by The Firearms Policy Coalition has posted a long Twitter explanation of what the withdrawal of the ATF’s Request for Comment may mean as well as digging deeper into the language used in both the withdrawal and the original document. It is well worth a read to comprehend what we are facing.
2) References —
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
ATF "guidance" doc: https://t.co/DXM7bZwPzg
ATF "withdrawal" doc: https://t.co/rXz8jbsBig
FPC Dec. 23 statement re withdrawal: https://t.co/yXvfIfkXyy
Join/Donate to Fund the Work: https://t.co/6Pp2el4HkP
4) The above can be seen in *how* they articulated what they were doing. ATF said they were providing notice of "the…factors it considers…" They didn't say *would consider* — the tense is important here and indicates that is already how they saw/were applying the law. pic.twitter.com/1iYX5JHwRc
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
6) Also likely why they were specific as to their purported intent to exercise discretion & not enforce — *YET* — NFA against "current possessors" with "stabilizer-equipped firearms" *until* they implement/conclude the registration period for the safe harbor/amnesty program. pic.twitter.com/L9w8Hylokj
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
8) More potentially key signals in the "withdrawal" doc: Close reading shows they withdrew only "the notice and request for comments" — didn't say they were stopping things already in motion. And b/c "the proposed guidance was not a regulation" NOTHING changes **for them**. pic.twitter.com/st5rDmMU7F
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
10) Note that ATF withdrew "notice and request" AFTER "further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General". There are many possibilities in this — some good and some bad. ALSO: Guidance is withdrawn "pending further [DOJ] review…”
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
12) It's possible that one side of DOJ/ATF wanted to use the public guidance/safe harbor to pre-empt a Biden admin DOJ/ATF & provide safety valves for current possessors. Also possible that the "guidance" was a public first shot. Either way, this is NOT OVER AT ALL.
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
14) SUMMARY: ATF "withdrawal" of "guidance" ATF said was not a "rule" = 1) maybe/maybe not safe harbor/registration and/or 2) DOJ/ATF will enforce NFA w/o more notice and/or 3) DOJ/ATF waiting for Biden and/or 4) bumpstock ban-like "rule" coming and/or 5) some combination.
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
16) FPC was able to immediately challenge DOJ/ATF bumpstock ban because we are not a slow, political 1800s/1900s model org. We are principled & fierce — all work starts w/ philosophy of maximal individual liberty — but stay small, efficient, distributed, networked, & agile.
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
18) FINALLY: Whenever you encounter law enforcement SHUT UP! You CANNOT talk your way *out* of problems but you *can* talk your way into loss of rights/jail/prison! ALWAYS have YOUR lawyer present when dealing with LE/prosecutors. See https://t.co/CSJeRwP408 for more. (/thread)
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 24, 2020
