There is more federal gun control coming down the pike.
On March 22, the ATF sent an open letter to federally licensed firearm dealers informing them that guns utilizing some “forced rest triggers” (FRTs) are considered machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1939 and the Hughes Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1969.
In effect, these popular firearms accessories will be regulated just like machine guns. This opens to door for the ATF to confiscate FRTs.
In practice, a forced reset trigger does exactly what the name implies. It forces the trigger to reset after every shot. As it resets, the trigger pulls the shooter’s finger forward. If the shooter maintains constant pressure, the trigger will reset and the finger pressure will pull the trigger again. It creates an effect similar to a fully automatic weapon, but it still requires a pull of the trigger for each shot.
According to the ATF, “any FRT that allows a firearm to automatically expel more than one shot with a single, continuous pull of the trigger is a ‘machinegun,’ and is accordingly subject to the GCA prohibitions regarding the possession, transfer, and transport of machineguns.” The agency says it plans to take “appropriate remedial action with respect to sellers and possessors of these devices.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition called the new rule “further proof of the agency’s abusive overreach of statutory and constitutional bounds and a manic desire to expand its dominion.”
Joe Biden claimed Monday that from its very inception the Second Amendment never allowed for Americans to own any firearms they desire, a blatant lie.
Biden made the comments during an announcement of a new regulation that will see background checks and serial numbers required for so called ‘ghost guns‘ that were up til now unregulated and untraceable.
“It’s going to sound bizarre, I support the Second Amendment. But from the very beginning, the Second Amendment didn’t say you can own any gun you want, as big as you want,” Biden said.
He continued, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when in fact the Second Amendment passed and certain people from the very beginning weren’t allowed to purchase guns.”
“There’s nothing new, it’s just rational,” Biden proclaimed.
Really? “Certain people from the very beginning weren’t allowed to purchase guns.”
That’s just plainly false.
It isn’t the first time Biden has made this claim. When he was running against Trump, Biden outlined his gun control manifesto, and further claimed “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” adding “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”
Biden’s claim has been fact checked and found to be completely false.
The Washington Post wrote that “Some readers might think this is a relatively inconsequential flub. But we disagree,” adding “Every U.S. president has a responsibility to get American history correct, especially when he’s using a supposed history lesson in service of a political objective.”
“The president’s push for more gun restrictions is an important part of his political platform, so he undercuts his cause when he cites faux facts,” the Post added.
On Monday, the White House announced a new crack down on American’s Second Amendment rights — entirely bypassing Congress — and ruling by executive decree instead. The new rule attacks individuals who build their own firearms at home.
In response to Biden’s new dictate, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky lambasted the president’s decision to bypass Congress and attack one of the key components of the Second Amendment.
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to prevent you from making your own firearm. This a fact that has been recognized for 200+ years. Also, Article 1, Section 1 (literally the first operative sentence in the Constitution) says Congress makes law, not POTUS!
According to the new dictate, “this final rule bans the business of manufacturing the most accessible ghost guns, such as unserialized “buy build shoot” kits that individuals can buy online or at a store without a background check and can readily assemble into a working firearm in as little as 30 minutes with equipment they have at home.”
The rule also dictates that gun stores can no longer destroy their records after 20 years. These stores must turn over lists to the ATF of every gun purchased at their store so the ATF can maintain a running database of American gun owners.
Second, the final rule requires federally licensed firearms dealers to retain key records until they shut down their business or licensed activity. At that time, these dealers must transfer the records to ATF, just as they are currently required to do at the end of licensed activity. Previously, these dealers were permitted to destroy most records after 20 years, making it harder for law enforcement to trace firearms found at crime scenes.
It is unclear how this administration will treat the millions of gun owners who currently have these custom firearms in their homes. It is indeed likely that this dictate could turn millions of gun owners into felons overnight as there is no way to prove when a custom build was purchased which means their previously legal guns could now be deemed illegal.
As of last week, 24 states have decided to let law-abiding adults carry handguns in public without a license. That policy, known as “constitutional carry,” strikes critics as self-evidently reckless, while supporters think it improves public safety.
Both sides in the long-running debate about the practical impact of reducing legal barriers to public handgun possession can cite studies to support their position. But beyond that empirical question is a moral and constitutional issue that may render it moot: If people have a fundamental right to armed self-defense, should they need the government’s permission to exercise it?
Because the proliferation of constitutional carry laws is a relatively recent development, research on its consequences is nascent. But there is a substantial, decidedly mixed body of research on an earlier shift: from “may issue” laws, which give government officials broad discretion to grant or deny applications for carry permits, and “shall issue” laws, which give licensing authorities little or no discretion as long as applicants meet a short list of objective requirements.
Only nine states still have “may issue” laws, one of which (New York’s) is the focus of a case that the Supreme Court will decide this term. The rest either do not require permits or make it relatively easy to obtain them.
Moments after delivering a stack of petitions to a Florida state congressman’s office, the people who gathered them returned to find the congressman’s aide had tossed them into a trashcan.
On Tuesday, Feb. 22, members from Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC), Capitol City Young Republicans (CCYR), the Republican Hispanic Assembly of Florida (RHAFL), and Florida Gun Rights (FLGR) held an impromptu rally at the Capitol Building in Tallahassee, Florida, in support of House Bill 103, the constitutional carry bill currently stalled in the Florida House. During the rally, they collected over 100 petitions asking state Rep. Chuck Brannan to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. When the rally concluded, some of the rally attendees went to Brannan’s office to personally deliver the petitions, never expecting that the results of their day-long effort would wind up in the trashcan within 30 minutes.
In an attempt to skirt the U.S. Constitution and challenge the Supreme Court, a new bill in California would allow private citizens to go after gun makers in the same way Texas lets them target abortion providers.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposed Friday letting private citizens in his state sue gun makers to stop them from selling assault weapons, comparing the bill to one in Texas that lets its residents sue abortion providers to stop the procedures.
At a news conference in Del Mar, Newsom said he thought the Texas law was wrong and that the Supreme Court’s decision in December to let it stay in effect while it goes through appeal was “absurd” and “outrageous”:
“But they opened up the door. They set the tone, tenor, the rules. And either we can be on the defense complaining about it or we can play by those rules. We are going to play by those rules.
“We’ll see how principled the U.S. Supreme Court is.”
One of my mother’s uncles had a laconic response to a proposed gun ban in long-ago New Jersey. “Doesn’t matter. We’ll build our own.” His comment came back to me after my wife gifted our son (and me) a jig for completing an unfinished AR-15 lower receiver. Like my great uncle, we built our own.
Making personal firearms is legal under federal law, if that matters to you, although local rules vary. Finishing “80 percent” receivers is a popular way to take advantage of that leeway, since the roughed-out blocks of polymer or aluminum—shaped like the part of the AR-15 rifle that contains the hammer, safety, and trigger, but solid where those parts should fit—can be purchased without the paperwork required for buying a firearm. It’s a modern take on my great uncle’s hobby, eased by jigs that guide drill bits and end mills for finishing the project.
My wife gave us the 80% Arms Easy Jig, one of several competing products. Having done this just once, I can’t tell you which is best, but the Easy Jig got the job done, and it includes clear instructions to complement the online video.