https://www.foxnews.com/media/...eapon-leading-agency

Or did he actually do so, by saying "it's what congress says it is"

Can not or will not? There is a difference.

The ATF doesn't care! They are nothing but another anti gun, anti freedom branch of our government

No! No! No! I don't believe it.

Currently, it would not be hard to define an assault weapon. One should simply use the definitions found in the NFA.

The question is, should those legal definitions be expanded to include semi auto clones?

In short, an assault weapon is what Congress defines it to be.

I have always thought the NFA, GCA, and the FOPA preempted all these state assault weapons bans. Apparently, I am the only one who thinks that because no one Ever argues that when challenging these state legislative actions.

I have given how I would expense those legal definitions on the past.

He’s admitting that the actual definition from a historical perspective is different than what law put in, and thus in the eyes of the law it’s what congress and BATFE decide it is at any point in time.

That answer sounds bad, so they don’t want to admit it is both vague and changes at whim.

I disagree with your observations. There have been no new class of weapons added to the NFA.

The BATFE is simply tasked w applying definitions found in the NFA.

It works the other way too.

Congress could pass a law declaring AR rifles cannot be added to the NFA.

Republicans have never done that.

A reverse assault weapons ban.

The strict definition of an assault rifle has 3 major parts to it:

Detachable box magazine.

Chambered for an intermediate type (between rifle and pistol in military application) cartridge

Capable of selective, ie both semi automatic and full automatic fire.

Congress tried to define it and couldn’t do it to remove “scary looking semiautomatic guns”. I’d buy that an AR 15 is an assault rifle if the main military use of things like the M4 or M5 had no capability of fully automatic fire.

When you try and ban all semiautomatic guns, it is not politically acceptable, at least in the US.

The ATF has decided bump stock guns were machine guns by changing their minds.

They have decided that devices that automate trigger pull, even if the rifle itself is semiautomatic are machine guns.

There is no congressionally passed legislation stating those are actually machine guns, is there? Those were decisions made by the ATF. Legal? In my mind, yes, under how we have been doing things, but don’t BS that they didn’t make up a definition. Like the old quote about if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

NFA defines what is a restricted firearm is. The GCA and FOPA define and restrict their trademarks.

Not what the industry calls it.

And ATF said that a bump stock was not a machine gun until they decided it was.

If they can flip back and forth, they are making it up.

Congress could certainly go and pass a law saying a bump stock is a MG, or revise the language.

And yes, they could go back and specifically say it is not.

It would seem to me that if you can’t get congress to pass a law (lord knows they pass enough of them) maybe it’s because not enough folks agree it’s a problem and then, thus, under the American way, it should be left alone until we DO agree.

And to do that, they are applying definitions found in the Enabling Act being the NFA.

Who controls those agencies is important.

If Congress does not like it, they can always pass a law tightening the definitions found in the NFA, or specifically excluding xlX from the NFA.

The inverse is also true. If you cannot get enough Congress to pass a law excluding bump stocks or “ pistol braced semi automatics” as SBRs, then you do not have enough votes to exclude them from NFA classification under the definitions created by Congress in the NFA.

Hence, the Director is right. An Assault Rifles is what Congress says it is. Currently, the NFA defines those restrictive weapons.

The BATFE is constitutionally permitted to apply those definitions subject to a procedure reviews by the Courts.

The Courts give difference to the Agency. The fastest way to be ruled to be arbitrarily, unreasonable, and capricious is to violate that procedure for rule making.

The second way is to be held to exceed the scope of the Enabling Statute.

I remember 2016-2018. Republicans controlled the House. Republicans had a Filibuster Proof Senate majority. President Trump with NRA direct phone line in the White House.

That Republican Government did not protect bump stocks, and braced pistols from NFA classification.

That Republican Controlled Government did not even remove silencer/suppressors ;pick the word you like) from the MFA classification.

Ever wonder why no one campaigns for the big offices on expressly stating we need to legislatively protect these weapons or repeal the NFA? I assume it is because that person would die in a Presidential or Senate race outside the Primary. Of that assumption was wrong, they would do run and propose legislation.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
NFA defines what is a restricted firearm is. The GCA and FOPA define and restrict their trademarks.

Not what the industry calls it.

We have a category called "Any Other Weapon" (AOW), which is prohibited.
This means things are permitted if the government says they are, anything else is not.

This is like what we used to say about Russia, anything not explicitly permitted is prohibited.

Thus Magnum Research Lone Eagle is prohibited because it has a single shot rotary breech, a patently absurd regulation...

Any other weapon does not apply to AR rifles. The obvious way we know that is No BATFE would try nor has tried such a reach.

AOW has its own definition. Yes, readings it a Braced AR 15 pistol (other such weapons) could so be interpreted to qualify on its face.

Again, Congress can, if it wishes, protect such braced pistols. The votes do not exist.

A challenge to AOW application would focus first on process and second on exceeding the Enabling Act.

Of course, with deference given to the agency under Chevron. Unless, this Court were to overturn Chevron. The Conservative bloc has been very critical of Chevron deference.

"Assault weapon" has a pretty simple definition: Any weapon pointed at me. It's a silly term. I have a simi next to my desk that's damn sure an "assault weapon" and it isn't a firearm and doesn't have a magazine.