Brady sues the ATF!

[FatSlob]

Commentary: I love this, even if the Brady Bunch wins, it'll be irrelevant come September 14. Way to waste your resources. They sure are desperate. This stupid semi-auto cosmetics ban expiring seems like TEOTWAWKI to the people who are against individual liberty.


www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.assault18mar18,0,8366.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

WASHINGTON - Gun control activists plan to file a lawsuit today alleging that the Bush administration has failed to enforce a ban on the production and sale of semiautomatic weapons, one of several efforts by advocates to raise awareness that the assault weapons ban is set to expire this fall.

Advocates are trying to convince lawmakers to extend the ban, but experts say it is unlikely the Republican-controlled Congress will bring it to a vote in an election year.

The 1994 law banned 19 specific semi-automatic assault weapons and copies of those guns. The law allowed existing assault weapons to remain in use, but some senators say they expected that the pre-ban weapons would become obsolete over time and the number of guns on the street would decline.

The lawsuit to be filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Million Mom March, a gun control advocacy group, alleges that companies are rebuilding and resurrecting unusable pre-ban weapons with the permission of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The groups contend that the bureau has no legal right to grant that permission.

The groups acknowledge that even if they win, the victory will be short-lived if the assault weapons ban expires as scheduled Sept. 13.

[Wickerman]

1. Ok legal types, you know who you are

what does this mean? Does it, with a win, increase viability for another legislative shot at the AWB? Seems to be the only reason to do something like this.

[FatSlob]

2. I don't think it would do much.

In fact, it would probably be moot as it is unlikely that discovery, depositions, doing the trial, getting an opinion, and more would ever happen before September. The silly little cosmetics ban is likely dead. This suit is really pretty pointless. The most that could happen is a judge issuing a TRO, which would be moot on 9-14 anyway. A win for the Brady Bunch is still a loss of money with no gain. It is a publicity stunt, probably.

[Wickerman]

3. I said lawyers, not slightly pudgy and untidy Realtors

:evilgrin:

publicity that might be of value to the base that contributes to them? I don't know, trying to understand the rationale.

[FatSlob]

6. You might have it!

I think you are right. They can appeal to donors for money to help them fight the ATF in court. Brilliant!

[-..__...]

14. Straight from the Horses Mouth

I feel sorry that Bushmaster has to be dragged through the mud again;
first with Malvo and Muhammed, and now this.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=551

"Washington, D.C. - The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March today filed a federal lawsuit charging Attorney General Ashcroft and the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) with violating the law by allowing gun manufacturers to make thousands of new illegal assault weapons.

The lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is based in part on documents obtained from ATF through the Freedom of Information Act - before Congress moved this year to shield the agency from FOIA requests. The suit charges Ashcroft and ATF with allowing gun makers to violate the 1994 statute banning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons ("Assault Weapon Act").

The documents obtained through FOIA included private correspondence between ATF and Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine in which ATF repeatedly gave Bushmaster permission to manufacture new "receivers" to replace damaged receivers for semiautomatic assault weapons that were possessed before the Assault Weapon Act went into effect in 1994 and thus were protected by the Act's "grandfather" clause".

How much harder can these people grasp at straws?

The statment practically comes off as a deep-rooted conspiracy that as been going on for years between the ATF and manufacturers. It's only because of the resourceful minds at Camp Brady and their determination
to unearth this travesty that we now know about it at all.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

5. Well I'm not a legal type

But it is in my best interests to know the "rules" surrounding this legislation, lest I wind up in Club Fed.

The jest of this, as far as I can tell, is the Brady Campaign is suing the ATF for allowing pre-ban weapons to be rebuilt. Their intention seems to be that the guns should wear out and disappear from inventory.

According to the ATF, a firearm is defined as a reciever with the serial number. There are some exceptions to this rule, but it is enough for this discussion. So let's say I have a pre-ban AR-15 with all of the featured that were banned installed. Let's say I shoot it a lot and have had a major part break due to wear. According to the ATF, as long as the part that breaks is not the serial numbered reciever, I can replace the part and continue shooting the weapon legally. For example: the barrel in my pre-ban AR-15 wears down. I can buy a new barrel with flash hider and bayonet lug installed and use it to repair the weapon. This is totally legal. Same goes for any other part on the weapon other than the receiver which bears the serial number.

It seems the Brady Campaign wants to allow pre-ban weapons to wear out and be disposed of. With a win, it seems this will hurt chances of an extension as the BC is asking the ATF to change its stance on repairing/replacing parts on prohibited weapons. This would likely also have an effect on weapons affected the the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, forcing those weapons to be allowed to wear out and not be repaired as well.

Hope my $.02 helps.

EDITED: for spelling.

[savior93]

11. awb pointless

it was never unenforced by either administration. the only people that obeyed it were law abiding citizens.

[-..__...]

12. Here's what Brady &Co are complaining about

Not a legal type, but I'll take a crack at it.

Under the AWB, no new assault weapons can be manufactured after Sept 13, 1994. Additionally, in order for an AW to be grandfathered, it had to be assembled as a complete weapon prior to the ban... IOW, if someone had a stripped lower receiver that was manufactured prior to 9/13/94, then days, months, years later decided to assemble it into a complete rifle, they would be manufacturing a new AW in violation of the ban.

http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/prepost.htm

What Brady and Co are claiming is that the ATF is allowing the manufacture of new assault weapons.

The ATF's position is that it is allowable for pre-ban receivers to be replaced if damaged. If it's a repair or replacement to a previously owned (and legal) AW then there is no manufacturing of a new AW.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o7

"O7) Are replacement parts for grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices subject to regulation under the law?

No. Parts may be replaced in grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons and grandfathered feeding devices without violating the law. However, if the frame or a receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon is defective, the replacement must be made by the weapon's manufacturer or importer. The replacement receiver must be parked with the same serial number as the original receiver, and the original receiver must be destroyed. However, a manufacturer or importer who is unable to mark the replacement receiver with the same serial number as the original receiver may seek a marking variance in accordance with 27 CFR 178.92. In addition, the permanent records of the manufacturer or importer should indicate that the receiver for the weapon has been replaced."


What they're alleging is that the ATF doesn't have the authority to allow even repair or replacement.


The Brady Campaign's lawsuit will allege the ATF violated the assault weapons ban by granting gun manufacturers permission to replace receivers - the firing mechanism of the gun that the law defines as the gun itself - and give pre-ban guns new serial numbers.

First off, under the AWB, "semi-automatic" firearms receivers do not come under the definition of an AW.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3355_en.htm

b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

Here's how the ATF defines it.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter49.txt

Title 18 U.S.C., section 921(a)(7) defines the term rifle as a
weapon designed, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the
shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the
energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only
a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of
the trigger. Section 921(a)(30)(B) defines the term semiautomatic
assault rifle as a semiautomatic rifle that has the capability to
accept a detachable magazine and that has at least 2 specified
features.

The frame or receiver from a semiautomatic assault rifle does not
meet the definition of a rifle. Therefore, the frame or receiver
from a semiautomatic assault rifle, in and of itself, is not a
semiautomatic assault rifle.

*******************

Basically what it comes down to is how can a receiver be categorized as an AW when it lacks any of the features that defines an AW?
They also reason that just because the receiver was manufactured prior to the ban, it doesn't automatically mean it would be assembled
as a legally defined AW... it could be assembled in post-ban type of configuration.

Brady and Co are just grasping at straws here as it gets closer to the expiration date... they know there's little to no chance this lawsuit will see the light of day. They're just exploiting it so the AWB can become more of a political issue in the presidential election.

[MrBenchley]

17. It sure increases visibility

on the scummy Republican effort to let the ban sunset.

[-..__...]

25. And?

The way to go about this is by filing a highly questionable lawsuit?

I agree, the move isn't about "pre-ban" receivers or the ATF skirting the law.

It's about running around, flapping their arms and making as much clucking noises as possible.

This lawsuit might get all of 15 minutes of media attention, but the damage to the Brady Brown Shirts reputation will last much longer than that.

[slackmaster]

18. IANAL but this dog don't hunt IMO

The federal government basically has to agree to allow you to sue it before your suit will go anywhere. I know several individuals who have tried to get recompense for various cabinet-level agencies violating their own rules on discrimination in employment, environmental policy, and what-not and have been quite impressed at the many ways the feds have of stalling, weaseling, and generally telling you to take a flying one.

[CO Liberal]

4. We're Not Against Individual Liberty

We're against individual assholes with high-powered weapons and bad intentions.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

7. Most of the weapons affected

Would not likely be considered "high-powered". Maybe the .308 Winchester chambered weapons, but that's stretching things a bit. What I hunt with is MUCH higher powered than what's affected by this ban. Besides, who wants a "low-powered" rifle?

[Liberal Classic]

8. "Low-powered rifle"

= Pistol

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

9. Pistol

"low powered rifle" = "handcannon"?
Handcannon = high-powered pistol?

:)

[Liberal Classic]

10. I think the technical term is

bullet hose. :P

[CO Liberal]

13. Some People Cannot Be Trusted With a Pea Shooter

Like that Ohio guy who was just arrested in Las Vegas.

Remember that.

[slackmaster]

19. Most of his victims are damn lucky he was using the ballistic equivalent

Of a pea shooter rather than a hunting rifle.

[demsrule4life]

15. No shit!

We're against individual assholes with high-powered weapons and bad intentions

[FatSlob]

16. I amend your statement to say

We're against individual assholes with any weapons and bad intentions.

[demsrule4life]

20. Exactly

But I'm just an NRA asswipe that works to keep criminals being armed.

[MrBenchley]

21. It's hilarious to see the RKBA enthusiasts

still solemnly parroting the NRA talking point about the ban being ineffectual...

Yes. that was why the gun lobby scuttled their own disgraceful immunity bill a couple weeks ago...

[slackmaster]

22. Sorry Benchley, but that is a VPC argument not an NRA argument

...By simply renewing existing law, Congress also adopts and endorses the weak
interpretation of the law promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF). As a result, efforts to “fix” the ban in the courts—by arguing that
“post-ban” models of restricted weapons violate the law’s prohibition on “copies or
duplicates” of banned guns—are unlikely to succeed....

See http://www.vpc.org/graphics/awbackground.pdf

..."This bill merely continues the badly flawed 1994 ban, which is a ban in name only," states Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director. "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994. At the same time, the gun industry has aggressively marketed new assault-weapon types—such as the Hi-Point Carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre—that are frequently used in crime. Reenacting this eviscerated ban without improving it will do little to protect the lives of law enforcement officers and other innocent Americans.....

See http://www.vpc.org/press/0403awpass.htm

The NRA's actual argument seems to be that the ban makes no logical sense, i.e.:

...The foolish reasons it bans guns as "AWs." Consider the two AR-15s below. The ban says that the one on the top is an AW, because it has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor on the end of the barrel and a bayonet mount under the front sight. The ban says that a semi-automatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine is an AW if it has more than one attachment. The AR-15 on the bottom is not an AW, because it has only one attachment.



AR-15 with pistol grip,
flash suppressor and bayonet mount.


AR-15 with pistol grip only

Absurd. The attachments have nothing to do with crime. (Anti-gun groups` fearful descriptions of them are ridiculous.6) The mere shape of a grip? A flash suppressor? And when was there a crime with a bayonet on a rifle? Moreover, the attachments are common to tens of millions of other guns. All pistols have "pistol grips," obviously, as do all revolvers and many rifles and shotguns, about a third of Americans` 200+ million guns. Several million other rifles have bayonet mounts.7 Tens of millions of rifles, pistols and shotguns are semi-automatic and/or use a detachable magazine....

See http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158

[CO Liberal]

23. Sorry, Slackmaster...

MrBenchley and I were commenting on FatSlob's commentary in the original post.

[slackmaster]

24. Don't you find it even slightly odd that both groups say the same thing?

Although their overall goals are diametrically opposed, both pressure groups agree that the present ban, the one that is going to expire, the one FatSlob was commenting on, is worthless in terms of public safety.

On edit: At risk of aggravating my Cassandra complex, any time I see a confluence of opinion from such diverse camps, even when the two parties come to radically different conclusions, that small kernel of agreement MIGHT be workable into a meaningful dialogue. IMO one should either reject both the NRA and VPC positions as too radical, or accept that at least a few reasonable people occupy positions on both sides of this fence and try to parlay the mutual understanding into something workable.

[Frodo_Baggins]

26. Or ARE they diametrically opposed?

The NRA gave us NFA-34, GCA-68, FOPA-86 and project exile, remember?