Is anybody taking this to court?
If they were not legal under law why did the ATF allow them in the first place?
I have been considering the CMMG Banshee for quite a while, but figured this was coming and was holding off.
Glad I did, but I really wanted a suppressed Banshee in .45 ACP.
I’ve no opinion on pistol braces one way or another.
But I’ll say this much. If they can throw yer ass in prison for it, it ain’t a “Rule”.
Legislators legislate and make law. Sometimes they are good laws and sometimes they are bad laws, but at least they have some sort of legitimacy, as far as that goes. The way all these unelected folks can upend everything according to which way the wind blows is nuts.
Either pass legislation or forget about it.
No Sniffer voter will be tried.
This is precisely why I’m a GOA member. They will fight to the death against any and all gun control.
Instead, we got a bumpstock ban.
“What is an ex post facto law and why is it forbidden in the Constitution?
Laws that reach back in time and make conduct punishable in a way it was not punishable for when it was done are ex post facto laws. Such a law (1) applies to events occurring before its enactment and (2) disadvantages the person affected by it.”
Ha Ha, Look at me. Pretending that the Constitution actually means anything anymore.
Ayn Rand got another thing right in Atlas Shrugged:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against, then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures.
We are after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted,and you create a nation of lawbreakers, and then you cash in.
Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
And the NRA is where?
I’m still getting funding snail mail from them. Loyal opposition.
"GOA CONDEMNS BIDEN RULE TO CRIMINALIZE PISTOL BRACED FIREARMS"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Does GOA not understand that, even if the states had given the feds the specific power to make peacetime restrictive, non-militia-related gun laws, Biden can only sign or veto a legislative branch bill to criminalize certain firearms?
In other words, it's never the job of non-popularly-elected bureaucrats running constitutionally undefined, so-called federal regulatory agencies to make such rules, ATF in this example.
Also, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws — not even for murder!
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
It remains that not only have the states never expressly constitutionally given the federal government the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws, but the Supreme Court had clarified in United States versus Cruikshank that the 2nd Amendment (2A) was made for the main purpose of dealing with the untrusted federal government when Congress becomes the enemy!
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
How does Congress infringe our 2A gun rights if not by making constitutionally indefensible peacetime restrictive gun laws?
Patriots need to use this Biden Administraton attack on 2A protections to identify lawmaking RINOs who are not speaking up about this problem so that patriots can primary them in 2024.
Isn’t this just a piece of plastic that is slid on to the rear of the gun? Is it illegal only if it is attached to the gun?
Why should we care what a state in India declares?