Monthly Archives: January 2023

authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban Oddities

5 Comments

I had occasion to look over the definitions section of Illinois’ new assault weapon ban bill, and I noticed some odd stuff.

First, Illinois achieved a first-in-the-world prize: semiautomatic “assault rifles.”

Knowledgeable types understand that “assault rifle” has long had a specific meaning: a shoulder-fired, selective-fire weapon chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

Not in Illinois now.

“Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:

The “following is a long list of specific manufacturers’ firearms. It does include “AR15,” but…

“AR-15” (note the dash) is a registered trademark held by Colt. The patents expired, but the trademark lives on. That’s why other companies tend to call their AR variants “XXX-15” or the like. So any AR-pattern firearm made by a company not on that list would appear to have dodged a bullet, and would seem to be still legal in the state (not really, but I’ll get to that).

Some notable AR-pattern manufacturers didn’t make the list. Daniel Defense, for instance.

Farther down in the bill, “assault weapon” gets defined. That’s an “assault pistol” (similarly defined as assault rifle), assault shotgun, assault rifle, and…

(C) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

The list of characteristics includes the usual: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and grenade launcher(?). It also lists certain types of grips. Read this very carefully.

Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.

That’s any stock — pistol grip or no pistol grip — that lets you grip the rifle and still reach the trigger. Should any sheriff other than Cook County try enforcing this monstrosity, I think some hunters will be very surprised to learn their hunting rifles are now assault weapons, which must be registered.

Y’all have fun with that.

Here’s a puzzler. The law has an overly inclusive definition of “assault weapon” which includes “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following.”

But it also has that separate and — overly — specific definition of “assault rifle”: “”Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer.” Every firearm listed in that section would already qualify as an “assault weapon” under the broader definition.

Why the two definitions? Did the idiot legislators (or whoever drafted the bill for them) think they were banning actual automatic assault rifles, in addition to darned near every other semiauto rifle, despite the fact that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 already banned automatic weapons?

I’ve asked Rep. Bob Morgan about this. We’ll see if I get a coherent response.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

Pistol Brace Final Rule: 293 Pages Of Arbitrary Capriciousness

2 Comments

The ATF’s final rule on whether pistol braces magically turn pistols into short-barreled rifles was signed on January 13, 2023.

Most of the document is rationalization of why they believe they can get away with this, and explaining away NPRM commenters’ objections. They did agree that the proposed form 4999 — which used an arbitrary point system to differentiate between pistols and short-barrel rifles — was flawed. They decided that was sufficiently flawed that they abandoned it.

The rule gives a slight nod to BRUEN:

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), changes this analysis. See id at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (reiterating Heller’s finding that “dangerous and
unusual weapons” are outside of the Second Amendment’s protections).

That presupposes that braces inherently make a perfectly acceptable firearm into a “dangerous” device without actually changing the firearm’s function. It assumes that “1.4 million” braced pistols (the ATF’s own estimate of the number extant) are “unusual.” It also completely ignores the “general historical tradition” test laid out in the main decision.

If you scroll down to page 268, you’ll find the actual final rule, and see that they opted for a evaluation system even more “arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” than the 4999.

The short form now is that a firearm with a pistol brace is a short-barrel rifled if it is:

“a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder”

How much surface area does it take to create a rifle? The rule doesn’t say, leaving it up to “”arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” FTB evaluators. Just think: the more firearms they can declare short-barrel rifles, the more tax money they can collect. No perverse incentive there, eh?

And has arbitrary “other factors,” which are:

“a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles”

In a saner world, I could almost let that one slide.

“s a length of pull […] consistent with similarly designed rifles”

Length of pull, as The Zelman Partisans has noted, “presupposes that all braced pistols are SBRs until proven otherwise.” Guilty and taxable until proven innocent. It is the ATF after all.

“equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed”

That one is also almost reasonable, if it weren’t for the rest of the BS.

“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operation”

Since “surface area” is purely arbitrary and undefined, I don’t see how this clarifies anything. But just wait…

“manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials”

Now company advertising flacks can inadvertently turn pistols into rifles, and it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the firearm or brace. It gets worse, though…

“the likely use of the weapon in the general community.”

If the brace has some undefined amount of surface area, the ATF can still declare anything a short-barrel rifle simply by deciding that it’s likely some idiot somewhere will use his firearm incorrectly.

We would have been better off with the 4999, which at least didn’t test advertising fliers and ATF agents’ purported precognitive powers.

The rule gives those currently in possession of braced firearms a few options.

Send it to the ATF for evaluation, so see if it can make ot past the magic test and remain a pistol.

Destroy the firearm.

Remove the brace and destroy that.

Replace the firearm barrel with a 16 inch (or more) barrel.

Turn the firearm in to law enforcement or the ATF.

Go to prison on an NFA violation even if you have a letter from the ATF saying your braced pistol isn’t a rifle.

Or you can apply to register it. If you do so through the E-Form system within 120 days of the rules Federal Register publication, the ATF will generously waive the usual tax stamp fee.

ATF delenda est.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Bump-Fire, Courts, Law, SCOTUS

Toldja So: Cargill v. Garland At Fifth Circuit

I’m human. When I’m right, I like to brag as much as anyone else. And sometimes that means going full-blown “I told you so.”

The Fifthth Circuit ruling in Cargill v. Garland is one of those times. The Fifth overturned the lower court which had found that the ATF’s bump stock (bump stock type device) ban-through-redefining-them-as-machineguns was lawful.

How right was I? This right.

Deference

I noted that Chevron deference 1) only applies when a statute is vague, and 2) should not apply to criminal penalties, only civil. The Fifth agrees with me.

A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.
[…]
Because we hold that the statute is unambiguous, Chevron deference does not apply even if the Chevron framework does.

Usurping Power of Congress

Congress makes laws, and the President signs them into effect. Hopped up, unelected bureaucrats do not. Again, the Fifth Circuit says I’m correct.

Of the sixteen members of our court, thirteen of us agree that an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks, and that we therefore must reverse.

Redefining Trigger To Mean Finger

I pointed out that applying the definition of “function of the trigger to — volitional! — movement of the finger was a semantic nightmare that only made sense to politically driven tyrants who don’t give a damn about actual law. The Fifth Circuit… Yep.

The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger.

The Court did not get into my point that the bump stock rule-making process violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but given that they found the rule itself is outright wrong, the additional flawed process implementing it was moot.

Since we have a Circuit split on bump stocks, maybe SCOTUS will finally grant cert and hear a case on the ban. I would love to read what Justice Thomas might have to say abou itt; his BRUEN decision was brilliant.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year.

Thomas could create another year of lessons on this one: legislative process and history.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Action, authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Inspiration, Law, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban

1 Comment

Illinois now has an “assault weapon” ban, complete with registration for “grandfathered” firearms.

Wiser sheriffs says they will not enforce the blatantly unconstitutional law. I would guess they are the ones aware of the SCOTUS decision in BRUEN. Or possibly they recall an observation I made in the 1990s, when California was prepping its own outright ban.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”

— Moi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker doesn’t seem to be cognizant of either the decision or the quote.

“As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job,” Pritzker said.

Well, he’s a Dim; it’s not like he really wants cops anyway.

But since I mentioned California’s ’90s ban and registration, they saw a remarkable 2.33% compliance rate with registration (by their own estimates). The NY SAFE Act did a little betterworse 4.45%. Connecticut rather optimistically claimed to have achieved 13.44% complaince rate. But CT’s numbers are somewhat questionable, seeing as how one single individual “registered” 544,000 high capacity magazines.

Perhaps Illinois will see a similar outburst of malicious compliance and the overly compliant stuffing their database with BS. Could some enterprising freedom-lover register a few dozen evil black rifles at 410 E Jackson Street, Springfield, IL 62701?

Databases: Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Action, self defense

Oops. Bad Guys Are Slow Learners.

Seems some idiot tried robbing a convenience store in ruralish Georgia. It didn’t go well for him.

Georgia robbery suspect wearing panties on his face subdued by trio of armed customers: reports
Georgia police arrested a woman and a man wearing panties on his face on Monday after an attempted robbery at a gas station store was brought to a screeching halt by three armed customers, according to reports.

Customer sees what’s happening, and draws his gun. Another customer notices the action and goes to his vehicle to get his own. A third customer, pumping gas, sees it and grabs his gun to join the fun.

Robbery comes to screechin’ halt.

Last time I checked, something like 1 in 10 Georgians has a concealed carry license. Not 1 in 10 adults; 1 in 10 of every man, woman, and child. Now consider that Georgia is a constitutional carry state — not just “open carry” as that article says — and that licenses aren’t even required. (Back when I first moved to Georgia some thirty-odd years ago, maybe one-fourth to one-third of those I knew carried bothered with a license; imagine what the ratio must be like now that licenses are optional.)

And Elijay is a rural-to-small-town area. I’d expect that the percentage of people carrying is a little higher than the statewide average.

At some point, the smarter criminals are finally going to notice that their would-be targets tend to be well armed. Maybe they’ll learn to restrict their fun and games to the urban blights like Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah.

The others, less bright, will go extinct.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail