ATF Director can't define "assault weapon", says it's up to Congress

[Noodlegawd]

I have no care for Shelia Jackson Lee, but i gotta give her 2 points for unveiling how much of a dolt this guy is:



What an idiot. I wonder how many diversity boxes he checked.

He's correct. But the definitions propounded by Democrats in support of banning them have been universally idiotic.

 

[CLAX1911]

Um.... it is up to congress.

The ATF director did not budge, responding, "Respectfully, that is a decision that different legislative bodies have come up with different definitions for. It would be for the legislators to make that determined action as to how they would define it unless they were to delegate that authority to ATF." . . . . "I’ll go shorter than that, because honestly, if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work, but we would be there to provide technical assistance. I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert to the same extent as you maybe, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause, so that whatever determination you chose to make would be an informed one." Dettelbach answered.​

​

This is true.

@Roadvirus, it is a literal statement of how lawmaking works. Either congress defines it and they delegate it to the relevant agency's rulemaking authority. The prior assault weapons ban was spelled out in statute.

If it's up to Congress which I agree then all the laws the ATF has made should be removed and they should be disband.

They don't make laws that make sense they make laws just too arrest people that haven't committed crimes for having weapons they are arbitrarily decide you shouldn't have for reasons nobody seems to be able to explain probably so they can get more arrests.

Bureaucracy is just a fancy word for fascism

 

[CLAX1911]

He's correct. But the definitions propounded by Democrats in support of banning them have been universally idiotic.

I figured if they make any move on this in Congress by the time they get there the supreme Court will have their gavel ready to strike it down because any band on whatever they want to call an assault weapon is unconstitutional. All they have to do is look at some supreme Court rulings not expect the supreme Court just all the sudden changed its mind.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I figured if they make any move on this in Congress by the time they get there the supreme Court will have their gavel ready to strike it down because any band on whatever they want to call an assault weapon is unconstitutional. All they have to do is look at some supreme Court rulings not expect the supreme Court just all the sudden changed its mind.

The sheer stupidity of their approach is one of the main reasons I will never trust them (and I'm not someone who thinks any better of Republicans).

 

[LouC]

Since it is Congress, not the ATF, who create laws, it would be pointless for the ATF Director to even speculate on the meaning of assault weapon.

They would just further muddy the already churned up waters with any "non official" attempt at a "non binding" personal opinion definition.

 

[CLAX1911]

The sheer stupidity of their approach is one of the main reasons I will never trust them (and I'm not someone who thinks any better of Republicans).

Agreed Republicans aren't your friends either they're just Democrats 5 years behind.

 

[Chillfolks]

It was a smart answer to a lose lose question. Had he defined it then the work arounds would appear and have some legitimacy because the term had been clearly defined, the democrats wouldn’t be able to use their sliding scale of what an assault weapon is to include more and more firearms each day. It’s was a great none answer answer that perfectly CYAed him.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Assault weapon as defined by Democrats: Guns I want to ban. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I have no care for Shelia Jackson Lee, but i gotta give her 2 points for unveiling how much of a dolt this guy is:



What an idiot. I wonder how many diversity boxes he checked.

The guy is correct.

If Congress were to write a law banning "assault weapons" the law would contain language defining what specifically counts as an assault weapon under the law and what does not.

That definition would then be the only one that matters in terms of the law.

This is basic civics.

What was he wrong about?

 

[VanceMack]

Here's another thing. Many gun owners try to gloat over 'you don't even know what an assault rifle is'. Well, using the SCOTUS position of public usage, we no longer need to worry about this. The term 'assault weapon' is generally used (even by elected R's) to mean "..."assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
"
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
   2. A thumbhole stock.
   3. A folding or telescoping stock.
   4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
   5. A flash suppressor.
   6. A forward pistol grip.
2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   1. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
   2. (B) A second handgrip.
   3. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
   4. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
   1. A folding or telescoping stock.
   2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
   1. "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
   2. The following definitions shall apply under this section:
      1. "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
      2. "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
      3. "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

Assault Weapon Characteristics

Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 23, Statutes of 1999, established new criteria for defining assault weapons based on generic characteristics. This bill allowed and required persons who owned/possessed firearms that fall under the new "assault weapon" definition to register those firearms...

oag.ca.gov

Section 12276 is a listing of specific weapons that are classified as assault weapons.

That's a California description...from a very self serving collective of anti-gun leftist retards.

Its not shocking that it has many supporters.

 

[VanceMack]

The problem with the ATF is that the director is a politically appointed position and the policies are not based on law but rather opinion. It is a completely retarded position to take that the support of a man (or woman) that is pronouncing official positions on Constitutional matters that impact the entirety of the US adult law abiding population...especially an official that openly admits he has no expertise on firearms...is appropriate.

This is why we have lawmakers governing the country and not partisan politically appointed douchebags empowered to arbitrarily declare law.

 

[rahl]

The guy is correct.

If Congress were to write a law banning "assault weapons" the law would contain language defining what specifically counts as an assault weapon under the law and what does not.

That definition would then be the only one that matters in terms of the law.

This is basic civics.

What was he wrong about?

He's not wrong about that, but congress is not able to write a law banning "assault weapons" as SCOTUS has told you it's unconstitutional.

 

[NolanVoyd]

He's not wrong about that, but congress is not able to write a law banning "assault weapons" as SCOTUS has told you it's unconstitutional.

SCOTUS has not, as of yet, ruled assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

Facts matter.

 

[rahl]

SCOTUS has not, as of yet, ruled assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

I've shown you repeatedly that they have

Facts matter.

then stop ignoring them.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I've shown you repeatedly that they have

That is a lie.

you have failed to show that. You cant. Its false.

others on your side of the debate have acknowledged that heller did not do what you are claiming it did

then stop ignoring them.

The heller decision does not render assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

 

[rahl]

That is a lie.

It's an objective fact, as you know.

you have failed to show that. You cant. Its false.

This is a lie. DC v Heller.

others on your side of the debate have acknowledged that heller did not do what you are claiming it did

No they haven't, that is a lie.

The heller decision does not render assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

Specifically renders them unconstitutional, as you've been shown.

 

[NolanVoyd]

It's an objective fact, as you know.

This is a lie. DC v Heller.

No they haven't, that is a lie.

Specifically renders them unconstitutional, as you've been shown.

You have been shown that that is false.

The decision in Heller could likely be used in a future decision which would render assault weapons ban unconstitutional.

But at this time, no such decision exists

 

[rahl]

You have been shown that that is false.

but you know that is a lie. Heller showed you that you can't ban any firearm in common use.

The decision in Heller could likely be used in a future decision which would render assault weapons ban unconstitutional.

It already has. Any firearm in common use can not be banned.

But at this time, no such decision exists

Heller exists. It ruled you can't ban any firearm in common use.

 

[NolanVoyd]

but you know that is a lie. Heller showed you that you can't ban any firearm in common use.

It already has. Any firearm in common use can not be banned.

Heller exists. It ruled you can't ban any firearm in common use.

I know that as of yet, the Supreme court has not ruled assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

Heller could be used in a future case to argue assault weapons bans should be unconstitutional. And the supreme court might agree. But it hasn't happened yet.

Read this. It discusses the arguement you are making.

Conclusion: "In short, it's not clear whether a majority of the Court is inclined to rule that "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. But it is clear that courts like the 2nd Circuit will need to rethink their rationale for upholding them."

This Lawsuit Says a Recent SCOTUS Decision Makes It Clear That 'Assault Weapon' Bans Are Unconstitutional

A new lawsuit notes that SCOTUS rejected the sort of reasoning that a federal appeals court used to uphold New York's "assault weapon" ban.

reason.com

 

[rahl]

I know that as of yet, the Supreme court has not ruled assault weapons bans unconstitutional.

They did in 2008

Heller could be used in a future case to argue assault weapons bans should be unconstitutional. And the supreme court might agree. But it hasn't happened yet.

They ruled in heller that they are. As all firearms in common use are protected.

Read this. It discusses the arguement you are making.

I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out the SCOTUS has already told you that you can't ban any firearm in common use. Rendering any AWB as unconstitutional.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They did in 2008

No they didnt.

They ruled in heller that they are. As all firearms in common use are protected.

No they did not rule that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.

I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out the SCOTUS has already told you that you can't ban any firearm in common use. Rendering any AWB as unconstitutional.

No it hasn't.

How many times do I have to prove you wrong?

See the citation in post 44.

 

[rahl]

No they didnt.

You've been shown they did.

No they did not rule that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.

of course they did. "All firearms in common use for lawful purposes" is specifically protected by the 2nd.

No it hasn't.

yes it has

How many times do I have to prove you wrong?

you are 0 for 100 so far lol.

See the citation in post 44.

I'll see the actual ruling which renders AWB's unconstitutional. DC v Heller.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You've been shown they did.

of course they did. "All firearms in common use for lawful purposes" is specifically protected by the 2nd.

yes it has

you are 0 for 100 so far lol.

I'll see the actual ruling which renders AWB's unconstitutional. DC v Heller.

See post 44

 

[rahl]

See post 44

refuted in post 47

 

[NolanVoyd]

refuted in post 47

Lol.

You refuted nothing. You just repeated the falsehood you were proven wrong on by the citation in 44.

Try actually reading the citation in post 44.