Pistol Brace Rule

[mdin14]

ATF director asked to clarify comments regarding agencies pistol brace “rule”.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massie ... -testimony

[admin]

So the ATF's position is that they aren't making any new rule; that these AR pistols with braces were always SBR's (at least 99.9% of them). They are just "clarifying" it.

[DM47]

So the ATF's position is that they aren't making any new rule; that these AR pistols with braces were always SBR's (at least 99.9% of them). They are just "clarifying" it.

If that was true and concise it would be (obviously?) false. As in, hasn't ATF already shown, historically, that for a period of time braces were acceptable and legal on a pistol? Then, along comes the latest Brandon/Garland puppet, and *poof*, magically ATF changes its "rule" again.

What makes this a bigger s*** show is what Massie and Jordan are tap dancing around.

At one point Massie and Jordan write,
"The branch tasked with making laws should not be the same branch tasked with enforcing those laws. Congress must be responsible for making laws, and we do not believe the ATF has the authority to enact the Stabilizing Brace Rule".

Then they also state,
"Irrespective of the role your agency is undertaking in the creation and enforcement of its own rule, which is without proper Congressional Authority, the Executive Branch has a duty to be transparent with Americans about their classifications of unlawful conduct. There are less than 30 days left until criminal provisions of this rule go into effect. Therefore, it is important for you to provide the public with a clear interpretation of the parameters of the rule."

Congress is either pointing ATF to escape hatches, or is it really guiding Dettle-dork into a trap?