Atf decides to redefine common pistols as aow

[tbhausen]

Bracken Collection #16.

 

[churchmouse]

Remember that we have to vote for Trump because, if he were president, his administration would never do something like this.

Man you just can not leave this alone can you.
Put your butt in that chair. Fight off the swarms of idiots and media every minute of every day and then get back with us on what you have accomplished.
None of use would survive this madness.

Not making any excuses. Just being realistic. This is completely rogue.

 

[04FXSTS]

Man you just can not leave this alone can you.
Put your butt in that chair. Fight off the swarms of idiots and media every minute of every day and then get back with us on what you have accomplished.
None of use would survive this madness.

Not making any excuses. Just being realistic. This is completely rogue.

Well said. Jim.

 

[KellyinAvon]

What exactly are "rifle sights"? Don't all loaded magazines (and unloaded for that matter) contribute to the weight of the weapon? Is 60 ounces heavy? The Colt-Walker is over 150 years old. "Front heavy imbalance"? Has this bunch ever seen a gun?

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;”[SUP]1[/SUP]
• 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.”

 

[shibumiseeker]

Man you just can not leave this alone can you.
Put your butt in that chair. Fight off the swarms of idiots and media every minute of every day and then get back with us on what you have accomplished.
None of use would survive this madness.

Not making any excuses. Just being realistic. This is completely rogue.

Except that before he was elected there were hordes of gun people fawning over him because they were telling us how great he was going to be for gun rights. We got more 2A progress under Obama than with Trump with a Republican majority.

No national politician wants us armed from either party. You can be pro Trump all you want, but don’t tell me how great he is going to be for gun owners, because that’s a proven lie.

 

[jcj54]

The problem is and always has been the horde of non elected bureaucrats who answer to no one, and are hard if not impossible to get rid of regardless of who is president or which party controls Congress.
These individuals press their own agendas with impunity, and effect us in many ways not just 2nd Amendment related.
I do not have a solution, but do recognize the problem.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Calvinball which is clearly aimed at the peaceful gun owners and not the criminal element.

Call and write today.

 

[PaulF]

Okay, this is Trump's 2A litmus test.

He wrote himself the authority to fire Federal employees for everything from actual insubordination to telling the truth about their research, so this would appear to be the ideal situation to test these newly self-appointed powers.

He has the ability and means to act and a real deadline...if he doesn't take action before the election there is a real possibility no action will be taken at all...or worse. It's up to Trump to choose the 2A and its supporters. It's up to Trump to do the right thing.

Honest question: Why should he?

He knows you all are going to vote for him no matter what.

ETA:

Even if he loses the election he could take action to fire these guys before he leaves office. It does't seem likely the next administration would act to reel these guys in. It really is up to Trump to take action on behalf of his most ardent supporters, even if there isn't much in it for him.

I'm honestly curious to see how this plays out.

 

[CampingJosh]

Man you just can not leave this alone can you.
Put your butt in that chair. Fight off the swarms of idiots and media every minute of every day and then get back with us on what you have accomplished.
None of use would survive this madness.

Not making any excuses. Just being realistic. This is completely rogue.

Perhaps it is too big for one person and something like this would happen were I president. But I didn't run for president; I didn't say that I could handle the job; and I am not trying to convince the American people to reelect me. "Better than I could do" is not a good enough standard for a surgeon, a pilot, or an auto mechanic, and it's certainly not the standard that should earn reelection as president.

Once a problem is clearly out of hand, the first response is to stop making it worse. Instead, Trump has dramatically grown the federal, adding 2,000,000 federal jobs. (For comparison, Obama actually reduced the number of federal jobs during his presidency.)

You can like him and vote for him if you want, but it's obvious that Trump isn't a small government guy, isn't a fiscal responsibility guy, isn't a 2nd Amendment guy, and isn't a 4th Amendment guy. If you think that you have to vote for him to protect any of those, you're fooling yourself.

 

[breakingcontact]

"Too big, and too heavy, to be comfortably fired with one hand"?
Who are they trying to kid?

This wording, if followed, could affect MUCH more than just AR/AK pistols.
I have a Taurus Raging Bull chambered in .454 Casull that has an 8-3/8" ported barrel with a full under-lug.
I know very few people who can fire that thing one-handed.

Besides that, who ever said a handgun had to be fired one-handed?

SO glad the "Notorious A.C.B." (as Glenn Beck calls her) is now on S.C.O.T.U.S.

2 things: this is relying on it to get to SCOTUS and for SCOTUS to do something about it. Conservatives don't always pan out like we think: see Roberts.

How can you criticize Trump for rogue bureaucrats while he ishaving to fight them off just like the rest of us? If he were exempt from their behavior or directing it I would agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that he personally has just as big a problem with them as anyone.

I believe he has already signed an EO disallowing agencies from doing this.

I see this as yet another attempt by career employees of the federal government to separate Trump from the conservative base.
The swamp is dirty and deep.

Yes, I'd have to look at the timing, but he recently put out an EO impacting some fed gov employees. Could be retaliation for that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Perhaps it is too big for one person and something like this would happen were I president. But I didn't run for president; I didn't say that I could handle the job; and I am not trying to convince the American people to reelect me. "Better than I could do" is not a good enough standard for a surgeon, a pilot, or an auto mechanic, and it's certainly not the standard that should earn reelection as president.

Once a problem is clearly out of hand, the first response is to stop making it worse. Instead, Trump has dramatically grown the federal, adding 2,000,000 federal jobs. (For comparison, Obama actually reduced the number of federal jobs during his presidency.)

You can like him and vote for him if you want, but it's obvious that Trump isn't a small government guy, isn't a fiscal responsibility guy, isn't a 2nd Amendment guy, and isn't a 4th Amendment guy. If you think that you have to vote for him to protect any of those, you're fooling yourself.

Have you got a link for the highlighted part? Since there are about 2.1 million federal jobs total, are you saying that before Trump there were only 100K? Call me skeptical.

 

[churchmouse]

Okay, this is Trump's 2A litmus test.

He wrote himself the authority to fire Federal employees for everything from actual insubordination to telling the truth about their research, so this would appear to be the ideal situation to test these newly self-appointed powers.

He has the ability and means to act and a real deadline...if he doesn't take action before the election there is a real possibility no action will be taken at all...or worse. It's up to Trump to choose the 2A and its supporters. It's up to Trump to do the right thing.

Honest question: Why should he?

He knows you all are going to vote for him no matter what.

ETA:

Even if he loses the election he could take action to fire these guys before he leaves office. It does't seem likely the next administration would act to reel these guys in. It really is up to Trump to take action on behalf of his most ardent supporters, even if there isn't much in it for him.

I'm honestly curious to see how this plays out.

Interesting.

I thought you were gone by your own word.

I am glad you stuck around.

-CM-

 

[CampingJosh]

Have you got a link for the highlighted part? Since there are about 2.1 million federal jobs total, are you saying that before Trump there were only 100K? Call me skeptical.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-size-of-government-is-nearing-a-record-high/

 

[DoggyDaddy]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-size-of-government-is-nearing-a-record-high/

Okay, that's not the same thing as adding 2 million federal jobs. Contractors and grant recipients are not federal employees, and tend to be temporary by their very nature, so to say he added 2 million federal jobs is misleading.

 

[CampingJosh]

It's people working for a paycheck from the federal government. You can say temporary if you want, but that number has been more than 4 million workers for longer than I have been alive, so it doesn't actually seem temporary.

 

[jagee]

I have nothing to add to the conversation, just here to read.

 

[Ggreen]

Please keep on topic. The only politic that matters at this point is the pressure we all apply to our officials. Email, call, write, social media, every inch matters right now. We can discuss our hurt feelings and disappointment in elected officials somewhere else.

 

[Ingomike]

I have nothing to add to the conversation, just here to read.

You have added more to the conversation than many of these posts...

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

I have nothing to add to the conversation, just here to read.

Same.

 

[Ingomike]

It is nothing short of TDS to think that even if Trump wanted to do this he would drop it, like creating an October surprise that burns himself, two weeks before a contentious election that he needs gun owners to turn out.

What gets me perturbed is our own falling for it and perpetuating it to our overall detriment...