I challenge the proponents of that one handed qualifier to shoot the 14 in +bbl versions of the Contender,Encore, XP-100,MOA Maximum,and similar guns of ,one handed, without being awkward and inaccurate.
I have 14" Contenders (.45-70 and .30-30) and an XP-100 (though only with the stock 10" barrel) and I can fire them one handed. If you can't, how is that my problem??
Awkward? oh yes. Easy to do? Nope. Accurate? If I am, they are!
THIS DOES NOT MATTER. First point to understand is that the language of the law comes from many, many years ago, before those guns, and the AR "pistols" existed or were even dreamed of.
Next point is that it does not matter how awkward or difficult they may be to fire one handed, if there is no stock (designed to be braced against the shoulder) they are handguns. And the law says handguns are guns without shoulder stocks, designed to be fired from one hand.
It does not matter to the law that firing one handed is not easy, not practical, or not the most efficient manner of using the handgun. What matters is the generally understood (at the time the law was written) fact that if it has a shoulder stock, it is designed with the intention of being fired from the shoulder, and if it does not, it is designed with the intention of being fired from one hand. And their classification of different designs proceeds from that.
With the AR pistol brace, the ATF went the only way they legally could, using the designers stated intent as the basis of their classification. IT was made to be a "brace" and not a "stock" under the currently understood definitions of each.
The fact that people can easily use it in a manner it was not designed for does not change that.
Its legally a pistol. It would be hard to argue it was designed to be fired one handed unsupported.It can be done,but its not how its done.
Same with a 14 in TC Encore or a Contender 14 .
So,if I understand AB correctly, all of those should require registration as SBR's? You can't pick and choose,lest we have anarchy.
I do not believe you are understanding AB correctly.
And we MUST "pick and choose" simply because designs are different. The framework we must use to define them (choose what legal class they are in) is THE LAW. Whether is seems logical or reasonable to you or to me is not relevant. It's the LAW. Until and unless changed, its what we have to work within.
In order for a law to be applied, there must be a definition of what the law covers. Regulations are developed as aids and guidelines to assist enforcement officers determing what clearly is and is not within the law.
When those regulations are incorrect, or incorrectly interpreted by enforcement, it is the function of the courts to rule on that, in each individual case brought before them.
When we get a consistent misinterpretation of regulatory guidelines, (or the law itself) it is the responsibility of the administering agency to correct that within their department.
If the law needs to be changed that is the responsibility of the Legislature, in accordance with both Constitutional requirements and the will of the people.
So the ATF can just arbitrarily decide to create a ruling or enforce a law that it never has before just to appease one (or the very few) angry anti gun lobby?
They can. However, the ATF, like all other govt agencies has a process they have to go through before any proposed regulatory changes can be made. this process includes having the proposed changes reviewed by other parts of the govt, and also made available to the public for comments for a set period of time. If the majority of those review comments are unfavorable, then the agency does not implement the proposed changes. IF they disreagrd that an do impliment those changes they are liable to face challenge in court.
Do note that "made available to the public" does not mean easy to find, or widely disseminated. It ought to, but it doesn't. As long as the information is available somewhere, that the public has access to, they have met their legal requirement in that regard. One paragraph buried on page 637 of a 900 page document would meet the legal requirement....
Various administrations of both parties have chosen to enforce some laws and ignore others. That's not the way things should be done, but that's what happens.
IT always has been and likely always will be. What differs is what laws are being ignored, why, and how much the public knows about what is going on, and how much (or how little) they care.
Each administration sets their own priorities, some I can agree with, some I cannot. Regarding firearm laws, one I personally saw (ok, it was on TV) irked me, though it perfectly illustrated the reality of the situation.
(Then) VP Biden was caught in a hallway by some reporters (so unplanned and unscripted). He was directly asked why the Fed govt did so little to prosecute people who broke the law attempting to buy a gun. (the context was felons/prohibited persons lying on the 4473 form).
Biden's response was a dismissive hand gesture and (I quote directly) ..
"We don't have time for that".
From his lips to govt policy or the reverse, either way, its what happened. And I'm certain is still happening...