“When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them”

The ATF and ‘the rules’

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. -
Dr. Floyd Ferris

The BATFE (Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives also known as the ATF) is at it again. They have updated their rules, and a firearm accessory that has been purchased by millions, when the rule goes into effect, will be illegal. That’s right. If you haven’t already heard, the ATF created a new rule banning pistol braces. For any unaware, a pistol brace is a device that was originally designed to stablize a pistol-length firearm, for shooting with one hand, by extending from the rear of the firearm and bracing against the shooter’s arm. It is different from a stock because it is not intended to be put against the shoulder. Since braces can, however, often be shouldered, and are typically installed on shorter firearms - for instance, an AR15 “pistol” with a 10.5” barrel - the ATF says that installing such a device creates a short-barreled rifle (SBR) which is subject to the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) (the technical definition of a SBR is a rifle with a barrel length less than 16” or overall length of less than 26”). If the change in rule doesn’t cause a firearm to fall under the NFA, it may still fall under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

What does this mean for people who have pistol braces? According to the Department of Justice:

The rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. Other options including removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol or surrendering covered short-barreled rifles to ATF. Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.

The ATF rule actually has two other options: install a barrel 16” or longer on the firearm or destroy the firearm. Therefore, the choice to make is to get yourself on the government’s unconstitutional registry of firearms owned by private citizens, get rid of the brace you paid for (with no reimbursement, of course), surrender your firearm to the ATF (again, with no reimbursement), or destroy your firearm (you guessed it - with no reimbursement). But please, don’t think braces are banned - far be it from the ATF to enact such a draconian rule. Of course, you could choose to not avail yourself of one of these options, in which case you simply become a felon. That’s right. You bought a legal device and have been using it in a legal manner, but, you know…rules.

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Dr. Floyd Ferris of the State Science Institute explains to Hank Rearden:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

This is precisely what is happening. The government is seeking further control, and they are doing so by turning millions of law abiding citizens into instant outlaws.

The DoJ claims, as one would expect, that “keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities.” Thus, “this rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago.” Because, so many of these have shown up in the FBI’s annual crime statistics? Since there is no specific category for them, any use of them would likely be classified as assault with a rifle, since the defined designations are handgun, rifle, and shotgun. As well, since there are so few murders involving rifles (447 in 2021, as opposed to 5,995 murders involving handguns for the same year), we can easily conclude there are not many incidents involving weapons equipped with the accessories in question.

These statistics show that, while the DoJ’s claims sound like such noble aims, they are nothing more, in fact, than despicable violations of every American’s rights. No, I’m not talking about the made up “constitutional rights” that so many people constantly rail about. I’m talking about rights explicitly spelled out in our founding documents to be protected from the government, rights of ours which the government is to uphold and is prohibited from violating. 

The NFA and GCA both explicitly violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They set in place laws that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Yes, President Biden has repeatedly made comments about how that right isn’t unlimited, how, at the time the amendment was written, certain people were prevented from owning firearms, and that private citizens weren’t allowed to own canons. President Biden has also repeatedly been corrected on every one of these comments because they are absolutely false. As a matter of fact, if there is any question as to whether a private citizen could purchase a military weapon, one need only look at John Adams’ address to the Massachusetts Militia (keep in mind that the “milita” that is described in the Constitution and mentioned in the Second Amendment is comprised, at the very least, of all able-bodied men ages 18-45, and is described by law as such):

An Address so unanimous and firm from the officers commanding two thousand Eight hundred Men, consisting of such substantial Citizens as are able and willing at their own Expence, compleatly to arm, And cloath themselves in handsome Uniforms does honor to that Division of the Militia which has done so much honor to their Country.

The Massachusetts Militia, 2800 men, had armed themselves “at their own Expence.” They purchased their own military weapons, weapons of war, as was their right. What is worse in the current instance is that Congress is not creating a law to make these items illegal - there is simply a rule being passed by an unelected bureaucratic agency that redefines a particular class of firearms. Yet, despite being unelected and not having power to legislate, their rule, for all intents and purposes, will be treated as law, making it a felony to own such devices if not registered with the government. American citizens for too long have tolerated such violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not grant Congress any authority to delegate their power and responsibility to legislate. Bureaucratic agencies do not have any Constitutional power to legislate - that is a power reserved solely to Congress:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1

Laws are to be made by representatives of the people (the House of Representatives) and of the States (the Senate), not by unelected bureaucrats at the behest of the President. This is rule by fiat. Such violation of our rights and our Constitution is intolerable. These bureaucrats must be stopped. At some point, we the people need to stand up and say, “enough is enough.” In Rand’s book, the “heroes” chose to stand up; they chose to be outlaws and to take their stand in front of their accusers. It was either that, or as others did, start a new society that was based on proper laws and proper representation. They recognized the criminality of their government and refused to tolerate it. Do we still have citizens willing to do the same?