13 June 2021

Comment Time

 Hit this link and tell them what you think!


I submitted:

This proposed regulation is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. Very likely Constitutionally vague as well in that it redefines the receiver to be virtually any sub-component of a firearm down to the smallest part. Regulation is supposed to be in service of the law and not be a law unto itself. The law requires that a firearm have a serial number, but BATFE had decided that a single component was the receiver and that part would be the firearm legally. The problem with this and the current proposed rulemaking is that even the simplest firearms are assemblies. A serialized receiver is no more capable of firing than a brick. Again, regulation is supposed to serve the law, so according to the law a serial number is not required until the assembly is a functioning firearm. Requiring that any and every part which could be made into a functioning firearm flies in the face of both the intent of the law and how it was written. In truth it was executive overreach into the purview of the legislative branch from the moment it was promulgated. Revising this overreach doesn't correct that it's not supposed to be allowed by the Constitution's separation of powers. Additionally this is a proposal which seeks to correct a "problem" which only exists in the imaginations of people who feel that not only is there no meaning to the second amendment, but that no non-government entity should own any type of firearm for any reason. We do not need our government agencies creating crises to solve out of thin air. Were this an actual problem requiring additional regulation, Congress would be buried in letters, emails and phone calls from a broad segment of society to pass black-letter law addressing it. Regardless of the opinions of unelected government employees it is Congress' job to address this issue, and it's solely Congress' responsibility. That this regulation is unnecessary points to the idea that the purpose is not the goal stated but to make the manufacture and ownership of a firearm so complicated, confusing and overburdened with rules that the average person cannot reasonable be aware of what is allowed and what is forbidden and to decide that it's too dangerous to their liberty to own any part of a firearm, let alone a complete gun. Owning a firearm has not been outlawed by Congress, so the executive branch should not be pursuing a course of action leading to a defacto state of a complete ban. Even if Congress were to pass such laws as to ban the ownership of firearms, the courts, including The Supreme Court, have repeatedly found that the 2nd Amendment confers a right to own firearm and has generally held that such rights shall not be burdened with excessive regulation.

1 comment:

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work. Try this link for an explanation: https://mcthag.blogspot.com/2023/04/lots-of-new-readers.html

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.