[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 11 of 160)
|
Somebody decided they didn't give a fuck about Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit saying 13-3 that bump stocks were not machine guns, and the ATF was outside Congressionally-granted bounds). Let's watch the 5th Circuit review the constitutionality of AOWs, SBRs, and SBSs because of their overconfidence. Kharn |
|
Quoted: So that would be tantamount to a taking by the government. You could own it legally, they decide you can't own it. |
|
Quoted: Somebody decided they didn't give a fuck about Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit saying 13-3 that bump stocks were not machine guns, and the ATF was outside Congressionally-granted bounds). Let's watch the 5th Circuit review the constitutionality of AOWs, SBRs, and SBSs because of their overconfidence. Kharn Personally right now I feel like I'm watching a kid try to shove a penny in a light socket. I'm just kind of sitting here wondering if this is really going to turn out the way they're hoping. |
|
Quoted: So now my question is are they going to require photos of the firearm for the free stamp? or is it going to be the wild west of everyone registering a dozen stripped lowers for free? It would be pretty funny if those of us that already have SBRs (and thus are already in the system), simply buried them under a pile of Form 1s |
|
Quoted: Get out of IL and come work w us in the PO in WY! 2 birds, 1 stone! Nah. I'm socially pinned here (not that I mind that). Plus the kind of work I do DGAF about location. Plus this state is going to get absolutely reamed on the fat fuck's new AWB. The future is so bright I gotta wear shades. |
|
Quoted: It would be pretty funny if those of us that already have SBRs (and thus are already in the system), simply buried them under a pile of Form 1s Quoted: Quoted: So now my question is are they going to require photos of the firearm for the free stamp? or is it going to be the wild west of everyone registering a dozen stripped lowers for free? It would be pretty funny if those of us that already have SBRs (and thus are already in the system), simply buried them under a pile of Form 1s That - along with everyone who had been planning SBRs already and hadn't yet submitted paperwork - is pretty likely. I was almost tempted but then I came to my senses. Fuck changing the "law" by fiat and inserting subjective fluid definitions designed to jam up ordinary folks for harmless acts. I won't have any part in making the ATF look good or competent by going along with their offer. |
|
For those who own no NFA items, I get it and I get why I, however, do. A bunch. I've intended to SBR 4 more that I have braces on, I just wasn't in a rush to do that. Given my situation, already being on "the official list", I'm essentially just getting free stamps and not having to have them engraved, correct? |
|
Quoted: Indeed. This has been - from the start - intended to fulfill the goal of removing effective short barreled rifle caliber arms from civilian hands. Other goals exist as well but the "scary" AR/AK/semi auto pistols in rifle calibers? Those have been a target for years. Quoted: Quoted: According to this even the old style AR pistols with only a buffer tube is now illegal. (4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations; Indeed. This has been - from the start - intended to fulfill the goal of removing effective short barreled rifle caliber arms from civilian hands. Other goals exist as well but the "scary" AR/AK/semi auto pistols in rifle calibers? Those have been a target for years. They haven’t put that much thought into this and outside of CQB environments and a few others, there’s isn’t a whole lot an SBR does better than their longer, title I brethren. At this point, the progressives realize they aren’t getting any traction for large sweeping anti-gun legislation at the federal level. All they can do is take pot shots at the low hanging fruit, aka, the stuff they believe they can unilaterally do from within the executive with even a moderate chance of holding up to legal scrutiny in court. The NFA and the ATF give them that capability with NFA being what it is. Even if it gets struck down, they still got the short term political “win” with their base and they tie up all the 2A folks with years of legal battles before whatever they’ve enacted is potentially struck down. They’ve done this with a number of different items over the past few years (bumpstocks, FRTs, now braces) because realistically, it’s the only thing they really can do with a Republican held Senate and/or House. |
|
Quoted: Somebody decided they didn't give a fuck about Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit saying 13-3 that bump stocks were not machine guns, and the ATF was outside Congressionally-granted bounds). Let's watch the 5th Circuit review the constitutionality of AOWs, SBRs, and SBSs because of their overconfidence. Kharn Didn't something else just get filed down there too? |
|
Quoted: Nah. I'm socially pinned here (not that I mind that). Plus the kind of work I do DGAF about location. Plus this state is going to get absolutely reamed on the fat fuck's new AWB. The future is so bright I gotta wear shades. I admire your optimism. I don't share that optimism, but I admire it. |
|
Quoted: For those who own no NFA items, I get it and I get why I, however, do. A bunch. I've intended to SBR 4 more that I have braces on, I just wasn't in a rush to do that. Given my situation, already being on "the official list", I'm essentially just getting free stamps and not having to have them engraved, correct? That I totally understand. If you have a chance to even slightly screw the government it is good to take it. |
|
Quoted: The increase of SSDI applications are going to be massive....  What qualifies as disabled... what is the bar?....State, Feds, VA, regular doc....probably just another way to make it confusing and get someone fucked. This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Get some doctor to say you have muscle weakness or something |
|
I predict that wont go down well... |
|
Quoted: They haven’t put that much thought into this and outside of CQB environments and a few others, there’s isn’t a whole lot an SBR does better than their longer, title I brethren. At this point, the progressives realize they aren’t getting any traction for large sweeping anti-gun legislation at the federal level. All they can do is take pot shots at the low hanging fruit, aka, the stuff they believe they can unilaterally do from within the executive with even a moderate chance of holding up to legal scrutiny in court. The NFA and the ATF give them that capability with NFA being what it is. Even if it gets struck down, they still got the short term political “win” with their base and they tie up all the 2A folks with years of legal battles before whatever they’ve enacted is potentially struck down. They’ve done this with a number of different items over the past few years (bumpstocks, FRTs, now braces) because realistically, it’s the only thing they really can do with a Republican held Senate and/or House. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: According to this even the old style AR pistols with only a buffer tube is now illegal. (4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations; Indeed. This has been - from the start - intended to fulfill the goal of removing effective short barreled rifle caliber arms from civilian hands. Other goals exist as well but the "scary" AR/AK/semi auto pistols in rifle calibers? Those have been a target for years. They haven’t put that much thought into this and outside of CQB environments and a few others, there’s isn’t a whole lot an SBR does better than their longer, title I brethren. At this point, the progressives realize they aren’t getting any traction for large sweeping anti-gun legislation at the federal level. All they can do is take pot shots at the low hanging fruit, aka, the stuff they believe they can unilaterally do from within the executive with even a moderate chance of holding up to legal scrutiny in court. The NFA and the ATF give them that capability with NFA being what it is. Even if it gets struck down, they still got the short term political “win” with their base and they tie up all the 2A folks with years of legal battles before whatever they’ve enacted is potentially struck down. They’ve done this with a number of different items over the past few years (bumpstocks, FRTs, now braces) because realistically, it’s the only thing they really can do with a Republican held Senate and/or House. They are way lighter to carry around. |
|
Quoted: I thought your governor just banned everything anyway... Quoted: Quoted: Pretty sure our statute on it says something that is effectively "a firearm is an SBR if it is defined by the ATF as an SBR" I thought your governor just banned everything anyway... Well, yes, also that. Just pointing out that, even if the AWB didn't exist at the moment, this would have been problematic for Illinois from the SBR/pistol standpoint. It might be like that in other anti gun states, no idea.. |
|
Quoted: I admire your optimism. I don't share that optimism, but I admire it. All you need to have this optimism is to know the history of 2A in this country. Then you will realize that we have been continuously winning for 28 years and getting stronger by the year. At this point we aren't just "winning", we have achieved absolute dominance in the gun control debate. The rest is just mopping up the tears of their |
|
Have a look at this bullshit. Attached File |
|
Quoted: This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Get some doctor to say you have muscle weakness or something Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? |
|
Quoted:Today we find out who is an ally and who is a turncoat. $200 = 30 pieces of silver. Back in the real world there are people who believe the NFA is unconstitutional, but still have registered firearms. Am I cheering this rule on? No. Will I make use of it to expand my NFA collections? Yes. Will I support legal efforts to get this rule overturned? Absolutely. |
| I have a friend who wants to SBR his non-AR for free under this rule, however, it does not have a brace on it (just a pistol end cap). What are the odds the ATF will require a picture of gun with a brace on it to be approved? Part of me wants to tell him slim-to-none, but knowing his luck, they will ask for one. Then again, he could probably grab a brace for cheap and then register and save some money (just not as much). And before anyone complains, he was going the SBR route anyway... |
|
So is this a ban on PISTOLS or pistol BRACES? With some manufacturers coming out with guns I want in the near future, a pistol version AK was certainly an option I would think. Will they now need to sell it with a side-folding trunnion and a blank rear or even a picatinny rear section or will all guns now be rifles, not pistols. |
|
Quoted: It is a mouse trap: FREE FOOD IN HERE, GO HERE FOR THE ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET anddddd ..SNAP. Dead. In the 90's a bunch of people registered USAS-12's. Others didn't and now most of been sold as spare parts. If ATF attempts to convict people based upon their amnesty registrations, they will lose quickly in court. ATF will lose slowly in court anyways. They've clearly overstepped current supreme court rulings. |
|
Quoted: Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? Quoted: Quoted: This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Get some doctor to say you have muscle weakness or something Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? fuck it......we all timmmmyyyyyyy now |
|
Quoted: Back in the real world there are people who believe the NFA is unconstitutional, but still have registered firearms. Am I cheering this rule on? No. Will I make use of it to expand my NFA collections? Yes. Will I support legal efforts to get this rule overturned? Absolutely. This |
|
Quoted: Have a look at this bullshit. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/Screenshot_20230113-152818_Acrobat_for_S-2670901.JPG Can I possess a pistol registered as an SBR, 86 lowers, and 87 stabilizing braces ? (Gotta have spare parts nowadays due to supply chain issues) |
|
Quoted: Is a bare pistol buffer tube now a stock? Quoted: Quoted: They did not adopt the Worksheet 4999. Instead, anything that provides a surface that can be shouldered is a stock. Form 1 is free to make your braced gun a SBR. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I see. Is a bare pistol buffer tube now a stock? No |
|
Quoted: Back in the real world there are people who believe the NFA is unconstitutional, but still have registered firearms. Am I cheering this rule on? No. Will I make use of it to expand my NFA collections? Yes. Will I support legal efforts to get this rule overturned? Absolutely. I will not comply. I have one SBR. That's enough of the man in my life. I will disassemble and/or make my pistols comply. I'm not registering anything else with this agency. |
|
Quoted: There are a number of elected officials who I've seen with AR pistols. Be interesting to see if any take a stand on this. https://i.ibb.co/SQvWRBZ/mtgpistol.jpg Those are just photo ops and it's unlikely they actually own the props (guns) they are photographed with. |
|
Quoted: Today we find out who is an ally and who is a turncoat. $200 = 30 pieces of silver. Fuck Em play the game. 80% lowers are less than $35 a piece now. Register FJB001-FJBwhat you can afford Same as FUBATFE0001-FUBATFE0087 Leave enough lowers non registered for contingencies |
|
Quoted: Just in case you're unsure, the ATF has given you the option of mailing your gun to them for proper determination (I shouldn't have to say this, but please don't actually do this, you'll likely never see it again) Quoted: Quoted: Did we have all the letters from the ATF saying they are legal? firearms equipped with a "stabilizing brace" or rearward attachment may be submitted to ATF's Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division for classification. Firearms may be submitted to: Chief, FTISB 244 Needy Rd. Suite 1600 Martinsburg, WV 25405 A prepaid return shipping label should be provided when submitting to prevent delay of the return of the sample. How many pipes can we mail to them all at once? |
|
Quoted: Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? Quoted: Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? However, if the firearm with the "stabilizing brace" is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. |