Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) announced a new pistol brace rule. The idea was to turn millions of Americans into felons overnight while creating a trap. Even if you tried registering your “short-barreled rifle,” you’d only be telling them where to arrest you.
Filing requires you to provide the ATF with your name, address, and all sorts of stuff, including fingerprints.
Any request that goes unapproved for 88 days is automatically declined. At that point, the ATF’s default response is to engage in an enforcement action against you, and you’ve sent them all the information they need to find you, arrest you, and confiscate your property, because you tried to comply with their rule.
The violation is a felony; up to ten years in prison and 250,000 dollars in fines. And this is the ATF, so hide your dog (you can’t hide the gun you already told them you have).
Hi, my name is Bill. I have an unregistered firearm that you can confiscate at this address. Please don’t shoot my dog.
I asked if New Hampshire would use HB1178 to protect us from this overreach – should it survive the likelihood of a lawsuit? HB1178 prohibits “the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It has some holes that need patching, but as written, the State could stand up for law-abiding gun owners or prevent action on any rule that does not exist in New Hampshire law.
If they wanted.
I’m sure Sununu’s donors and homers could expect some air cover, but we’ve been more honest – see also unkind – when the Gubbnuhhas have been less than an ideal advocate for liberty. The odds we’d get equal protection are thin, unlike states like Montana, which was unequivocal. It wasn’t going to let the Feds enforce that in their State.
But it looks like the Fifth Circuit may have saved Sununu and Formella from having to lift a finger in defense of Granite Staters who disagree with them on other issues.
The court ruled 2-1 that the ATF targeted stabilizing braces without giving the public the chance to weigh in on the regulation. …
Judge Jerry Smith noted that the ATF did provide a public comment period on the proposed rule in 2021, but that the final regulation was so different from the proposal that it amounted to “a rug-pull on the public.”
Judge Don Willett agreed and added that the rule might violate Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Fifth Ruling only covers the Eastern District of Louisiana • Middle District of Louisiana • Western District of Louisiana • Northern District of Mississippi • Southern District of Mississippi • Eastern District of Texas • Northern District of Texas • Southern District of Texas • Western District of Texas, but it’s a Federal Court so there’s reason to pause action anywhere else.
There are also other lawsuits pending, so enforcement of the final version of the rule seems unlikely, while the process of letting government employees (judges) decide if other government employees (the ATF) stomped on rights that exist in the absence of both.
But it’s a step in the right direction and should please the animal rights folks. If ATF isn’t engaged in additional actions against law-abiding citizens, fewer household pets are likely to get wounded or killed by government agents.