resolve a bureaucratic split that has existed for years. Treasury collects the taxes on cigarettes and liquor, but A.T.F. investigates efforts to evade those taxes.

The change is included in a draft of President Trump’s coming budget proposal, according to two senior administration officials. The plan envisions hiring roughly two dozen Treasury agents, plus auditors and support staff, the officials said. Congress would have to pass a law to reorganize the agencies.

The officials who discussed the proposal did so on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it in draft form. Though budget plans can change, the officials said the A.T.F. language has remained in place through multiple revisions.

 

[drgrant]

It has been done legislatively.

Not under Federal law it hasn't.

Honestly BATFE was tepid about doing anything about it, because of the obvious bad position it puts them
in, because any reasoning/rulemaking used will have to be flimsy as hell... but certain shitbirds at the NRA "wanted them to look into it" as a shitty way of dodging legislation.

-Mike

 

[CrackPot]

Nothing is something. It has not been made illegal federally so the ATF can only rule what they previously did, that it is not illegal.

Not under Federal law it hasn't.

Honestly BATFE was tepid about doing anything about it, because of the obvious bad position it puts them
in, because any reasoning/rulemaking used will have to be flimsy as hell... but certain shitbirds at the NRA "wanted them to look into it" as a shitty way of dodging legislation.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Nothing is something. It has not been made illegal federally so the ATF can only rule what they previously did, that it is not illegal.

That's still not legislative, any BATFE bs about shoestrings, etc, is not legislation.

The problem in this case is that people have been making bump stocks for years with batfe's explicit blessing from
the tech branch. At least the first company that did this ostensibly got an approval letter for it, and it was "blessed" at the time. Sure they are free to rescind such things, but it puts them in an untenable position, because
now they are forced to contradict themselves if they want to put forth another edict. I am actually surprised that
they're considering this, although it's certainly possible this entire thing is a "smoke screen to justify doing
nothing" or a "smoke screen to punt" the issue back on legislators.

-Mike

 

[CrackPot]

That's still not legislative, any BATFE bs about shoestrings, etc, is not legislation.

The problem in this case is that people have been making bump stocks for years with batfe's explicit blessing from
the tech branch. At least the first company that did this ostensibly got an approval letter for it, and it was "blessed" at the time. Sure they are free to rescind such things, but it puts them in an untenable position, because
now they are forced to contradict themselves if they want to put forth another edict. I am actually surprised that
they're considering this, although it's certainly possible this entire thing is a "smoke screen to justify doing
nothing" or a "smoke screen to punt" the issue back on legislators.

-Mike

So let's go backwards to what I originally posted. BATFE gets to interpret. If the legislature does not like it, they get to pass a law that does not leave room open for the BATFE interpretation. Since BATFE always has some number of political hacks, it will always find a door to drive through towards a political agenda. Since they previously ruled they were not illegal, it will be interesting to see what tortured logic they use should they rule otherwise now. In the current environment, I would be surprised by a reversal. Should the makeup of congress change after the midterm elections, we might see MA SJC like logic out of the BATFE.

If it is not explicitly illegal, it is legal. That is the basis for our legal code unlike some of the fine countries in Europe that are/were monarchies and other despotic locations around the globe.

 

[drgrant]

So let's go backwards to what I originally posted.

You said "It has been done legislatively. " that is not the case and never has been the case. Unless you're generically referring to what defines a machine gun (as laid out by NFA and Hughes amendment etc. ) but facing facts, even if you read most of USC 922 it's pretty obvious to even a layperson that a "bump stock" would not fall under this.

BATFE gets to interpret. If the legislature does not like it, they get to pass a law that does not leave room open for the BATFE interpretation. Since BATFE always has some number of political hacks, it will always find a door to drive through towards a political agenda. Since they previously ruled they were not illegal, it will be interesting to see what tortured logic they use should they rule otherwise now. In the current environment, I would be surprised by a reversal. Should the makeup of congress change after the midterm elections, we might see MA SJC like logic out of the BATFE.

I honestly think (and hope) that BATFE uses this as an excuse to punt- because there's basically a torrent of shit
behind issuing any kind of an edict.

If it is not explicitly illegal, it is legal. That is the basis for our legal code unlike some of the fine countries in Europe that are/were monarchies and other despotic locations around the globe.

For the most part, yes, except when some agency with regulatory authority comes along and tries to overstep their boundaries...

-Mike