Caseys atf arm brace response

[rellisonii]

Dear Mr. E



Thank you for taking the time to contact me about proposed guidance by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the classification weapons with stabilizing braces. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.


On December 18, 2020, the ATF issued a notice entitled "Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces." This guidance set forth the ATF's plan to determine how they would classify stabilizer brace-equipped firearms and whether those firearms would be subject to federal registration and regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA). On December 23, 2020, the ATF withdrew their notice.



I support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns for protection, sporting and collection. Like most Americans, I also believe we need common sense gun legislation that will help to prevent tragic mass shootings as well as the daily gun violence that takes the lives of approximately 40,000 Americans each year. Among these common sense measures, I support legislation to implement universal background checks, ensure the safe storage of firearms, ban military-style assault weapons and establish risk protection orders to prevent those who pose safety risks to themselves or others from possessing firearms. We are a Nation of people who come together, roll up our sleeves and solve difficult problems. We can pass smart measures to reduce gun violence while fully respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.



Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.



For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.



Sincerely,

Bob Casey

United States Senator

[Qtrborecrazy]

Did you expect anything different?

[rellisonii]

I would expect close to same reply from Toomey. But he does not even reply any more.

[Cloud]

got my email today .

[Brian Ahearn]

fuck casey and fuck toomey both need to voted out!

[ett]

fuck casey and fuck toomey both need to voted out!

Yes they do. And they've been needed to be voted out for a very long time.
Yet we keep hearing from the "experts" about how we have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Too many people keep listening to these "experts".
I will point out some of these "experts" have fled to more liberal, anti-gun, anti 2A, anti freedom states.

[alpacaheat]

They've upped their fake stat talking point from 33,000 to 40,000.

For about a decade the Dems and the media parroted 33.000 a year.

[bug]

They've upped their fake stat talking point from 33,000 to 40,000.

For about a decade the Dems and the media parroted 33.000 a year.

65% of which are suicides.

[Sblzrd65]

Got the same canned email.

[GunLawyer001]

They push "common sense gun control", which is literally synonymous with "reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms".

Their problem is the Supreme Court, which has now several times affirmed that the right is an individual Constitutional right.

That means that "reasonable" left the building, they won't uphold infringements on any enumerated Constitutional right using the "rational basis" test. They haven't specified which test they'll apply, there's "strict scrutiny" which is applied to every other enumerated rights, and there's "intermediate scrutiny" which they apply when they don't really like the right. I think that commercial speech might get that intermediate test, can't swear to it from memory.

So, the endless repetition of "common sense" is designed to lull us into accepting a lower standard. Free speech, too, now that they've outsourced their censorship to the tech giants. But strict scrutiny requires that any infringing law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling govt need in the least-infringing manner possible. That means no blanket bans on the law-abiding in some vain attempt to control the criminals. It means they don't get to ban 50 million AR's and Mini-14's and M-1 carbines and FAL's and 9mm carbines, just because 3 guys used rifles in murders last year (or whatever the number is, it's TINY in a nation of 330 million+).

They can make it illegal to use a rifle in a crime. They can target felons and loonies. They can't ban them all, and they probably can't tax them all, the 1934 NFA notwithstanding (that came long before Heller, and the 1938 Miller case was possibly a setup, since Miller was dead and nobody represented him in the 1-sided hearing before the USSC.)