BOHICA – Pistol Brace Rule

We knew it was coming. Some had speculated it would be released during the SHOT Show. However, the weasel running the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland, decided to release the new pistol brace rule on the Friday before a long weekend. This is usually the case when you don’t want to make a big splash with an announcement.

In his press release, Garland said this:

“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

SBRs were not added to the NFA by Congress because they “must be subject to heightened requirements”. Rather, the original proposed NFA would have banned handguns and the drafters wanted to make sure that cutting down a rifle didn’t make it into a pistol. When Congress said there was no way in hell that they would ban pistols, the bit about SBRs was forgotten.

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach who knows diddly squat about firearms added:

“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago. In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”

More bullshit. Screw the disabled for whom pistol braces were designed.

The rest of the release includes some gems as “more easily concealable”, “more destructive power”, and “heightened requirements”. In other words, the more they can demonize pistol braces, the better in their minds.

I’m sure this will be a topic of conversation at the SHOT Show. Likewise, I am sure that the lawsuits are already prepared and ready to be filed. It also increases the importance of the 5th Circuit’s ruling in Cargill v. Garland. Under the doctrine of lenity, the ATF cannot just say something is what it isn’t and thus make it a felony to possess one unregistered. That is the job of Congress.

The rule which was released today goes into effect in 120 days.

Here is the full rule and the factoring criteria.

Dettelbach – Never Owned A Firearm

Steve Dettelbach is the nominee of President Biden to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It is both a regulatory and law enforcement agency. Part of its mission is to serve as the primary agency regulating the firearms industry. Another part of its mission is combating violent crime.

As I posted earlier in the week, the Senate Judiciary Committee tied 11-11 on whether to advance Dettelbach’s nomination. It still can go forward as the Senate Majority Leader can bring him up for a vote in case of a tie. Prior to voting on Dettelbach, the committee held a hearing as well as submitted written questions for the record.

You would assume that anyone charged with regulating an industry have some knowledge of it and its products. In this case you would be wrong.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) (among others) submitted a number of questions. The answers that Dettelbach gave somewhat astounded me.

Have you ever owned a firearm?
RESPONSE: No.

Have you ever been issued a firearm in a professional capacity?
RESPONSE: No.

As to whether Dettelbach has ever shot a firearm, here is his answer to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Have you ever used a firearm? If so, when and under what circumstances?
RESPONSE: Yes. As a youth, I engaged in target shooting with rifles on numerous occasions. In my time as a Department of Justice employee, on several occasions I was hosted at federal and local law enforcement shooting ranges and afforded the opportunity to target shoot with different types of firearms. Finally, as an adult, I have taken my son to shoot targets with rifles several times.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Ranking Member and former Chair of the Committee, asked a number of questions of Dettelbach including this one:

The Director of the ATF should be familiar with firearms. To that end, have you ever shot a firearm? How many times have you shot a firearm in the last five years?


RESPONSE: As a youth, I engaged in target shooting with rifles on numerous occasions. In my time as a Department of Justice employee, on several occasions I was hosted at federal and local law enforcement shooting ranges and afforded the opportunity to target shoot with different firearms. Finally, as an adult, I have taken my son to shoot targets with rifles several times. I am not sure of all the dates, but I believe at least one such occasion was within the last five years.

Sen. Grassley also asked if Dettelbach had any meeting or communications with Everytown, Giffords, or the Brady Campaign. He reports that he didn’t have any meeting with Everytown but did have one remote meeting each with people from Giffords and the Brady Campaign. Both of those meeting were about him giving his background and them giving a presentation of their goals and objectives.

My concern is not really that Dettelbach has not owned a firearm. That is his choice. However, his experience, if you read between the lines, seems to be with .22 rimfire rifles. His lack of experience with firearms makes him dependent upon the so-called experts at BATFE. The same experts who once upon a time defined a shoelace as a machine gun and that concerns me.

Tweet Of The Day

The tweet of the day comes from the Firearms Policy Coalition. It points out that President Biden’s new nominee to head BATFE, Steve Dettelbach, is like David Chipman but without the paper trail.

I love the play on the old Scooby Doo cartoon as well.

Democrat State Party Platforms – New Mexico To Ohio

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

I’m pushing to finish this series before early voting starts in most states. In North Carolina, it starts on October 17th. This group of platforms will include those of the Democrat Parties of New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio. It is an interesting mix composed of three top-10 in population states along with two rather small states.

New Mexico

The 2018 platform of the New Mexico Democratic Party is interesting in that it is upfront about the influence that progressive and leftist groups and politicians have had on it. Of the 31 state platforms I’ve examined so far, it is the only one that has something like this in it. In a beginning section called “Representation”, the platform states:

While this 2018 Platform as a whole is new and original, reflecting New Mexico’s uniqueness and a fresh step
forward for the party, it is inspired by language from the 2014 and 2016 New Mexico State Platforms, the 2016
DNC platform, the Santa Fe and Eddy county platforms, Progressive Democrats of America- Central NM
Chapter, the Unity Reform Commission, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Campaign promises, and several
Obama era Executive Orders. The 2018 Platform borrows language that aligns with the priorities of
organizations who are unaffiliated with the Party but who share similar values and goals including: 350.org,
New Energy Economy, Food and Water Watch, Common Cause, Frack Free New Mexico, Taos Pueblo, Public
Citizen, Move to Amend, Sierra Club…

 Given this background, it is not surprising to see a whole litany of gun control proposals in this platform under “Public Safety”.

  • We must expand and strengthen background checks for firearm purchases and close dangerous loopholes in
    our current laws
  • Oppose the sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines by reinstating and
    strengthening the assault weapons ban
  • Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that revokes dangerous legal immunity
    protections for firearm manufacturers and sellers
  • Support the enactment and enforcement of aggressive laws against illegal gun trafficking

As a side-note, this section also has quite a bit about nuclear arms contained within it including challenging the unilateral authority of the President to use nuclear weapons.

New York

New York is home to the NY SAFE Act which was rammed through the legislature in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown murders. Thus, the platform of the New York State Democratic Committee is more of a patting on the back for what they’ve done than a what we intend to do in the future. The state’s gun control laws are already draconian so there is little more that could be added.

In the section of their webpage entitled What We Stand For devoted to firearms they say:

Reducing Gun Violence


When the Sandy Hook tragedy happened, New York Democrats took common-sense action, requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increasing penalties for people who use illegal guns, setting a penalty of life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and establishing the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.

North Carolina

As a lifelong North Carolinian and former Democrat, I’m not surprised by what I’ve read in the North Carolina Democratic Party’s platform. The party that was composed of moderate and conservative Democrats has been fully taken over by the left wing. That trend started in 1972 with the McGovern campaign and went into high gear in the 90s and early 2000s. Some of this was indigenous and a good bit was due to in-migration from the Northeast.

In the section entitled Security and Law Enforcement, it states with regard to firearms:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION As Democrats we recognize that there
is a serious issue with gun violence in our country, yet we also
respect the Constitution’s Second Amendment. We believe the
promotion of standards to curtail gun violence is not inconsistent
with the Second Amendment. Among the measures we support are
strengthening background checks, closing loopholes such as the
well-known “gun show loophole,” holding gun manufacturers
accountable through repeal of their special immunity status, and
keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. We believe
that responsible gun owners should not be punished for the
wrongdoing of those who seek to do harm, but that we must also
take proactive measures to slow and eventually eliminate this
epidemic in our country.

Given that the General Assembly no longer really has any pro-gun Democrats, I look at their “respect” for the Second Amendment as a joke. In an earlier section of the platform they state:

We support the fundamental rights to freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly
2016 North Carolina Democratic Party Platform  and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law
. We oppose efforts to limit or eliminate these
fundamental constitutional rights.

 They are big on the freedom of speech and assembly parts as evidenced by the “Moral Monday” protests but are paying lipservice to the taking of property without due process of law. The red flag law proposed by Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) provides for ex parte orders taking a person’s firearms. This means a judge issues an order based upon what a family or household member or LEO says without the person whose guns are being taken being involved in the hearing. It is only days later that the person who is the subject of the order gets to have their day in court.

North Dakota

North Dakota Democrats are moving right along with the rest of the national Democrats in their support of gun control including age discrimination, training requirements for a first time purchase, waiting periods, and universal background checks. The NPL in the name of the North Dakota party is the Non Partisan League which merged with the Democrats back in the 1950s.

From their platform adopted March 17. 2018:

Firearm Safety – The Dem-NPL Party supports common sense regulations regarding the safe use of firearms for North Dakotans.

  1. The Dem-NPL supports legislation to close the loophole stating that it’s legal to sell and buy modification kits that can convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones.
  2. The Dem-NPL supports requiring North Dakota unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows, and private gun dealers to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers need to conduct, using the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.
  3. The Dem-NPL Supports school Resource Officers who are trained in law enforcement, and in adolescent behavior.
  4. The Dem-NPL supports secure processes for students and adults to anonymously report suspected gun violence behavior, along with organized community forums where groups can share ideas, parents and kids can learn where to turn for help, and training is provided in the community to learn the signs of potential danger, and provides information on how to seek out interventions.
  5. The Dem-NPL supports a mandatory Certified Firearm safety training for any first time purchaser of a firearm.
  6. The Dem-NPL supports increasing the age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, and require a 3-day waiting period to purchase.

I presume that Item 1 refers to bump fire stocks as any other kit or sear would come under the National Firearms Act. Likewise, there is no such thing as a private gun dealer. You either are a licensed dealer or you are a private individual selling or trading your personally owned firearms on occasion but not as a business. This is an indication to me that whoever wrote this was unfamiliar with federal firearms law.

Ohio

The Ohio Democrats have adopted the national DNC platform as their own and have not written a separate Ohio-specific platform. Therefore, to get an idea of what Ohio Democrats will do let’s look at the platforms or issue statements of Richard Cordray who is their candidate for governor and of Steve Dettelbach who is their candidate for attorney general. These seem to me to be the two major offices impacting firearms rights in the Buckeye State.

Cordray says his administration (if elected) would do the following:

  1. Require universal background checks
  2. Ban the sale of “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks
  3. Raise the age to purchase any firearm to 21
  4. Extreme violence protection orders
  5. Appoint a “gun violence protection czar”
  6. Create “gun violence task forces”

Bear in mind that Cordray was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s handpicked choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which should show where he aligns politically.

Dettelbach doesn’t mention firearms, gun control, or even “gun safety” on his campaign website. However, in an interview with WOSU Public Media, he says he is for the following:

  • Taking guns away from domestic violence offenders
  • Restricting guns for people who have an established record of serious mental health problems
  • Reinstating the assault-style weapons ban
  • Universal background checks

Moreover, in the state where the FASTER program began, he says he is against arming teachers and administrators regardless of whether they were former military or law enforcement officers. He says, “I think this is a politician’s plan quite frankly I mean it doesn’t protect people in any meaningful way it’s more than a day late and much more than a dollar short.” I guess he is ignorant of the studies that have shown the speed of response is key to saving and protecting students.