Posts
It's got to be axiomatic that the more detailed they make the law, the more loopholes you create for the imaginative.
As an American I love that people are using their imaginations to thwart the machinations of tyranny.
But I am also a realist.
The people finding the loopholes that lead to bumpstocks and pistol braces certainly must have expected an administration to demand that the hole be closed.
Being a long time gun owner and participant in trying to get gun laws repealed, I also expected that closure to come from regulation rather than law.
Someday we're going to have to demand that separation of powers be reinstated and congress deny the executive the legislative powers it's assumed via regulations.
Because bumpstocks and pistol braces aren't against the law, they're against the regulations.
By the same light, though, a pistol made from a rifle's action is either a short barreled rifle or an any other weapon; not a pistol.
That law mentions designed a couple of times.
So does the law about armor piercing ammo and excluding rounds designed to be rifle rounds.
But regulating that rifle based "pistols" are pistols allowed them the conceit that rifle ammo was now pistol ammo and thus subject to the armor piercing prohibitions.
This arbitrary and mercurial way of doing "law" is what's 95% wrong with just about everything that infringes on liberty in America.
Someday we're going to have to demand that separation of powers be reinstated and congress deny the executive the legislative powers it's assumed via regulations.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but that would require congress to do their jobs and this is the branch of government that hasn't done their core job, pass a federal budget, since 2009. They've abdicated writing legislation completely and love to hand it off to bureaucrats like the ATF. That way, they can run for reelection saying, "it wasn't me that screwed you, that was the ATF" (or whatever agency).
I've been reading the NPRM on redefining firearms (uppers/lowers/personally made or "80%," and so on) and I've become convinced that it doesn't clarify one stinking thing that they say it's meant to. It essentially replaces every rule with the pornography definition: "we can't define it but we'll know it when we see it."
It has made me really pessimistic about responding, because if they put up a law that vague, why should I think they'll take any comments on the regulation failing to do what they say seriously? It's just wholesale replacement of every decision by saying, "because we said so."
Truly. By commenting against it you are assuring that you are adding your name to the official "Kill their dog while kicking in the door" list.
DeleteThey have always interpreted what they interpret to come out however they have wanted it to. Like bump; stocks, once okay now not okay, or pistol braces, again once okay but now not okay.
Quite frankly, at this point, does it matter? As soon as 80% is made bad think then how soon before 70% or 50% or 0% are made just as regulatorally bad?