Connecticut Dimwit Senator Chris Murphy. Of course.
America a crying out for Congress to do something about mass shootings. So what is Senate Republicans’ answer? To force a vote today on a resolution that would legalize a class of assault weapons that have been banned for 100 years.
I’m heading to the Senate floor to oppose it.
Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins was a bit confused by Murphy’s tweet.
It is difficult to decipher Murphy’s tweet, as the Republican effort to block the ATF is about protecting guns with stabilizer braces that were legal to own without registration up until June 1, 2023.
What really confused him is that Murphy is simply dumber than a box of rocks.
Republicans were attempting to legislatively block the ATF’s pistol brace rule. That nonlegislative law-making declared braced pistols to be short-barrel rifles. Murphy, being stupid and ignorant — and apparently surrounded by equally incompetent staffers who couldn’t set him straight — seems to think short-barrel rifles are banned. They are not. Not even in Connecticut.
SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act; requiring the payment of a tax to lawfully possess. Murphy, had he two neurons to rub together, might have noticed that the ATF’s new, unconstitutional rule allowed a grace period for braced pistol owners to register their magically-turned-into-rifles pistols. I assume this regulation is what the idiot mistook for a ban.
Digression: I wouldn’t blame anyone who decided to use the ATF’s “amnesty” to register. It’s not a bad deal, given the regulatory environment we’re stuck with for now. But not for the reason the ATF thinks.
The ATF waived the registration tax. So you could register your braced pistol for free. And now that it’s a short-barrel rifle…
…you equip it with a real stock, and the barrel length of your choice. And now you have a real SBR ready to go, no charge. Transferable.
End digression
Possibly Hawkins was also confused by Murphy’s claim that this “ban” happened 100 years ago. Here’s a hint for the Connecticut cluck: the regualtion is through the National Firearms Act of 1934. That would be 89 years ago (minus a few days, as I type this); not 100.
Hawkins’ column mentions that these pistols were perfectly legal prior to the ATF arrogating Congress’ authority. And that raises an interesting point about the NFA and SBRs.
SBRs were regulated because Congress of the time considered them dangerously concealable. But pistols are even more concealable, yet not NFA regulated. The difference was how powerful a cut-down rifle is compared to a typical handgun. So there were really two factors that determined an SBR: barrel length and power.
But what was a pistol last month, and is now a rifle, still fires the same round. The brace doesn’t make it more powerful. It’s the same blasted gun.
I’d argue that this is one more indicator that the brace rule violates Congress’ intent. That might be an extra point to be raised in lawsuits challenging the rule.
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
I beg to disagree, the original NFA act as written, placed a 200$ tax stamp on all pistols-a fantastic amount considering the Thompson smg was 50$, and the priciest gun in America at the time, (pls check the history). FDR could not get enough bought/theatened polis and judges to go along with it. The sbr portion was so the average Joe could not just buy a rifle and cut it down. When FDR (piss on his infernal name) could not get the support for his pistol ban, pistols where removed from the NFA and they added “silencers” as an afterthought. It astounds me that no one brings this up in court cases, (actually it doesn’t) as lawyers are almost universally commie vermin.
That’s not really a point of disagreement. You’re correct that they wanted to include handguns, but it wasn’t politically acceptable; too many people owned them. SBRs were still included for the reasons I gave and because not so many people had them.