[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 18 of 160)
|
Quoted: If anybody ever wondered if "firearms enthusiasts/extremists" would register their assault weapons if a law passed saying they have to, guess this thread answers that  If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. |
|
Quoted: He won't do shit Quoted: Quoted: Text, history, tradition. I believe this gentleman might have thoughts on the matter at hand. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/521930/2Q___4__jpg-2671181.JPG He won't do shit Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn |
|
Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Text, history, tradition. I believe this gentleman might have thoughts on the matter at hand. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/521930/2Q___4__jpg-2671181.JPG He won't do shit Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn Excellent post my friend, |
|
Quoted: I always had a feeling the brace was a temp loop hole. I am glad i always just sbr'ed my rifles vs a brace. Quoted: Quoted: The AG has signed it, giving the atf the go ahead to publish which sets the dates. 120 days from publish date to give up your braces I always had a feeling the brace was a temp loop hole. I am glad i always just sbr'ed my rifles vs a brace. Now you can save some money. 
|
|
FUCK the batfe... |
|
Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Just out of curiosity what do you think emboldens a federal agency more? Where there is universal outcry and call for resistance or where they see division, obedience and fear? |
|
It looks like guns with the old fashioned Sig braces and shockwaves are exempt.Or any other braces If they can be attached to the arm then they are not covered by this. The idea is that if it cannot be attached to the arm as originally intended then it is a stock. Basically most braces are designed to brace the weight of the gun by attaching the brace to the forearm. If it can attach to the arm as intended then it will not be considered a stock. This seems to be another panic like when everyone decided to mass hallucinate the guidance letter for shouldering braces. Basically, if I am reading this correctly, you can get free stamps, but also, braces are legal if you can attach them to your arm.  If the ATF was really smart they would use the ensuing flood of paperwork to get the NFA program modernized and attached to the NICS. Get the whole process done as fast as a background check to buy regular guns. They would collect a huge increase in revenue and get to show the politicians that they have done more background checks than ever before. Win win. |
|
Some good deals there. |
|
Quoted: 5. take the brace off and use it with a bare buffer tube. China will copy any design. So run with the possible IP. What if "someone" designed a mangina shoulder socket. Combination of a shoulder harness and "sloppy whore" fleshlight receptacle end. Pocket on the backside to keep mangina period pads, sloppy hole up front at minimum 1.75" wide for (things) and a pouch for skittles and condiments. Rough idea, that needs more R&D.  Attached File My shoulder identifies as a vagina. |
|
Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Quoted: Quoted: If anybody ever wondered if "firearms enthusiasts/extremists" would register their assault weapons if a law passed saying they have to, guess this thread answers that If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Or...they could not say anything about it either way? And you're nuts if you think people here won't trip all over themselves to register and save themselves a whole couple hundred bucks. |
|
Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Quoted: Quoted: If anybody ever wondered if "firearms enthusiasts/extremists" would register their assault weapons if a law passed saying they have to, guess this thread answers that If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. They don't have to get on here and verbally boot_lick either, but they_do. In the end he's right. |
|
Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Text, history, tradition. I believe this gentleman might have thoughts on the matter at hand. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/521930/2Q___4__jpg-2671181.JPG He won't do shit Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn ATF has done this before several times and without consequences |
|
Attached File Ford is soooo fucked when those Mustang videos get out. Kharn |
|
Quoted: Just out of curiosity what do you think emboldens a federal agency more? Where there is universal outcry and call for resistance or where they see division, obedience and fear? Quoted: Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Just out of curiosity what do you think emboldens a federal agency more? Where there is universal outcry and call for resistance or where they see division, obedience and fear? I’m not convinced the ATF gives a fuck about public opinion or lack of support, and hasn’t given a fuck for decades. |
|
Quoted: I’m not convinced the ATF gives a fuck about public opinion or lack of support, and hasn’t given a fuck for decades. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Just out of curiosity what do you think emboldens a federal agency more? Where there is universal outcry and call for resistance or where they see division, obedience and fear? I’m not convinced the ATF gives a fuck about public opinion or lack of support, and hasn’t given a fuck for decades. Well...there is that unfortunate fact to consider. |
|
Quoted: 5. take the brace off and use it with a bare buffer tube. Quoted: Quoted: Curiosity. 4 schools of thoughts posted here: 1) Free SBR stamp no strings. 2) Admit that you committed a felony and get "free" SBR stamp. 3) FATF. 4) Hold as you are, until it all shakes out. Am I missing something? 5. take the brace off and use it with a bare buffer tube. 6. Install long enough flash hider. |
|
We all know that millions of us have either bought factory made pistols with braces or made our on. We know there are millions more braces out in the wild right now being sold or bought up. It is a common thing in America now. The ATF had told us we all were GTG. They even clarified at one time we could even shoulder them. The ATF plainly says, that once we get the free stamp, we can take the braces off and put a stock on. So the way I see it is... 1) This will get dragged out in court, the masses will keep their braces, and keep on doing what they do. GOA, the people, brace manufactures, etc. will fight this out. 2) Some of us that want a "legal" SBR will take advantage of this to get what free stamps we need for our certain SBR builds. Our SBRs builds will have stamps and we will still have our "pistols" with braces once the dust settles. Win win. 3) Some of us already have NFA items and already on a "list" so them people will for sure take advantage of the free stamps. The ones of us not on a "list", do we go for the free SBR stamps dangling in front of us and get on a "list"? |
|
Quoted: Or...they could not say anything about it either way? And you're nuts if you think people here won't trip all over themselves to register and save themselves a whole couple hundred bucks. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If anybody ever wondered if "firearms enthusiasts/extremists" would register their assault weapons if a law passed saying they have to, guess this thread answers that If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. Or...they could not say anything about it either way? And you're nuts if you think people here won't trip all over themselves to register and save themselves a whole couple hundred bucks. I’m positive a lot will. I’ve already got lots of SBRs and I’ve been meaning to stamp my pistols for years. Dunno that it matters, I’m not sure this will stand scrutiny for long. |
|
Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn 
|
|
Quoted: We all know that millions of us have either bought factory made pistols with braces or made our on. We know there are millions more braces out in the wild right now being sold or bought up. It is a common thing in America now. The ATF had told us we all were GTG. They even clarified at one time we could even shoulder them. The ATF plainly says, that once we get the free stamp, we can take the braces off and put a stock on. So the way I see it is... 1) This will get dragged out in court, the masses will keep their braces, and keep on doing what they do. GOA, the people, brace manufactures, etc. will fight this out. 2) Some of us that want a "legal" SBR will take advantage of this to get what free stamps we need for our certain SBR builds. Our SBRs builds will have stamps and we will still have our "pistols" with braces once the dust settles. Win win. 3) Some of us already have NFA items and already on a "list" so them people will for sure take advantage of the free stamps. The ones of us not on a "list", do we go for the free SBR stamps dangling in front of us and get on a "list"? There are those of us that have a bunch of existing, registered NFA items and STILL refuse to comply with this absolute horseshit. |
|
9pm Central (13 minutes to go) Brace Yourself. A Live Discussion of ATF's New Pistol Brace Rule  Brace Yourself. A Live Discussion of ATF's New Pistol Brace Rule |
|
Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Text, history, tradition. I believe this gentleman might have thoughts on the matter at hand. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/521930/2Q___4__jpg-2671181.JPG He won't do shit Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn I do wonder how much recent court rulings will clip the wings of this. The Supreme Court gave us a powerful weapon for this in their last session that makes challenging this a lot easier than prior. IANAL but it’s already been discussed a lot on this forum and probably in this thread. |
|
Quoted: And? Most adults are aware of this little thing called time and how situations vary across it. Quoted: Quoted: ATF has done this before several times and without consequences And? Most adults are aware of this little thing called time and how situations vary across it. I hope you're right. |
|
Quoted: Ok, so I register all my guns as SBR for free, then this rule gets overturned, and now I have free SBRs that I can legally carry in Texas.  That would be interesting. Say a million new registered SBRs and then the rule gets thrown out. What would the atf do then? Honestly I wonder if a million or more SBRs were registered, wouldn't that make them fall under common usage and then protected under recent USSC ruling? |
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States "The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register any firearms in his possession was requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was essentially a violation of his right not to incriminate himself." "In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes." "The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them" So, if the pistols were illegal the whole time, how could we possibly register them? |
|
Quoted: There are those of us that have a bunch of existing, registered NFA items and STILL refuse to comply with this absolute horseshit. If I decided to do it, I would only be doing it for the free SBR stamps to build real SBRs. Not to stamp my pistols with braces the ATF plainly said were fine when they were built. |
|
Quoted: Regular handguns? How? Simply broaden the definitions of common firearm terms. Change what the words mean. Now, a massive number of firearms are required to be registered with ATF. Declare that all firearms need a stamp, not just SBRs. This is a huge shot across the bow by the ATF. They are swinging for the fences with this one, and if they are successful, it's going to be game-on even more so than it already is. They have already shown they intend to ignore the SCOTUS. They have gone rogue. |
|
Quoted: Simply broaden the definitions of common firearm terms. Change what the words mean. Now, a massive number of firearms are required to be registered with ATF. Declare that all firearms need a stamp, not just SBRs. This is a huge shot across the bow by the ATF. They are swinging for the fences with this one, and if they are successful, it's going to be game-on even more so than it already is. They have already shown they intend to ignore the SCOTUS. They have gone rogue. Wow. |
|
Quoted: Wow. If the last two years have shown you anything, it's that democrats will change the meanings of words to suit a specific narrative and/or an agenda they are pushing. The move to turn every pistol with a brace into a SBR that now has to be registered is one of the most brazen things the agency had done to date. They don't have the authority to do it. They know it. We know it. They know we know it. They, literally, don't give a single shit about it. What they are doing is illegal, per the SCOTUS. Despite that, they are going all-in, balls deep, without a single concern. This is a big deal. And they aren't going to stop with braced pistols. They are going to keep going, keep pushing, keep infringing, and keep criminalizing firearm ownership until they eventually outlaw it all. It's all part of The Agenda and they are sold out to it. |
|
Quoted: Using an item for something different than its main intended purpose doesn't magically turn it into something else. Quoted: Quoted: We got 120 days to register. However, there is an interesting area that they created. Providing you use the brace as is and not shouldering. It is off of the website. So, does this mean I just need to use the brace as required without registering as a NFA item. Using an item for something different than its main intended purpose doesn't magically turn it into something else. |
|
Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. LOL. You need to go look at replies to @ATFHQ Link to the Tweets |
|
Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn This. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 18 of 160)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter