Under the auspices of the Harris-Biden Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has cooked up a scheme to directly change federal gun laws in order to foist gun control on the American people.
The target is pistol braces and firearms that readily accept them. ATF wants to give them the NFA treatment, subjecting current owners to a $200 tax and registration, or criminal liability for noncompliance.
Specifically, the agency, via an arbitrary and vague point-based system, wants to “clarify when these attached accessories [braces] convert pistols into weapons covered by these heightened regulations [the NFA].”
This week, 140 lawmakers wrote a letter to the Dept. Of Justice (DOJ) voicing “deep concern” about the implications of the notice for proposed guidance on “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces.’”
SEE ALSO: The ATF is Proposing New Rules for Braced Firearms, Already Meeting Resistance
“The proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans across the country,” wrote the members of Congress in the letter dated June 14, 2021.
“Should this guidance go into effect, a disabled combat veteran who has chosen the best stabilizing brace for their disability is now a felon unless they turn in or destroy the firearm, destroy the brace, or pay a $200 tax,” they continued. “Furthermore it could make millions of law-abiding citizens felons overnight.”
Here’s a full copy of the letter:
While this letter helps the cause, we still have to do our part as well. To that end, the gun community has already begun to comment on the proposed rule to the tune of about 60,000 responses. If you haven’t already, take the time to write a comment opposing this backdoor gun ban.
Comments matter. As GunsAmerica previously reported, good comments can help litigators fight the rule even after it’s been adopted. According to Harvard Law School, comments are crucial for future litigation: “Your comments help create the administrative record that a federal agency or decision-maker has to consider when finalizing a rule or regulation,” the law school points out.
In addition, if government agencies like the ATF fail to adequately consider public comments, a judge may invalidate the rule at a later date. In other words, if they move forward with the rule, they have to show that they’ve adequately addressed the concerns of the public. With each thoughtful, well-articulated comment advancing a new argument against the rule, that becomes more difficult.
Click HERE to comment today.