James Wesley Rawles’ Comment On The Proposed Pistol Brace Rule
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 2 months ago
Survival Blog.
I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule. It is a gross violation of the Second Amendment. For the ATF to contravene their numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal is an absurd over-reach of regulatory authority. This is truly an “arbitrary and capricious” move.
Pistol arm braces serve a useful purpose for those who are crippled, deformed, injured, elderly, or infirmed.
Because of the numerous and long-standing rulings that arm braces are legal, there are now more than 3 million braces in private hands. Many of the guns equipped with these braces have changed hand numerous times, without any paper trail, as private party sales. So, even if the original owners were informed of the change in legal status via letters from the manufacturers or retailers, the subsequent owners may very well be oblivious. The end result will be that hundreds of thousands of people will become unwitting FELONS, overnight, with the stroke of the pen.
Because there is no compensation for the owners of the 3 million braces in circulation, the proposed rule is a grossly unconstitutional “taking”. Here is the math: 3 million braces valued at an average of $155 each equals $465,000,000. ($465 million dollars!)
These sorts of arbitrary and capricious moves by regulatory agencies undermine public trust in our government. If they continue, they will sow the seeds of so much discontent that they may lead to a revolution by righteously angry gun owners.
Good enough that I thought you should see it.
On September 6, 2021 at 10:11 pm, Ozark Redneck said:
Amen! I left my comment as well…
On September 7, 2021 at 8:11 am, Matthew W said:
First of all, there is almost nothing about the BATF that I approve of or support.
“Pistol arm braces serve a useful purpose for those who are crippled, deformed, injured, elderly, or infirmed.”
Yes they do.
But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of people that have/use the brace is to get around the SBR laws.
That being said, the SBR laws are at the top of the stupidest rules the BATF has.
And yes, it is really crappy that for years, an item is legal, only to be made felonious overnight.
On September 7, 2021 at 9:08 am, xtphreak said:
“…it is really crappy that for years, an item is legal, only to be made felonious overnight…”
Can you say Ex Post Facto?
Merriam-Webster’s definition – a civil or criminal law with retroactive effect
especially : a law that retroactively alters a defendant’s rights especially by criminalizing and imposing punishment for an act that was not criminal or punishable at the time it was committed, by increasing the severity of a crime from its level at the time the crime was committed, by increasing the punishment for a crime from the punishment imposed at the time the crime was committed, or by taking away from the protections (as evidentiary protection) afforded the defendant by the law as it existed when the act was committed
Section 9: Powers Denied Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
If it is denied to Congress to pass such a law, how then may an administrative agency interpret a law so as to include an ex post facto law?
On September 7, 2021 at 9:13 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ xtphreak
Re: “Section 9: Powers Denied Congress: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
“If it is denied to Congress to pass such a law, how then may an administrative agency interpret a law so as to include an ex post facto law?”
In the constitutional republic once known as the United States of America, your arguments would have made eminent sense both legally and morally, and probably would have won the day. If the Framers were alive today, I am sure they would agree with your reasoning.
The trouble is that we no longer live in a constitutional republic, or one governed by the rule of law of the sort the Founders/Framers envisioned. The ruling class has long-regarded the Bill of Rights, Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and our other founding documents as inconveniences, if not outright relics which belong in museums. Finally, they decided simply to stop honoring their limits, and to see if anyone noticed or protested. Well, a few people protested – but not enough, and here we are.
As it happens, this is one of those times I’d be happy to be proven wrong, to be proven overly-pessimistic. I’d love to see some judge someplace strike these regulations down as the abominations they are – but I am not holding my breath on that one.
Why? Well, the continued existence of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) in the first place….an agency whose very existence is an affront to our founding principles and documents. Yet, it is close to celebrating its fiftieth anniversary.
Every so often, a liberty-loving politician (such as Ron and Rand Paul) will protest the agency, or a judge someplace will strike a ruling down, but the agency itself is never threatened with abolishment despite the egregious and flagrant abuses of power on its behalf throughout its existence. I can only conclude that deep-down, the members of the Senate and House don’t want the agency abolished. That they like it fine the way it is, not withstanding their periodic bleatings about deploring government overreach and abuse of the public trust.
In other words, until they actually do something concrete, all that hot air amounts to nothing. Acta non verba…. “Deeds, not words”….
On September 8, 2021 at 1:34 pm, Ned said:
Thanks. That was helpful for commenting.