Though the gun control lobby is quick to exploit a high-profile shooting like the one that unfolded in Manhattan yesterday, it can sometimes take a bit for the groups to settle on a specific call to action. If an AR-15 is used, they’ll demand a federal “assault weapon” ban. If the attack took place in a state without a “red flag” law, they’ll say that could have prevented it. If the attack took place in a state with prohibitive gun laws, they’ll blame the laws in other states or once again point to what they see as a dearth of federal gun laws; universal background checks, storage requirements, semi-auto bans, and more.
Now that the NYPD has said that the killer in yesterday’s mass shooting in Manhattan used an AR-style pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace, the gun control lobby knows where to focus their activism. According to them, the recent decision by the DOJ to stop defending an ATF rule treating most brace-equipped pistols as short barreled rifles that are restricted items under the National Firearms Act empowered the killer and enabled him to carry out his attack.
On Bluesky, Everytown for Gun Safety made sure to note that the gunman used a “Palmetto State Armory AR-15 ‘pistol’ with an arm brace and a 30-round magazine”, but also brought in the argument that Nevada’s gun laws helped arm the killer.
Brady, meanwhile, hosted a mid-afternoon webinar to “to Explain Weapons and Devices Used and Their Increasing Accessibility Under Trump Administration”. I’d love to report on what was actually said, but though I signed up to attend I wasn’t let on to the Zoom call. I’ve reached out to the organization for comment as to why I wasn’t allowed to even passively participate, but so far I’ve not received a response.
In that same email announcing the webinar, the group declared “The gunman used a device called a ‘stabilizing brace.’ Just this month, the Trump Department of Justice stopped defending their regulation – effectively empowering America’s mass shooters.”
As law enforcement and press gather more details regarding yesterday’s mass violence in Manhattan, Brady, the nation’s oldest gun violence prevention organization, will host a video press call to detail under-reported factors increasing the likelihood of attacks by mass shooters like the one yesterday in Midtown New York City. Kris Brown, Brady President, released a statement yesterday on this tragedy.
Press will have the opportunity to ask questions following short remarks.
Maybe that last line explains why they didn’t want me on the Zoom call, because I do have some questions. Namely, how would the ATF rule treating brace-equipped pistols as SBRs have prevented this attack, and how does the demise of the rule “empower mass shooters”, exactly?
The rule didn’t ban the sale or possession of pistol stabilizing braces. It didn’t outlaw their use. It didn’t even draw a sharp line between what made a brace-equipped pistol an SBR and what made it allowable under the rule. Instead, it (according to the ATF itself):
outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.
Gun owners themselves were supposed to consider these factors and decide if their brace-equipped pistol would be seen as an SBR by the ATF, and if so, to register those firearms under the NFA.
There’s no way the ATF could have proactively enforced this rule against individuals who decided they weren’t going to follow it. Instead, the rule allowed the ATF to determine whether or not a brace-equipped firearm was an SBR after it had been seized by the agency in the course of a criminal investigation.
The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have both determined the ATF rule exceeded the scope of its authority and could not be enforced, so while Brady is correct in noting the DOJ’s decision to drop its defense of the rule, they’re only telling part of the story. Odds are this rule wasn’t going to survive anyway, because it made it “nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol, and . . . whether a specified braced pistol requires NFA registration” (quoting the Fifth Circuit). Why should the DOJ defend the indefensible when the courts have already made the right call?
The ATF rule didn’t stop people from putting braces on pistols, and the demise of the rule isn’t going to empower mass shooters, who aren’t exactly interested in following the law to begin with.
Those inconvenient facts won’t stop the gun control lobby from arguing otherwise, but it helps to explain why they would want to muzzle anyone and everyone who might be able to counter their narrative when the press is listening in.
Editor’s Note: Every day, we’re doing everything we can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to that work, and to counter the lies, deceit, and gaslighting from the gun control lobby. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
