By: José Niño
During a hearing in the Rules Committee that addressed H.J. Res. 44, a resolution that would block the enforcement of the ATF’s new regulation on pistol stabilizer braces, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) came to the ATF’s defense. However, the New York congressman could not explain what this regulation does. Nor did Nadler reveal how long of a prison sentence an individual could be subjected to for breaking the ATF rule.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) grilled Nadler by bringing up a 2012 letter from ATF. In that letter, the government agency informed stabilizer brace designer Alex Bosco that his pistol brace “would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm” and would not have to go through National Firearm Act (NFA) controls.
Massie subsequently inquired how a stabilizer brace, which the ATF approved of in 2012, could now be criminalized due to an arbitrary change in ATF regulations in 2023.
Massie stated, “The ATF said it was legal, and here we are a decade later — 40 million gun owners later–and the ATF now says it’s illegal.”
Nadler replied by asserting that the first brace was a forearm brace. However, he noted that subsequent braces were designed to be fired from the shoulder.
Massie snapped back by detailing how braces can look different cosmetically. However, Massie called attention to how the brace Bosco designed that was approved back in 2012 is not radically different from the brace that would be designed in the current year.
Massie’s inquiries apparently put Nadler on his heels when he tried to explain the difference between what braces were designed to do as opposed to how everyday consumers use them.
Massie then asked Nadler about what kind of punishment otherwise lawful American gun owners could be subjected to for breaking the ATF AR-pistol stabilizer brace rule. He asked, “What would be a fair prison term for owning a piece of plastic?”
Nadler responded, “I’m not a judge, I’m not going to say what a fair prison term would be.”
He added that it would behoove critics to look at similar crimes and regulations to determine what the punishment actually looks like.
Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) noted that the punishment for breaking the ATF’s regulation is a $250,000 fine and up to ten years of prison time.
Massie then put forward a rhetorical question, “Does it seem a little extreme to get ten years for owning a piece of plastic that the ATF, for ten years, maintained was legal?”
AWR Hawkins of Breitbart News noted that the interaction continued with Nadler clearly showing that he had no clue about what these regulations entailed.
Dudley Brown, the President of the National Association for Gun Rights, shared his thoughts about Nadler’s comments:
“Does it surprise anyone that Representative Jerry Nadler defends the ATF rule outlawing stabilizing braces and can’t say what the rule does or how long you get in prison for not obeying it? For ten years the ATF said the braces were fine, now you get 10 years in prison for having one on your gun if you don’t register it with them. Bureaucrats shouldn’t be making the laws and ignorant gun grabbing congressmen shouldn’t be defending them.”
Pro-Second Amendment journalist David Codrea sounded off against Nadler’s comments:
“Nadler’s befuddlement over stabilizing braces is reminiscent of former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy supposing a barrel shroud that she would support jailing citizen over was ‘the shoulder thing that goes up.’ But more unforgiveable than arrogant incompetence is the deliberate undermining of the Constitution, and not just of ‘shall not be infringed,’ but of the separation of powers with resulting checks and balances the Founders intended to be inviolable. It just goes to prove that the prohibitionists will do anything for power.”
Nadler’s cluelessness on the matter is to be expected. For Gun Control Inc, politicians like Nadler are useful pawns to advance civilian disarmament measures. Gun controllers don’t care about politicians’ intelligence or lack thereof. They just want pliable political vessels to advance their legislation or regulatory acts.
This is the reason why it’s so important to not only pressure politicians but also relieve them of the burden of holding higher office for their political malfeasances. It’s the only way that they’ll learn that undermining their constituents’ rights comes with a major political cost.
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Contact him via Facebook, Twitter, or email him at [email protected]. Get his e-book, The 10 Myths of Gun Control, here.