The ATF is Crying to Dad

Quote of the Day

In fifth grader:

We’ve kicked the ATF’s ass several times in the past 6 months and destroyed their Pistol Brace Rule.

Today, we are making our final written argument for throwing out the Rule with the District Court.

The ATF makes its final written argument on Feb 7.

Oh, yeah, and the ATF is also crying to Dad that Mom agreed and said no, even though Dad already said no.

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Posted on January 17, 2024

Nice! I don’t think I will ever have an interest in a Pistol Brace but the rule needs to be put down like a rabid skunk anyway. Thanks to the FPC for all their effort in this. It is nice to see my donations are helping get results.

Read the parent post to the one linked for the legalize version. The fifth grader one is easier for me to follow. And perhaps even the ATF could figure it out if they read it slowly and very carefully.


7 thoughts on “The ATF is Crying to Dad

  1. “And perhaps even the ATF could figure it out if they read it slowly and very carefully.”
    A very large “perhaps” indeed! But let’s face it. If you refuse to except; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    The rest of your evil ignorance is easy. No matter how retarded it is.
    I’m waiting for them to move from the 5th graders argument down to the Trump argument. “I’m banning them because I don’t like them.” I’m sure we will get there some day.
    And Joe, thanks for all those contributions. You’all doing yeoman’s work. Taking up for us slackers the way you do. Thanks again!

  2. I had a pistol brace on my Scorpion EVO. It turned that Scorpion into a rather effective PDW, and didn’t require a $200 tax stamp. The NFA needs to go.

  3. I too put a brace on a CZ Scorpion Evo. Very nice PCC.
    The thing about braces is that – as a pistol – they are not Short Barreled Rifles requiring NFA registration and a form 5320-20 ‘permission slip’ to cross state lines “in interstate commerce” (how simply crossing a state line with no intention of selling becomes ‘commerce’ escapes me, but whatever)

    • The Interstate Commerce clause has been abused by power hungry politicians for decades, if not centuries. A notorious example was FDR, who argued (and succeeded) he should be able to keep farmers from growing stuff because the mere existence of a crop “affects interstate commerce” even if the farmer just grows it for his own consumption.
      Regulating guns, even those made in the same state as the buyer, is another example of that kind of unconstitutional abuse. It all comes from the same problem, which is that the vast majority of judges, just like all other politicians, have no respect whatsoever for the plain English rules in the Constitution.

      • Outcome-based legal decisions.
        One (very small) step above the foregone conclusions of Moscow show trials.

        Antonin Scalia wrote that “If you are always happy with the outcome of the trial [the result you came up with] you are a poor judge.”

  4. And perhaps even the ATF could figure it out if they read it slowly and very carefully.

    And it were written in crayon. 😀

Comments are closed.