Wishy washy ATF "ruling" clarification?

[DustyGmt]

I watched him testify and heard that too. His inept testimony doesn't change what the rule says.

Right, but it does create confusion for those of us less informed and makes people think they missed something or misinterpreted something and the consequences are pretty severe for any misunderstanding. If you're the director of an agency testifying in front of congress, people should have a little bit of confidence that the director knows what they are talking about.

 

[dogtown tom]

Right, but it does create confusion for those of us less informed and makes people think they missed something or misinterpreted something and the consequences are pretty severe for any misunderstanding. If you're the director of an agency testifying in front of congress, people should have a little bit of confidence that the director knows what they are talking about.

You would think so, but there are decades worth of Congressmen who are no more gun literate than the person testifying.

 

[CapnMac]

I find it slightly interesting that the person, who when grilled by the Senate, demonstrated less firearms knowledge than Jon Snow, could be accurately relied upon to actually verbalize his own Agency's Rulings and Diktat.

It's not really wishy-washy--it's just a demonstration of the uncaring ignorant incompetence of the bureaucratic state.

It's tricky water. The troll did not build the bridge, just collects the tolls. Does it matter if the troll has a blue hat versus a green hat, even if insisting the hat is yellow? And not a hat at all, but a beret. Even if actually a beanie cap.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I will provide a couple links when I locate them but I seem to recall an inquiry where the ATF director was grilled about the implications and legal ramifications for anybody who is in possession of a braced firearm and I distinctly recall the director saying that all anybody had to do to be in compliance with the recent rule flip was to remove the brace from the buffer tube/reciever and the director was quoted as saying "all anybody with a braced firearm would have to do to be in compliance would be to remove the brace device from the buffer tube extension". Pretty much verbatim.


Now, it seems that the most recent, as of yesterday I think, there is a new letter that says that the brace must be removed and destroyed, or altered so that it cannot be re-attached.

It's very bad communication and typical of a government agency, but it's also very irresponsible to flip flop back and fourth on an issue time and time again such that anybody who was listening to the directions straight from the director as to how to be in compliance last month, but didn't keep apprised of the issue could potentially face a felony charge, prison and massive fines.

Is anybody holding out for an injunction or yet another rule change or is everybody basically resigned to the grim reality that these government agencies are basically free to impose laws and regulations totally absent of congress.


I will post links shortly, apparently a new letter came out this week that would contradict the directors claims from April. It's frustrating, I know of alot of simple folks who aren't going to comply or even know they are in violation because they just don't keep up and don't have their noses buried in their phones or talk guns or politics, it just isn't reasonable imo.

He contradicted the plain language of the ruling in his Congressional testimony.

 

[wally]

Funny how that statement is false.

How about some examples of the prosecutions?

Our local news is full of felons caught with firearms again and not prosecuted by either the local DA or the Feds for this. They drop the 10 punishment crime and let them plead to a simple robbery charge and they are out in a year or two if that.