Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor joined 21 other attorneys general in opposing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule to require federal registration of handguns equipped with stabilizing braces.
The new rule, if it takes effect, would reclassify such handguns as “short-barreled rifles,” and subject them to the stringent requirements of the National Firearms Act.
Stabilizing braces are devices that can be attached to the rear of a handgun’s frame. The brace extends rearward toward the shooter, allowing the handgun to be secured to the shooter’s forearm of the arm holding the handgun’s grip. Stabilizing braces are designed to assist in firing large format pistols without shouldering the weapon. Both stabilizing braces and large format pistols have gained popularity in recent years, with tens of millions in circulation.
“The federal government’s new interpretation of ‘rifle’ would result in the largest unilateral federal firearms registration program in American history,” Taylor said in a statement. “This definition would effectively force the registration or destruction of millions of privately-owned firearms and possibly criminalize the actions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners without any statutory authority to back it up.”
If the proposed rule becomes law, owners of these popular handguns would be forced to register them with the federal government, destroy them, or face a potential federal felony for illegally possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle.
The letter can be read here: http://law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/210908-ATF-Comment-Letter.pdf
Alaska joined the Ohio led comment letter with the attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
Finally, someone in Juneau stands up for us.
10mm Glocks so equipped are essential for pilots who may not have room for a rifle or shotgun as part of a survival kit.
BATFE has always been considered a “dirty” agency. At best, “F Troop”, but at worst …a blight on the Constitution.
600,000 firearms left to the terrorists in Afghanistan, by this administration. Now they work to disarm Americans.
I wonder how long before those weapons gifted to the Afghanistan terrorists are used against Americans?
I know some guys who are getting ready to buy a few advanced Humvees, M-4s, night goggles, and maybe an Appache from the bearded dudes in pajamas and bathrobes in Kabul. Biden is really an effing idiot, trying to take our guns away on our own soil. But offshore, you can get the best US military grade weaponry for a dime on the dollar. Don’t you just love the logic of dumbed-down Democrats?
I imagine a fair amount of those firearms left behind will be sold and go all over the world. But hey, we don’t want stabilizing braces. What if the stabilizing brace is stored separately from the handgun? This would no longer be a rifle?
Nope. Please don’t apply logic to the process. “Bumps stocks” are nothing more than a piece of plastic much like a regular synthetic stock but are now considered “machine guns”. Thats ATF logic. Don’t try to understand it. Just obey and you won’t get hurt. Government logic 101.
I guess folks prefer not stabilizing weapons instead? I mean, who would want to improve accuracy when shooting anyway, right? /end sarcasm
Typical lefty – they like to change definitions mid-regulation… You can also tell they’ve never fired any weapon whatsoever and are clueless about what they are for.
Think about Fast and Furious.
.
Think about Chicago shootout body counts.
.
Think about arming the Taliban way beyond their (and our) wildest fantasies.
.
Now think jury nullification plus shoving any and all forms of domestic gun control far and away up where the sun doesn’t shine on a good day.
.
Feel better?
Enough of this using regulations and administrative “rules” against the civil rights of citizens and the actual rule of constitutional law.
Make it in the state, sell it in the state, use it in the state, how can the Feds claim jurisdiction based on the Interstate Commerce clause, when it doesn’t rise to the level of Interstate Commerce. Let them figure out how to keep individuals from going state to state. We are sovereign state to the extent that things stay within the state, and we “only” give them the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce. Why is allowing what is allowed within our state a federal our problem to enforce on behalf of the feds?
You’ld think they could at least spell our AG’s name right… Federal overreach is never ending. Must stand up against all of it otherwise our freedoms will disappear.
Second Amendment
.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT be infringed
Comments are closed.