Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from my friend David Cole who blogs at DeltaBravoCharlie.com. It is from his Facebook page and captures the essence of the BATFE’s moves on 80% frames/lowers and pistol braces. The quote references Ayn Rand’s masterpiece Atlas Shrugged.

In case you’re not sure if your braced AR pistol or your 80% gun build is legal, remember this passage from “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’re 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 law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

ATF Request For Comment Closes January 4th

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives released their official request for comment on “objective factors for classifying weapons with stabilizing braces” on Friday, December 18th. When I last checked, they had received over 4,500 comments on that day alone.

I submitted my own comment on Saturday. Rather than addressing every aspect of their so-called objective factors (which aren’t), I only spoke to weight, caliber, and some accessories as well as to the length of the comment period. It is essential for future litigation that comments address what is specified in the Request for Comment. Moreover, as I understand it, if something is not brought up in the comments, it cannot be brought up later in a suit seeking an injunction.

Please notice that BATFE has signaled their intent to bring most, if not all, brace-equipped pistols under the NFA. In their “generosity”, they will waive the $200 tax. What is not said is that they will have just added upwards of 3 million pistols as to a Federal firearm registry.

Here is the official notice as sent out by BATFE in an email this weekend.

ATF is publishing the objective factors it considers when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and/or the Gun Control Act. 

ATF publishes this notice to inform and invite comment from the industry and public on the proposed guidance prior to issuing a final document.  Upon issuance of final guidance, ATF will provide additional information to aid persons and companies in complying with federal laws and regulations. 

This notice also outlines ATF’s enforcement priorities regarding persons who, prior to publication of this notice, made or acquired, in good faith, firearms equipped with a stabilized brace.

Finally, this notice previews ATF’s and the Department of Justice’s plan to subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA, including an expedited application process and the retroactive exemption of such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes.

Read the general notice

Submit a Comment by January 4

You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2020R-10, by any of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  • Mail: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R-10
  • Fax: (202) 648-9741

All comments must reference this document’s docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter’s complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity.

Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 

Submit a formal comment

BATFE To Issue “Guidance” On Pistol Braces

Firearms attorney Joshua Prince posted an alert last night regarding a move by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to institute a rulemaking with regard to pistol braces. He had been given a draft copy of their proposal. Included in that proposal which I have embedded below, was a plan for DOJ to “subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA.”

Atf Federal Register Notice Objective Factors for Classifying Stablizing Braces Draft 12-16-20 by jpr9954 on Scribd

As Mr. Prince notes, the BATFE seems to be planning only a 14-day comment period which seems to be in violation of the law. With the incoming and virulently anti-gun Biden Administration, one must wonder whether adherence to the law will matter to them. Even before the Electoral College met, the leadership of BATFE in the persons of Acting Director Regina Lombardo and Deputy Director Marvin Richardson (no relation) apparently has been reaching out to the Biden Administration on new gun control measures.

The Firearms Policy Coalition sent out a release on this late last night. They offer their initial thoughts on it. I think it is worth reading in its entirety.

WASHINGTON D.C. (December 16, 2020) — Your FPC team is in receipt of a draft notice from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) regarding how the agency will be evaluating weapons with “stabilizing braces.” Based upon our initial review of this notice, we offer these thoughts for your consideration:

1) The draft document does not appear to reflect a new “ban” on pistol braces or firearms with such devices. The ATF, evidently, is not indicating that the mere presence of a brace on a pistol automatically converts the firearm into one under the purview of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). (Indeed, the ATF has no authority to declare accessories like pistol braces to be NFA components, though the agency’s previous conduct provides little reassurance.)

2) The draft document instead purports to be intended to inform the public on how brace-equipped firearms will be examined in the future. Based on the criteria set forth in the draft document, it appears that the ATF would take something of a totality of the circumstances approach in determining whether a specific brace-equipped pistol is a ‘short-barreled’ firearm regulated under the NFA. These criteria include: the firearm’s type, caliber, weight, and length, the design of the brace itself, whether the firearm can be properly aimed when using the attachment as a brace, and whether an optic that cannot properly be used one-handed is present (i.e., something that suggests intent). The agency also indicates that it will observe the marketing of firearms and accessories, as well as other more subjective factors.

3) Importantly, the draft document recognizes that most people with braced firearms have acted in good faith. It suggests that the agency seeks to establish a procedure by which people who already have firearms that may fall under the purview of the NFA, and who wish to take advantage of registering them as NFA firearms to obtain the legal protections of such, may potentially do so without payment of the associated tax.

FPC believes that the NFA is an unconstitutional infringement of the People’s rights, that the ATF should be abolished, and that any policy or practice enforcing the Act is unconstitutional and immoral. 

With that said, the policies in the draft document do not appear to be a significant departure from previous publicly undisclosed agency policies, some of which were discovered through criminal prosecutions, FOIA requests, and other sources. Your FPC team will be monitoring the situation closely. If anything changes we will let you know as soon as possible.

While I don’t believe Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to discern whether such measures are legal, I believe he will rubber-stamp any and all such attempts to restrict rights and rewrite both law and regulations. In other words, he will do as he is told.

ATF Raid On Polymer80 – A Sign Of Things To Come? (Updated)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that ATF agents raided 80% lower maker Polymer80 yesterday.

From the WSJ:

Federal agents on Thursday raided one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of ghost-gun parts, a sign that federal law enforcement is cracking down on kits that allow people to make weapons at home.

The raid target, Nevada-based Polymer80, is suspected of illegally manufacturing and distributing firearms, failing to pay taxes, shipping guns across state lines and failing to conduct background investigations, according to an application for a search warrant unsealed Thursday after the raid took place.

The probe focuses on Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot Kit,” which includes the parts to build a “ghost” handgun. The kit, which Polymer80 sells online, meets the definition of a firearm, ATF investigators determined according to the warrant application. That means it would have to be stamped with a serial number and couldn’t be sold to consumers who haven’t first passed a background check.

The story goes on to note that there were no arrests and no charges have been filed.

Bear in mind that the ATF has previously determined that 80% lowers were not firearms and that Polymer80 has a determination letter to that effect.

One has to wonder if ATF is really concerned about the sale of parts kits or are they trying to curry favor with the probable Biden Administration in an effort to get their budget increased?

Mind you there are plenty of other places where you can purchase the necessary parts to finish out an 80% lower. I even thought about doing one until I started adding up the cost and concluded it just wasn’t worth it.

UPDATE: The Firearm Blog is reporting that ATF is now actively going after Polymer80 customers and forcing them to surrender the Buy Build Shoot Kit. The alternative offered to the owners of these kits is for the ATF to come back and raid their house with a warrant.

I think we know what they means. Your dog is shot, your kids are terrorized, your house is torn apart, your neighbors are scandalized, and everything will be shown in the 6pm new because media will have been alerted to be on the scene of the raid.

The ATF receipt as sent to TFB is below:

From The Firearms Blog

ATF Up To No Good Again

The Gun Control Act of 1968 imposes a “sporting test” on imported firearms. It appears according to reports that it is using that to prohibit the import of many AK and AR type pistols. While there is no real definition of “sporting” under the law, ATF examiners are claiming the weight of these pistols, the size of available magazines, and that they fire traditional rifle caliber (7.62×39 or 5.56) cartridges make the unsuitable for sporting purposes. It is also important to not that these determinations are not made public but are communicated in private letters to the importers.

From Wiley Law:

Despite ATF previously stating that there is no limit to how long or heavy a handgun should be to qualify as “sporting” under section 925(d)(3), ATF private classification letters issued within the past few months indicate that the agency has shifted course by reinterpreting what constitutes a “handgun.” In company-specific letters, ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy, it fails to meet the definition of “handgun” under the Gun Control Act, as it is not “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty.

This approach is resulting in inconsistent determinations, of which the regulated community should take note. Within the past few months, at least one HK91 pistol-style submission as light as 8 pounds, with a barrel length of 8-3/4 inches and an overall length of 21-3/4 inches, has been determined to fall outside the definition of “handgun.” This is a change from previous determinations where firearms weighing over 8 pounds, with 20-inch barrels, and an overall length of approximately 31-1/2 inches were held by FATD to be “handguns.” Since the letters are not publicly available, it is impossible for regulated companies to know the full range of FATD’s determinations. This has serious implications for regulated businesses.

In some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:

Incorporation of rifle sights;

Utilization of “rifle caliber ammunition” (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);

Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1

The “weapon’s heavy weight;”

Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and

Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”

However, ATF also noted in the most recent private ruling that the above design features are “neither binding on future classifications nor is any factor individually determinative[.]” ATF explained without elaboration that “the statutory and regulatory definitions provide the appropriate standard in classifying the firearm.” ATF concluded that “a firearm that is too large, too heavy or . . . otherwise not designed to be held and fired in one hand (as demonstrated by the objective features) cannot be a handgun under the statutory definition and cannot be subject to importation criteria governing handguns.” In light of ATF’s subjective and inconsistent analysis of size and weight, it is difficult to predict how the agency will classify any given firearm under this standard.

The ATF also has sent at least one letter to an importer stating that the prior approval of the import and determination that it met the sporting test “may require reevaluation.” You can read that as either ATF saying, “Oops, we made a mistake”, or “We changed our fickle minds and screw you.”

This redetermination of what is or isn’t a pistol could also impact anyone who has a domestic manufactured pistol of the AK, AR, CZ Scorpion, or the like. In other words, they could now be considered AOW under the purview of the National Firearms Act, subject to an extensive background check, and a tax stamp.

As Wiley Law notes:

Under ATF’s new interpretation of the handgun definition, millions of AR-15 style pistols could be considered “too large, or too heavy” to fall within ATF’s new interpretation, thereby making them unregistered NFA weapons, and subjecting manufacturers and gun owners to criminal prosecution. Given the private nature of ATF’s classification rulings, and the subjective nature of the analysis, it is extremely difficult to know for sure whether specific firearms fall within the new interpretation. This appears to be part of a continuing trend at ATF to apply firearms statutes in a more restrictive manner without informing the public—a trend that appears unaffected by the IFR. In this uncertain regulatory environment, importers and manufacturers should consult counsel before making significant purchasing, importing, or manufacturing decisions for firearms that could be implicated by ATF’s heretofore unknown and undisclosed analysis.

Gun Owners of America has called this a “rogue, secret ATF interpretation” meant to undermine President Trump with gun owners.

They said:

“Despite an executive action from President Trump prohibiting the imposition of ‘new standards’ without express authorization by law, the apparent interpretation by a rogue and reckless ATF has implications that could criminalize millions of otherwise non-violent and law-abiding gun owners,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President, for Gun Owners of America (GOA) said. “This continues to demonstrate why the National Firearms Act should be repealed and the agency itself should be fully dismantled.

“It also demonstrates why President Trump recently issued an Executive Order creating a new classification of ‘Schedule F’ employees. This new classification allows the President to ‘drain the swamp’ by firing policy-making employees who would rather go rogue than follow the law.

“The recent Honey Badger gun ban and revelation of absurd private classification rulings represents a pro-Biden ‘October Surprise’ by an out-of-control, anti-gun ATF. By disregarding orders to stand down, rogue ATF agents seem prepared to help usher in a Joe Biden Administration, especially because their actions appear to be purposefully timed to anger President Trump’s base immediately before an election.

I am taking a class from Montgomery Community College on gun shop management. Our homework this week was researching ATF interpretations of pistol arm braces among other things. Talk about timely!

Cities And Everytown Sue BATFE Over “Ghost Guns”

In a lawsuit supported by the Everytown Law, the cities of Syracuse, San Jose, Chicago, and Columbia, SC have sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives over 80% receivers. Of course, they characterize them as “ghost guns” and not semi-finished lumps of metal or polymer.

BATFE is accused of failing to follow the Gun Control Act of 1968.

From the lawsuit:

Defendants ATF and United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) refuse to apply the clear terms of the Gun Control Act. That federal law defines regulated “firearms” to include not only operable weapons but also their core building blocks—frames for pistols, and receivers for long guns—so long as those core building blocks are designed to be or may be readily converted into operable weapons. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). Notwithstanding that statutory language, Defendants have declined to regulate unfinished ghost gun frames and receivers as “firearms,” even though they are designed to be and may be readily converted into
operable weapons.

Instead, Defendants have issued rules and letter determinations—continuing to this day—giving the green light to the unregulated sale of unfinished ghost gun frames and receivers.

The cities and Everytown are seeking an injunction and a declaratory relief in the Federal lawsuit brought in the Southern District of New York. They want any and all determination letters set aside.

The Everytown press release makes these assertions:

A ghost gun is a do-it-yourself, homemade gun made from easy-to-get, building blocks that are unregulated under the ATF’s current interpretation of federal law. These guns are finished by an individual, not a federally licensed manufacturer or importer. Ghost guns are one of the fastest-growing gun safety problems facing our country. 

The ATF’s current interpretation of federal law — which the lawsuit seeks to have set aside as unlawful — allows people who can’t legally own a firearm to easily buy the parts for a ghost gun. In only a few hours, these self-made weapons become fully functioning, untraceable firearms. A person can buy the parts and assemble a ghost gun without even receiving a background check

Research by Everytown shows ghost guns are becoming a weapon of choice for people with felony convictions, gun traffickers, and other people legally prohibited from owning guns. 

I call BS on the assertion that “ghost guns” are the weapon of choice of criminals. Stolen guns and guns obtained through illegal straw purchases are much more likely to be found in the hands of a criminal than a completed Glock-ish Polymer80.

Former BATFE technical expert Rick Vasquez had this to say in a Reuters report:

But Rick Vasquez, a Virginia-based firearms consultant and former ATF technical expert who evaluated guns and gun products to help the bureau determine if they were legal, said anyone wanting to address the proliferation of kit guns should pass new laws in Congress.

There is no word if Everytown Law intends to demand that the plumbing department of Lowes, Home Depot, and Menards now be required to have a FFL. As Tam has always said, they are selling 90% Sten guns.

Arsenals Behind Enemy Lines

An alternative title might be your tax dollars at work if you live in New York City.

In an effort to curb “gun violence” (sic) in Gotham City, a joint firearms task force that included BATFE, the NYPD, and, believe it or not, the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General recovered this enormous arsenal in a raid.

The streets of DeBlasio’s New York have never been safer.

If Fast Food Was Sold Like Guns

It should come as no surprise that the gun prohibitionists are in a tizzy because the BATFE has adopted sensible regulations during this time of COVID-19. The regulations allow gun dealers to use drive-in windows or a table in front of their store so as ensure social distancing. It never absolved them of running a NICS check or having a Form 4473 filled out.

Kris Brown, co-president of Brady United, opined, “We should not need to say this, but guns should not be sold like fast-food burgers or lemonade.”

That’s a nice little sound bite but lets look at what it would look like if fast food was actually sold like guns.

During this time of stay-at-home orders and eating your own cooking everyday, you decide you need a treat. You decide you want a BigMac, large fries, and a chocolate shake from McDonalds. If you don’t like McDonalds, it could just as well be a Whopper from Burger King.

To make it go faster you place your order over the Internet using the McDonalds’ app. After all, you’ve know about the Internet loophole from reading the literature of the food safety groups (formerly known as food control).

You arrive at the drive-thru window anxious to pick up your BigMac, fries, and shake. Instead of handing you your meal, the cashier ask you to fill out the USDA’s Food & Nutrition Service’s Form FAST. She tells you that they will need to run a NICS (Nutritional Inventory Check System) check through the FDA.

You are flabbergasted. But what about the Internet loophole you say! The cashier says you always have had to fill out Form FAST and have a NICS check even if you bought it over the Internet. You eventually get approval and go home to eat while grousing about the unfairness of it all.

However, imagine if you lived in Illinois or New Jersey or California.

In Illinois you would have to have your FFID (Fast Food ID) Card. If you were just visiting, the only way you could get it is if you had a non-resident eating permit. That also would be required if you just wanted to buy condiments.

Now in New Jersey, it gets a bit more cumbersome. There you would be required to apply for a Fast Food Application and Registration System permit in advance. To get the FFARS, you would have to submit an official cholesterol report and BMI to the nutritional police for their OK. Now if you wanted to get a Big Mac or Whopper that requires additional paperwork for your FFPID (Fast Food Purchasers ID). The rationale is that Big Macs are more dangerous than a simple hamburger.

That goes back to an effort by Josh Saccharine of the Food Violence Policy Center to confuse the general public by coining the term “assault burger”. He knew that a Big Mac had fewer calories than three slices of pizza but the average consumer would be wary of those people eating Big Macs because they were assault burgers.

Now assume our fast food consumer is in California. A regular Big Mac is banned because the State Nutritionist General has deemed it an Assault Burger. Thus, fast food restaurants have come up with California-compliant versions that replace the beef burger with a soy burger. Our man can still get his California-compliant Big Mac but he will have a 10 day wait to pick it up after placing his order, paying for it, and having the require background checks. If he wants extra ketchup, that requires a separate check.

If all of this seems a bit far-fetched, never underestimate the power of bureaucrats, nanny-state politicians, and anti-freedom groups to implement such a regime. They have done it for firearms which are actually mentioned in the Constitution so it isn’t that much of a stretch to see them do it for something that doesn’t have such Constitutional protections.

The point here is that when Kris Brown of Brady United or John Feinblatt of Everytown say that guns are being sold like fast food they are full of crap. You know it, I know it, and they know it.

Kind Of Shocking That They Sought An Indictment

I subscribe to press releases from various BATFE Field Divisions. I got one from the Chicago Field Division yesterday that kind of shocked me.

They actually sought an indictment against someone for lying on the Form 4473 and facilitating a straw purchase.

Matthew D. Krueger, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, announced, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Hanna N. DeCicco (age 22) of Milwaukee with Making a False Statement to a Federal Firearms Dealer, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2) on July 10, 2019.

DeCicco is charged with one count of being a straw purchaser of firearm. She knowningly made a false and fictitious that she was the actual buyer of the firearm, when in fact, she was acquiring the firearm for someone else. DeCicco faces a maximum of ten years of imprisonment, three years of supervised released, and a $250,000 fine. 

This case is being prosecuted as part of the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. Project Safe Neighborhoods is a federal, state, and local law enforcement collaboration to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals responsible for violent crimes in our neighborhoods. Project Safe Neighborhoods’ strategy brings together all levels of law enforcement and community resources to reduce violent crime and improve the quality of life in all our neighborhoods.

Do you know how rare something like that actually is? It is usually near the bottom of a Federal prosecutor’s agenda. At least it was during the Obama years.

This NPR report from 2015 noted that straw buyers were rarely prosecuted.

Many licensed gun dealers are concerned that straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted, says Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“The law says that somebody could go to jail for up to 10 years and face a fine of up to $250,000. Why that doesn’t happen more often is a question for, you know, the federal judiciary and the Department of Justice,” Keane says.

Bouchard, who retired from the ATF in 2007, admits charging straw buyers falls towards the bottom of federal prosecutors’ priority lists. He says the cases are difficult to win and resources are limited.

However, that has started to change as the Trump Administration has decided not to ignore those crimes. In the last year of the Obama Administration, only 111 people were charged with false statements on the Form 4473. By contrast, in the first seven months of FY 2019, the Department of Justice had already charge 167 people with making false statements.

The number is still low in comparison to the other Federal prosecutions involving weapons but it is on the rise. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with going after straw purchasers.

As an aside, Ms. DeCicco needs to clean her Facebook page up. An Assistant US Attorney is going to love this comment from December.

Somebody’s gonna take these games to far & end up gettin popped.

Damn Furriners!

If you were to believe the representative from Giffords the AR market is being flooded with foreign imports and home-made ARs.

This came up today in the House Judiciary Committee hearing today on banning “assault weapons”. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) started the conversation by asking David Chipman about Colt and their decision to temporarily leave the commercial market. Chipman, a retired BATFE agent, is now a Senior Policy Advisor with Giffords. He previously held a similar position with Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors.

I seem to remember that the late President George H. W. Bush imposed a ban on so-called assault weapons in 1989. Given that, I wonder where Chipman is getting his information. I mean an ATF agent, active or retired, would never make stuff up, now would he?