Biden Gun Control

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
The pistol brace thing is a joke, right up there with Bump Stockas. I actually have a "pistol" of a cloned MP-5. The pistol "brace" is nothing more than a folding stock set up to be fired from the shoulder like a rifle. I love it, but it is a 100% a way to circumvent the SBR requirements. I don't have any firm numbers, but I would bet these "pistols" are used in a lot of the urban gang crime.

GOP lawmakers, NRA slam ATF rule to regulate pistol braces: 'Unconstitutional overreach'

I agree that it's similar to bump stocka in that these things are designed to comply with the law while at least partially circumventing the law's intent.

A big difference is that Trump banned bump stocka so virtually no one objected but Biden banned stabilizing braces so TeamR types figured out that executives shouldn't usurp legislative powers.

Changing the law by having the dictatorial exec branch declare that it means something it doesn't say is a bad idea. Congress can change it.

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
No Matter the 'Details on These Shootings,' Biden Says, Congress Should Respond by Banning Battlefield .22's

"Yesterday, Senator Feinstein—alongside Senators Murphy, Blumenthal and others— reintroduced a federal Assault Weapons Ban and legislation that would raise the minimum purchase age for assault weapons to 21," Biden said on Tuesday. "Even as we await further details on these shootings, we know the scourge of gun violence across America requires stronger action."

Speaking of the scourge of gun violence, my wife bought a second Ruger 10-22, but this one is not a battlefield .22 under Feinstein's definition. So she's doing her part to reduce gun violence by adhering to common sense gun control even before it is enacted into law.

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
Civilian target shooting Ruger 10-22 on the left, battlefield .22 on the right. Obviously.


Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
A Texas-Backed Lawsuit Argues That the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule Is Arbitrary and Unconstitutional

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gun Owners of America (GOA) yesterday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden administration's ban on unregistered possession of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces, which took effect on January 31. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, argues that the ban is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Like the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, the pistol brace rule is based on an implausible reinterpretation of federal law that contradicted the position that federal regulators had taken for years. It therefore raises some of the same issues that persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (which includes Texas) to rule that the bump stock ban violated the Administrative Procedure Act. At bottom, the question is whether administrative agencies can criminalize possession of heretofore legal products without congressional authorization.

When President Joe Biden announced the new rule in April 2021, he said it would "make clear" that the addition of a stabilizing brace "effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act." That means anyone who owns a pistol with a stabilizing brace has to register it with the federal government. GOA warned that the new policy was "certain to result in the confiscation, destruction or coerced registration of millions of pistol AR-15s and other legally purchased pistols."

Do such pistols actually qualify as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA)? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has repeatedly said they do not.

The NFA defines a rifle as "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder." In 2017, the ATF reaffirmed that "stabilizing braces are perfectly legal accessories for large handguns or pistols," although an accessory "employed as a shoulder stock" would make any firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches long "an unregistered NFA firearm."

Biden told the ATF to reverse that position, meaning that any stabilizing brace would qualify as a shoulder stock, even if the pistol to which it is attached is not "intended to be fired from the shoulder." Like the Trump administration's claim that rifles equipped with bump stocks qualify as machine guns under the NFA, that about-face seems inconsistent with the statutory definition. "The purported 'interpretation' that ATF has offered of the statute in the Final Rule," the lawsuit says, "is incomprehensible, arbitrary, and capricious and certainly is not the 'best interpretation' of the law."

When the NFA was enacted in 1934, the $200 tax it imposed on transfers of the weapons it covered, which amounted to about $4,500 in current dollars, was meant to be prohibitive. The ATF has said the law's "underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms." Originally, those "NFA firearms" were meant to include pistols. The ban on short-barreled rifles was aimed at preventing people from circumventing the ban on pistols by cutting down long guns, making them easier to conceal.

"Although pistols were ultimately removed from the NFA's language before it was enacted, short-barreled rifles and weapons made from rifles were not removed and continue to be taxed," the lawsuit notes. "This makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of 'public safety' or common sense, as a person can lawfully possess, without NFA registration, both a handgun (short) and rifle (long) version of the same platform firearm (such as an AR-15 or AK-47), but cannot possess a 'short barreled rifle' (medium) version of the same platform."


The ATF waived the tax for previously owned guns that it now deems "short-barreled rifles." The agency said it was "appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability" in light of "public confusion" about the status of pistols equipped with braces. But that confusion, the lawsuit notes, is entirely due to the ATF's reversal of its longstanding position: "ATF has repeatedly and explicitly stated that various stabilizing braces do not turn firearms into the short-barreled firearms ATF now claims them to be."

The NFA ostensibly was an exercise of the tax power, and registration supposedly was designed to facilitate the collection of revenue. Although the ATF claims it is exercising its authority to tax short-barreled rifles, it does not plan to collect taxes from current owners of braced pistols. Demanding registration without collecting taxes, the plaintiffs argue, removes the law's constitutional justification.

Oops, should have collected the tax, I guess.

Trump and Biden creatively reinterpreting laws to say what they plainly do not say is authoritarian bullshit, the opposite of the rule of law. Both have used this approach to make previously-legal property suddenly contraband.

If someone like Jeff doesn't register his by May, he faces up to 10k in fines and 10 years in prison for that felony. Because Jeff owning such a thing legally, with the ATF's repeated and explicit blessing, for many years is OK, but owning it after May is just soooooo dangerous to the public.

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL


moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
near Seattle, Wa

RACE BAITER ALERT #9 for 2023. (Week 7) @Pertinacious Tom This is fun, of course.

Hmmm, this Tom Ray contribution hides a link to the Dred Scott decision. Tom's racebaiting has gone underground, for some reason.

35 results for Tom "dogballs" Ray
2019 Sixteen Dreds/yr. (plus five Taneys)
2018 Thirteen Dreds/yr. (plus eight Taneys)
2017 Three Dreds/yr.
2016 none
2015 none
2012 THE ORIGINAL. One Dred

Dogballs, now I don't mind intelligent discourse about racial matters, but WTF, for eleven years.
Yo, Alex, give me perspective, and let's put another fifty bucks on good ol' number 9.

HOW DO WE RACE-BAIT? Let me count the ways.
the WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray
  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP;
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP;
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating, and the NAACP;
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, twenty-seven times, the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times/yr, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for166 mentions?

Dogballs, you need to freshen up your racial understanding: CRT is trending now. You need to try some new reading material (yes, after being quite boastful about your reading). Sir, the 1619 Project offers a lot of new material to explore and digest. And Ta-Nahasi Coutes spells out the modern situation, pretty well.

We got past Justice Taney, and that was good, but also long ago. Now we need to get beyond ignorant white race-baiters, IMHO, in our search for true freedom and true income equality.

So yeah, this conversation leads to addressing Citizen's United.
Last edited:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
Mandatory Minimum Joe Hasn't Changed

Nor, apparently, has he started reading legislation instead of hype.

we can look to an announcement that came from President Joe Biden yesterday about legislation in Washington, D.C., which would have made some changes to the District's criminal code. "I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don't support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor's objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings," he said. "If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I'll sign it."

That's a strange message for a few reasons, the first being that it doesn't make logical sense. It roughly translates to: "I support D.C. statehood and home rule, but because they did something I disfavor, I will act like a king, countermanding D.C.'s home rule." The concept of a principle is rendered meaningless if only applied in times of convenience and expediency.


The problem is that Feehery's assertion is, quite literally, fake news. The bill does lower carjacking penalties—from a 40-year maximum to a 24-year maximum. It divides the crime into three levels of severity, prescribing up to 18 years' imprisonment for offenders who acted without a weapon, and up to 24 years' imprisonment if the defendant was armed (including with a fake gun). The idea that that qualifies as "escap[ing] any kind of punishment" would maybe be funny if it weren't an apt example of how incredibly muddied this conversation has become. Policy lives and dies, ideally, by objective measures—the text of a bill, for example. But this policy debate has turned into a culture war debate, which entitles people to make things up as they go along, including in major media outlets.

Crime denialism is a popular trend among some these days. You won't find that here. Carjacking is up in D.C., and it's a problem. This bill wouldn't have greenlit its continued rise. D.C.'s criminal code revision is "a carefully calibrated plan, grounded in empirical evidence and data, to make sure sentences are proportionate to culpability," says Rachel Barkow, a law professor at New York University who clerked for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in an email to Reason. "Is there really a would-be carjacker out there who thinks, 'I'll only spend two and a half decades [in prison] if I do this – let's roll.' Of course not."

Although the reaction to the carjacking provision provides a good microcosm for this debate, it's not the only portion that drew an ire that doesn't comport with reality. The bill "would also expand the right to a jury trial for those charged with misdemeanors but facing jail time," wrote Mayor Bowser. She meant that as a bad thing, which is, on its own, an amazing admission. The bedrock of this country, as envisioned by the Founders, was the right to a trial by jury. Ensuring everyone has access to that constitutional right, and is not punished for using it, is something that, in theory, would unite people. And yet, it is controversial.

The conversation here is bizarre in many ways. That doesn't make it surprising. "This is consistent with [Biden's] overall record on criminal justice reform since taking office, which has been abysmal," adds Barkow. "He hasn't supported any significant legislative reforms, his clemency record is an embarrassment"—she mentions the marijuana pardons, which freed a total of zero people from prison—"and his DOJ is opposing sensible compassionate release policies before the Sentencing Commission."

Prior to running for the presidency, Biden had a reputation as a tough-on-crime warrior, with his infamous 1994 crime bill that destroyed many lives. "He didn't just go along with these trends in the 1980s and 1990s – he was the ringleader," Barkow says. "And that statement about the carjacking provision shows that, in many ways, he still is."

His idea that if we just lock up enough people for long enough, government can save the world, is outdated and dying, thank goodness, but we still have a ridiculously high incarceration rate. Maybe one of these days Biden will actually let a cannabis convict out of prison. Or maybe more than one! Dare we hope that he takes a single step to undo his drug war looting legacy?

veni vidi vici

Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are "citizens". Without them, we are "subjects".

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.


Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.