The new ATF "rules" are not good for us, despite what you might think.
Posted by VallettaAwoo@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 46 comments
So, if youre not well versed in firearms and the laws that surround them, this may sound great. But the reality is, its bad.
First off the ATF is not a rulemaking organization and yet here they are making rules in our favor. This is bad because the next admin that comes in, can just reverse those rules or make new rules. The game must stop. The ATF does not have the power to make these rules. It is only congress.
Next they dance around the NFA. They give you little scraps to try and keep you satisfied but, this could be ended almost overnight. There are MANY lawsuits currently challenging the NFA, and the DOJ/ATF are pulling out every stop, every lie, making up random stuff and dragging it out. They want to keep you controlled and they give you little "scraps" like pistol braces to make it seem like they are in your favor. They can tap out of the lawsuits and end the portion of the NFA. Why make all these rules when you could just remove the ultimate burden? Oh an pistol brace thing isnt really even dead, its just like an ADA thing so, they could come back on the right grounds and take that away too.
Finally, they will be coming after FRTs. We have seen that the DOJ/ATF still thinks they are machineguns and being they are currently using rarebreed as a puppet to do their bidding since they are locked out of legally going after them the other way. If you notice there's no frt language, they only refer to bumpstocks. Which bumpstocks have long died out, this is their easy catch all to change the language and go after FRTs again. On top of this they have no power to change the definition of a machine gun.
There is no win here. It is a continued effort for control. If they really wanna show that they care about your rights, they need to back off the NFA lawsuit and let us end a portion of it. This is why they publicized it so heavily. Its just here to make it seem like they are working for you. The ATF must be abolished.
side__swipe@reddit
This is such a smooth brain take. A lot of the rules were then being brought in line with what congress said. Read them in full text, if you can understand it.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
First of all, ATF rules aren’t made by ATF. The ATF is a component bureau of the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency. And the DoJ is the one promulgating the rules that come from the “ATF”.
Agencies in executive branch departments, being staffed with subject matter experts, have always issued rules clarifying laws, usually with express delegation from Congress. For example, there is no law that says exactly how much rat hair and fly egg can be in your hot dogs. Congress passed a law directing the FDA to promulgate rules based on their expertise to set reasonable boundaries. Congress is full of fucking morons. They don’t know the first thing about making safe food, and if they ever wanted to change it (assuming the number of rat hairs was set by law and not a rule), they have to pass a full entire new law to change it.
Until recently, courts were expected to offer significant deference to agency interpretation of the law, since they were full of experts and judges don’t know anything about rat hair, fly eggs, or large scale hot dogs production. This was a legal principle called Chevron deference. Under a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court struck down Chevron deference. So now courts can insert their judgement over the expertise of an agency. Even if the ATF changes all the rules they say they will, a judge in California can wipe them out with the stroke of a pen under Loper. And then we get to do the whole federal court tap dance.
Also, DoJ can’t just “tap out” or “back off” a lawsuit and the law gets struck down. Federal courts can only hear cases where there is a live controversy. DoJ can’t tomorrow say “Oh shit, our bad, we don’t want in this. Guess they win!“. That means there’s no controversy, so the court has no jurisdiction. A judge will either dismiss the lawsuit and issue no ruling leaving the law exactly as it is, or appoint a new party to oppose it. For example a state AG, or Everytown, or someone else.
Only one thing can change strike down the NFA or change gun laws in this country. A law, and for that you need 218 votes in the House, 60 in the Senate, and a president willing to sign it. And even then, you’re only safe until the Supreme Court changes hands.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
By tap out I dont mean for them to just leave the lawsuit but, they are pulling out everything to combat it. I mean they are even making up rules and crazy stuff, like saying a 0 dollar tax is a still a valid tax. They can litigate it much differently.
The DOJ is just a problematic currently. In fact they were poised to lose the lawsuit and they came out with the agreement with RB to control frts.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
I know that’s the DoJ saying that, but it’s not actually them. Thats the Supreme Court’s fault. In a 2021 case called California v Texas, the Supreme Court held 7-2 that plaintiffs had no grounds to sue to overturn the ACA because they were not injured by a $0 penalty. Under the ACA as originally written, you had to pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance. In 2019, this penalty was reduced to $0. Texas and a bunch of other tried to sue and invalidate the ACA. The court said a $0 tax doesn’t incur injury, thus no grounds to sue.
Rare Breed settled, not DoJ’s fault they tapped out and took the settlement offer. Again, if a judge thinks that the DoJ is trying to “throw the fight” in any way, they’ll step in and either appoint a new party to act in opposition or dismiss the suit without ruling
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Watching a video over it essentially the only reason the agreement was taken was that it offered an ends to a mean and by not taking it, it would have been considered malpractive for the lawyers. So I think they knew what they were doing with it.
To be honest if the DOJ got waxed and the other parties in the suit stepped in, I think giffords, that would maybe even be better because they actually are insane and dont know anything, so I feel like they would get crushed.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
Who knew what they were doing? Rare Breed settled because they chickened out and didn’t want to risk a verdict or couldn’t afford to keep going. DoJ probably knew they would likely lose, but they could drag it out a lot longer. So they threw a Hail Mary and offered a settlement. Case ends, but Rare Breed has to aggressively defend their patents on FRTs, and after they bought the patent for the Super Safety, that too. Rare Breed’s directors made the choice to take the settlement offer. It wouldn’t be malpractice for their lawyers if they hadn’t taken the deal, it’s up to the client to choose what to do. And TBH, it’s not an awful deal. They were always going to aggressively sue to defend those patents. Now they can pretend that they have no choice and that it’s the evil government making them and they wish they didn’t have to do it.
Don’t make the mistake of underestimating Giffords, or Everytown, or a blue state AG. You may disagree with them on gun policy, but they are staffed with profoundly talented and dedicated lawyers. And they won’t stop coming for gun rights. A different Supreme Court could snap away your individual right to own a gun in a heartbeat. That right comes from Heller in 2008. A different court could decide that Scalia has the wrong reading of the Federalist papers, and the Founders actually meant the first clause of the Second Amendment, so now only National Guardsmen get to have guns.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Unfortuantly everything is always and will be at risk. But I dont like currently how the rulemaking process works because its just going to be a pendulum thats going to get worse and worse and a constant toss up where every 4 years something becomes legal and then illegal.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
It’s always been like this. It’s not anything new, just now courts don’t have to defer to experts on what they should allow or overturn. And to be honest, the bright line rules haven’t changed significantly. The fact is, that manufacturers have been testing the limits for a long time and making things that toe right up to the line of legality. And when that happens someone has to try to make a rule. Given Congress doesn’t want to make new or repeal old laws, DoJ is writing rules that clarify existing laws.
The controversies are all around things that try to evade a clear limit in the law. We had bump stocks, FRTs, and Super Safeties that exploit a loophole to turn an AR into a functional machine gun, if not a legal one. We have pistol braces that are clearly just shitty stocks to dodge the SBR requirements. We had solvent trap kits that were just an attempt to get around suppressor laws.
It all goes back to the fact that Congress won’t amend or repeal the NFA.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
The 32 time violent repeating felon keeps getting released and gets to have a temu switch on his glock and barely gets a slap on the wrist. Thats why gun owners are so vocal since you cant even make your own machine gun on a form 1 anymore and after the over 50+ years people have found a way to engineer something that complies with the law.
Being you can bumpfire yourself just as fast as an MG it kinda puts it all into shambles.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
Right, but the Temu switch on the Glock is illegal. And the penalty isn’t up to you or I. It’s up to a judge. They get to make that choice. But saying that’s a reason for there to be no regulations on machine guns or things that have the effect or creating machine guns doesn’t track. That’s really just an argument for total anarchy and no laws whatsoever. You might as well say we shouldn’t have laws against murder, because then only criminals will murder. It’s tautological.
My point is just insisting on these things makes gun owners as a group no friends, and drives the general public further away from being tolerant of 2A rights. I’d rather have a semi-automatic AR-15, than no AR because lots of people insisted on having FRTs and it scared the normies.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Unfortunatly thats how it devolves.
Id rather have an AR-15 than no gun.
Then they ban ar-15s.
Then its id rather have a bolt action rifle than no gun.
Then they ban bolt actions.
Then its id rather have a single shot breechloader than no gun.
We must enact sweeping reforms that remove dracionian gun laws. I do not want to see the NFA reach its 100th anniversary.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
Expanding firearms rights is deeply unpopular with a majority of the country. The only way to have 2A rights is to come to a compromise with those who find guns distasteful. And that means finding limits and restrictions that everyone will live with. You can’t force your personal preferences onto someone else.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
There is no compromise.
Its a take and has been a take for almost 100 years.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
Then you’re advocating for no gun rights at all. You’d rather throw away the entire amendment than find a position everyone can live with.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
Oh, and just replying to the last edited bit, no the registration is not proof of tax paid. That’s what the tax stamp is for. To transfer or make the weapon, you need to pay the tax and have proof you paid it (the stamp). To do that (and get the stamp) it needs to be registered. Registration is a legal requirement to get the tax stamp. Just because the tax is $0, it doesn’t eliminate the need for the stamp or alter any of the other provisions of the NFA. It’s directly analogous to the California v Texas case. Congress has to repeal the stamp requirement to make or transfer the weapon, which has to be done via a law that is not an appropriations bill to avoid the Senate’s filibuster. You can’t use a tax change to end run around the need to repeal a law.
Tax stamps are actually an old scheme that Congress used to lean on a lot before everyone decided they could just legislate things. In the olden days, most of Congress’ ability to regulate things came from the power to levy taxes. For example, when they first wanted to ban marijuana growing, they did the same thing. Put it behind an expensive tax stamp and require them to transfer marijuana. They were mostly issued to hemp growers in WW2 that were making ropes for the navy.
That’s also why the tax for an NFA item was $200. That was a ludicrous amount of money in 1934. Equivalent to around $5,000 today. It’s why I’m not buying guns this year. I’m buying suppressors, because I fully expect the next congress to at a minimum set the stamp at a couple thousand dollars, if not the full 5000
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Pretty sure the multiple times the NFA was challenged it was said that it was a tax and could only be dealt with in taxing law which is why its being attacked there.
One of the arguments defending the NFA was that the registration was proof of paid tax.
The problem is every time its challenged it keeps getting swapped around on how it can be challenged.
Shoddy-Solution4815@reddit
You’re wrong about that. Most challenges have fallen along Fifth Amendment self incrimination logic (Haynes in 1968) or around the notion of the Second Amendment itself (Miller in 1939). Recent challenges (since 2025) have reached for the tax based logic, because it feels like one weird trick that should work. If the tax is zero dollars, how can the law exist?
That’s why I keep coming back to California v Texas. This exact same strategy was tried to repeal the ACA, and it didn’t work there. I can’t say whether or not this Supreme Court will decide to find a distinction somehow, but if they choose to be consistent with their past rulings on similar matters, they will shoot down all these lawsuits. When there’s a zero dollar tax stamp, there’s just no injury.
More importantly, the tax scheme is just the way to limit access and ensure compliance. Congress could tomorrow change the NFA, remove the tax stamp all together, but mandate that all SBRs, suppressors, and SBS be registered using the exact same process as now. Thats the actual legislative intent of the NFA and it always has been. It’s not to charge 200 bucks to make a SBR, that’s just the mechanism to enact the policy goal of registering. It’s cloaking it in commerce, but we’re long past the era when Congress has been cabined to just tax policy.
MaxHeadroom1986@reddit
So you’re saying Republicans who control the ATF and DOJ are not acting in our best interests regarding our constitutional right to firearms?
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Very much so. The DOJ is literally chomping at the bit to come after FRTs.
volckerwasright@reddit
This DoJ gave Rare Breed Triggers an exemption letter. Quit your coping.
MaxHeadroom1986@reddit
I agree. It’s a shame the firearms community are so pro-Republican. I really wish people would wake up and realize that Republicans are an equal threat to gun rights as Democrats.
A police officer shoots an innocent gun owner for having a firearm and then Republicans scream the victim should have just complied. Democrats are pussies. Republicans are fascists.
TargetOfPerpetuity@reddit
Ehhh.... I'm no fan of the Republicans, but saying they're an equal threat to gun rights when we're watching what's happening in Democrat controlled states right now is just bonkers.
MaxHeadroom1986@reddit
Donald Trump: take the guns first, figure out the rest later
TargetOfPerpetuity@reddit
Yep. Trump is an idiot and braggart, a self-absorbed douche canoe of the first order. He has no respect for the 2nd Amendment beyond a voter turnout tool.
Also, anything he's done to restrict weapons pales in comparison to what's happened in New York, Washington, Colorado, Virginia, etc. etc. recently.
Stop being disingenuous.
MaxHeadroom1986@reddit
Ok.
shadowcat999@reddit
Powerful people aren't a fan of the little guy being armed or having strong 4th amendment protections. That's why the 4th is abused to hell, both parties simp for Palentir, Flock etc, GOP generally speaking go passive and sit on thier asses with the 2A while the Dems actively attacks it. Money and power transcend parties, and that at the core that's our biggest threat to the average person.
MVGbear@reddit
There is only one party. AIPAC buys both sides of the aisle equally.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Neither side wants you to have guns, neither side is pro 2A. We are a threat to them, because they want that control.
DisguisedRope@reddit
I think they forgot the /s.
volckerwasright@reddit
This admin has been the best for gun rights in my lifetime. You’re clearly trying to find ways to justify voting Democrat in spite of that.
StoneSoap-47@reddit
This goes to prove you can’t make everyone happy.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Your 2A rights are non-negotiable. Until they enact sweeping changes that restore your 2A rights, instead of treating us like second rate citizens I dont believe anything they say.
NetJnkie@reddit
So, the ATF should do nothing and wait on Congress or SCOTUS? Or do what they can within their power?
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
They dont have this power. Rulemaking is not something they have the powers to do. Everyone gets all up in arms with the democrats do it but now suddenly its cool their using it for us? When it can be taken away again just as easily?
All their rules should be vacated as they dont have the power to do any of this.
Gyp2151@reddit
Unfortunately, they do. Congress delegated that power to them. This give a short rundown of why they actually do have the power to do this.
Threather19@reddit
I don’t care what a furry thinks
Bitter-Penalty6423@reddit
Part of this makes no sense. So basically you want the ATF to do nothing while Republicans are in charge instead of performing rule making that makes things better for us. Even if its marginal. You say, the democrats will do x,y,z which is true but they have already done that. They first weaponized the ATF under biden and will do it again. Republicans are not setting this precedent of party line rule making. The democrats set this precedent under the last administration.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
Sure they did but now when does it end? You get a few scraps back and then they get taken away?
They have been in charge for awhile and still fuck up most everything. Thats why we gotta fight them over FRTs and fight them over the NFA.
The ATF needs to be gutted and limited in its power. It should not be making rules.
bowtie_k@reddit
They have never given us anything when it comes to the NFA until this year. They've only ever taken things away and made arbitrary rulings to try and include non NFA items (braces and FRTs) under the NFA.
I'd love for the NFA to be abolished. That will take an act of Congress and even the "pro gun" side of the aisle will never give a shit to organize enough to do that even when they own all three branches of government.
Purple_Lurker-@reddit
Can someone explain to me how these illegal rules are even enforced?
james_lpm@reddit
The ATF shows up to your house in the wee hours of the morning then smashes in your door, shoots your dog and possibly you if you happen to look like a threat.
That’s how they enforce these unconstitutional rules.
Clownshoes919@reddit
Goddamn you guys are NEVER happy
Threather19@reddit
It’s TemporaryGunOwners mental gymnastics to cope that every time the democrats take over they pass more gun control. See Virginia as the most recent example.
preparedbassfisher@reddit
Yep. Everything we can use they can use against us. The moment there’s power best believe the tax for NFA items is going up to 4k
MVGbear@reddit
I’m very curious to see the language that comes out of all this. I’m withholding judgement till then.
At least in the case of “engaged in business” they said in the press conference that they’re returning to the definition set forth by congress.
The bigger issue here is that congress has not slapped the cuffs on the ATF. Until then, disbanding them won’t change anything. It will just shift enforcement to a better funded agency, likely the FBI.
VallettaAwoo@reddit (OP)
This is the big problem is that they arent supposed to be making rules and its just gonna be a brutal back and forth.
If the language isnt careful it could be horribly manipulated.