User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 6:54:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By obiwanbonjovi: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By obiwanbonjovi: Originally Posted By JmE: Originally Posted By obiwanbonjovi: It isnt for shouldering, its just for lookin through. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/laugh-29.gif It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 6:59:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WildBoar]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MadeintheUSA: This glows brighter than the sun. Its up there with LaRues water hose bullshit. |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 6:59:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: On the one hand...blah blah blah On the other hand thank you. That took some work and has been (is being) consumed. On the gripping hand they can still fuck off. Hey! |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 7:30:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Photographic]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ?  Attached FileNot being snarky. I dunno if the clock stops then with an injunction or if it has to be spelled out. Also, WTF is this on page 5 of the memes? 
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 2/1/2023 11:33:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? I am not a lawyer. An injunction is typically put in place because the court agrees that: 1. Immediate action is required and damage may result from inaction. 2. The court believes the party seeking injunctive relief is likely to prevail. The courts typically try to scope their injunctions appropriately. Often they only apply to the parties in the case, for the time of the trial, or possibly less. The FPC suit requests the Texas district injunct the whole rule. IMO, FPC could have articulated the immediacy of the problem a lot better. I honestly don't think they will get one, but it always depends on the judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 1:36:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cardplayer]
[#6]
Worth a watch. I honestly mostly watched it to see where Crenshaw stood.
Florida - You have a good one in that Kat Cammack. It's the first I've ever heard of her.  JUST IN: GOP Lawmakers Decry New ATF Rule Requiring Registration Of Firearms With Stabilizing Braces |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 2:09:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Idaholandho: Worth a watch. I honestly mostly watched it to see where Crenshaw stood. Florida - You have a good one in that Kat Cammack. It's the first I've ever heard of her.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ncSq6dINEThis was good, and worth the watch. And well said. I'm not done yet, but it was a good watch so far. Sad to see Congress was completely empty during this. Nobody was there. And Crenshaw! I didn't know you had it in you. Even you got this right. Though, in the end, it was just political theater. None of the proposed legislation will ever become law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 7:01:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 12:00:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 12:51:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. Yeah, I would be shocked if any on the “me first “ has a stamp anytime soon. |
|
|
|
WV, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 12:59:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. It will never be like it was before with things "on hold." Most retailers aren't going to ever sell braced guns again unless the rule is completely blocked and removed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 1:08:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By Kharn: Originally Posted By 3-gun: Just curious for anyone who is actually a lawyer, will a judicial stay stop the 120 day clock till a final decision is reached ? IANAL but that's not how govt works. The 120 days will be the only window, and there will not be another. Either braces are outside the NFA, or SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA, or the ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild. Those are the three possible outcomes. Kharn Actually, there is a 4th outcome, and the most likely, I think. It’s the fact that the ATF doesn’t have the authority to make this as a rule. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. “Braces are outside of the NFA” - Braces aren’t being regulated. This isn’t about braces being regulated. The regulation is on the firearm that is being made when the brace is installed. People can stick a brace on their Title 1 rifle or registered SBR to their heart’s content. I think this is what you were trying to say for the first outcome. “SBRs are in common use and cannot be regulates by the NFA” - No chance of this outcome. The “common use” argument is greatly overblown. “ATF was justified in their actions and goes hog wild” - Possible, but very unlikely. As for any injunction, restraining order, stay, whatever you want to call it, my expectation is that the entire rule will simply be put on hold, as if it doesn’t exist. In other words, things are exactly as they were before the rule was published. Braced pistols are just pistols. Also, that likely means that the free stamp SBR is put on hold, because it’s part of the rule, plus it likely has its own issues. This is why I think people jumping on this to be first in line are wasting their time. I’m betting the ATF will be slow walking these to see what happens with the court cases. Have any of the cases asked for the 120 day tax forbearance to be paused or extended pending resolution? I haven't seen one ask for that, and it would lend credence to the ATF's possibility of success in the case. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 1:15:15 PM EDT
[#13]
I guess one chess-move reaction not considered is if ATF losses the suits, the reaction after that will be to say OK, any brace fired from the shoulder in a manner not obviously incidental, is demonstration of intent to be used as an SBR, and ATF will now begin enforcement. Meaning brace usage as a stock, will essentially be outlawed anyway. And going back to looking over your shoulder and careful non documentation. And match/competition usage will require non-shoulder usage.
Best result is if SBR just gets culled out of NFA from all this. |
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 1:20:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Best result is if SBR just gets culled out of NFA from all this. While that would be wonderful - don't hold your breath. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 1:41:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: I guess one chess-move reaction not considered is if ATF losses the suits, the reaction after that will be to say OK, any brace fired from the shoulder in a manner not obviously incidental, is demonstration of intent to be used as an SBR, and ATF will now begin enforcement. Meaning brace usage as a stock, will essentially be outlawed anyway. And going back to looking over your shoulder and careful non documentation. And match/competition usage will require non-shoulder usage. Best result is if SBR just gets culled out of NFA from all this. I don't think they can do that. They've already said (and reneged) and said (and reneged) that shoulder a braced weapon does not remake it into an SBR. I think it will be similar to how Illinois is trending (procedural issue). The EASIST route for a court would be to shut the whole thing down due to the massive change from what was proposed in June of 2021 to what was registered two days ago. Just throw it out based on the changes. And similar to bumpstocks in the 5th, rule on the change, but COMMENT on the rest on how they WOULD rule. Courts don't want to get into Constitutional issues, and that is the easiest route. A new 90 day comment period would have to be allowed, and I'm sure this proposal would get blasted, especially with the lawsuits already pending. The ATF would have to rewrite the proposal, and allow for another 90 day comment period. Being that the courts could signal how they WOULD rule, the ATF would be best advised to keep things simple...as in, make simple, clear, and objective criteria to determine a stock from a brace GOING FOWARD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 2:10:51 PM EDT
[#16]
So what would ‘going forward’ mean, especially for those in states where SBRs are banned? Grandfather existing braces and cut off sales of new ones?
What a mess this is… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:05:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: I don't think they can do that. They've already said (and reneged) and said (and reneged) that shoulder a braced weapon does not remake it into an SBR. I think it will be similar to how Illinois is trending (procedural issue). The EASIST route for a court would be to shut the whole thing down due to the massive change from what was proposed in June of 2021 to what was registered two days ago. Just throw it out based on the changes. And similar to bumpstocks in the 5th, rule on the change, but COMMENT on the rest on how they WOULD rule. Courts don't want to get into Constitutional issues, and that is the easiest route. A new 90 day comment period would have to be allowed, and I'm sure this proposal would get blasted, especially with the lawsuits already pending. The ATF would have to rewrite the proposal, and allow for another 90 day comment period. Being that the courts could signal how they WOULD rule, the ATF would be best advised to keep things simple...as in, make simple, clear, and objective criteria to determine a stock from a brace GOING FOWARD. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: I guess one chess-move reaction not considered is if ATF losses the suits, the reaction after that will be to say OK, any brace fired from the shoulder in a manner not obviously incidental, is demonstration of intent to be used as an SBR, and ATF will now begin enforcement. Meaning brace usage as a stock, will essentially be outlawed anyway. And going back to looking over your shoulder and careful non documentation. And match/competition usage will require non-shoulder usage. Best result is if SBR just gets culled out of NFA from all this. I don't think they can do that. They've already said (and reneged) and said (and reneged) that shoulder a braced weapon does not remake it into an SBR. I think it will be similar to how Illinois is trending (procedural issue). The EASIST route for a court would be to shut the whole thing down due to the massive change from what was proposed in June of 2021 to what was registered two days ago. Just throw it out based on the changes. And similar to bumpstocks in the 5th, rule on the change, but COMMENT on the rest on how they WOULD rule. Courts don't want to get into Constitutional issues, and that is the easiest route. A new 90 day comment period would have to be allowed, and I'm sure this proposal would get blasted, especially with the lawsuits already pending. The ATF would have to rewrite the proposal, and allow for another 90 day comment period. Being that the courts could signal how they WOULD rule, the ATF would be best advised to keep things simple...as in, make simple, clear, and objective criteria to determine a stock from a brace GOING FOWARD. Problem is existing NFA description language is clear. Doesn't matter what an agency says, the courts job is to uphold codified law. And they can't just shred that, just because existing agency cluster fucked the enforcement. What they can do, is say Grandfather defacto everyone involved (maybe), More likely, it will be don't change how you've been enforcing braces, that are used as braces, and the heretofore determination of what can be sold and owned. And with that, all that leaves ATF is to say OK, if you are overtly shouldering it, then you are SBR, and under arrest. Is about all they will have left. Well.. potentially. Point being, don't assume a lawsuit win, which will be based on "people need and use these", will automatically protect the continued usage of armbraces as overt shoulder firing stocks, for the only 2 guys who are actually doing that, of course. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:20:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Problem is existing NFA description language is clear. Doesn't matter what an agency says, the courts job is to uphold codified law. And they can't just shred that, just because existing agency cluster fucked the enforcement. What they can do, is say Grandfather defacto everyone involved (maybe), More likely, it will be don't change how you've been enforcing braces, that are used as braces, and the heretofore determination of what can be sold and owned. And with that, all that leaves ATF is to say OK, if you are overtly shouldering it, then you are SBR, and under arrest. Is about all they will have left. Well.. potentially. Point being, don't assume a lawsuit win, which will be based on "people need and use these", will automatically protect the continued usage of armbraces as overt shoulder firing stocks, for the only 2 guys who are actually doing that, of course. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By panthermark: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: I guess one chess-move reaction not considered is if ATF losses the suits, the reaction after that will be to say OK, any brace fired from the shoulder in a manner not obviously incidental, is demonstration of intent to be used as an SBR, and ATF will now begin enforcement. Meaning brace usage as a stock, will essentially be outlawed anyway. And going back to looking over your shoulder and careful non documentation. And match/competition usage will require non-shoulder usage. Best result is if SBR just gets culled out of NFA from all this. I don't think they can do that. They've already said (and reneged) and said (and reneged) that shoulder a braced weapon does not remake it into an SBR. I think it will be similar to how Illinois is trending (procedural issue). The EASIST route for a court would be to shut the whole thing down due to the massive change from what was proposed in June of 2021 to what was registered two days ago. Just throw it out based on the changes. And similar to bumpstocks in the 5th, rule on the change, but COMMENT on the rest on how they WOULD rule. Courts don't want to get into Constitutional issues, and that is the easiest route. A new 90 day comment period would have to be allowed, and I'm sure this proposal would get blasted, especially with the lawsuits already pending. The ATF would have to rewrite the proposal, and allow for another 90 day comment period. Being that the courts could signal how they WOULD rule, the ATF would be best advised to keep things simple...as in, make simple, clear, and objective criteria to determine a stock from a brace GOING FOWARD. Problem is existing NFA description language is clear. Doesn't matter what an agency says, the courts job is to uphold codified law. And they can't just shred that, just because existing agency cluster fucked the enforcement. What they can do, is say Grandfather defacto everyone involved (maybe), More likely, it will be don't change how you've been enforcing braces, that are used as braces, and the heretofore determination of what can be sold and owned. And with that, all that leaves ATF is to say OK, if you are overtly shouldering it, then you are SBR, and under arrest. Is about all they will have left. Well.. potentially. Point being, don't assume a lawsuit win, which will be based on "people need and use these", will automatically protect the continued usage of armbraces as overt shoulder firing stocks, for the only 2 guys who are actually doing that, of course. The problem with the concept of "use dictates definition" is it only works one way. A brace is legal and not a stock unless it touches your shoulder.....by that same logic a full auto trigger group & sear installed into an AR is not a machine gun until you move the selector into auto and pull the trigger. Or putting a stock on your AR pistol and not shouldering it would be fine. I'm going to guess that the ATF wouldn't agree to that.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:35:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FishKepr: So what would ‘going forward’ mean, especially for those in states where SBRs are banned? Grandfather existing braces and cut off sales of new ones? What a mess this is… There is no grandfathering of braces. Again, braces aren’t illegal. Creating a SBR by putting one on a pistol is what they are saying is illegal. If somehow this brace use stands, then people who live in states that don’t allow SBRs can remove the brace, or put a 16” barrel on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:46:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: There is no grandfathering of braces. Again, braces aren’t illegal. Creating a SBR by putting one on a pistol is what they are saying is illegal. If somehow this brace use stands, then people who live in states that don’t allow SBRs can remove the brace, or put a 16” barrel on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By FishKepr: So what would ‘going forward’ mean, especially for those in states where SBRs are banned? Grandfather existing braces and cut off sales of new ones? What a mess this is… There is no grandfathering of braces. Again, braces aren’t illegal. Creating a SBR by putting one on a pistol is what they are saying is illegal. If somehow this brace use stands, then people who live in states that don’t allow SBRs can remove the brace, or put a 16” barrel on it. Or ignore the bastards all together. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:49:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FishKepr: So what would ‘going forward’ mean, especially for those in states where SBRs are banned? Grandfather existing braces and cut off sales of new ones? What a mess this is… For me, yes. Grandfather existing braces that did not have "approval letters". The new, simplified rules would be something similar to Section II ONLY of the 4999 worksheet, and would be set up in a manner in which every braces that has been approved already, would be able to pass the requirements (so some tweaks would be needed). The only other requirement would be that the brace must have an LOP (we will pretend braces have LOP's) under 13.5 inches. That is it. No weight or length or accessory BS. No retro history BS. No marketing BS.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:04:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By willi3d: There is no grandfathering of braces. Again, braces aren’t illegal. Creating a SBR by putting one on a pistol is what they are saying is illegal. If somehow this brace use stands, then people who live in states that don’t allow SBRs can remove the brace, or put a 16” barrel on it. I was trying (poorly) to reference panthermark’s post above mine. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:50:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Shane733]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: The problem with the concept of "use dictates definition" is it only works one way. A brace is legal and not a stock unless it touches your shoulder.....by that same logic a full auto trigger group & sear installed into an AR is not a machine gun until you move the selector into auto and pull the trigger. Or putting a stock on your AR pistol and not shouldering it would be fine. I'm going to guess that the ATF wouldn't agree to that. Installing a full auto group & sear into an AR, you have made or reconstructed the AR into a MG under the definition of the law. Installing a brace on a pistol does not make or reconstruct the pistol into a rifle nor a short barreled rifle under the definition of the law. It makes it into a pistol with an arm brace just as the ATF ruled for many years. Installing a full auto group & sear into an AR only has one purpose. Installing a brace on a pistol has a use too.. to stabilize your pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 9:14:34 PM EDT
[#24]
I wonder…..
Could a law abiding person who just decided to build a SBR, file a form 1, pay his $220. non-bullshit amnesty form 1). Then, a “law breaking scoundrel” (this is a joke), file an amnesty form 1. Let’s say the scoundrels get approved first… Is there standing to file a case against the GayTF under the 14th amendment, or some other law? I mean, they start treating one “class” differently than another? I theory I can pay my $200 and attach a stock waiting for approval, same as the the “scoundrels”, right? Fuck ATF @nolocontendere |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 9:44:12 PM EDT
[#25]
 Where The F*CK Is The Gun Industry?!?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 10:48:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPN: Roughly, federal courts are divided up into regional circuits. Cases can be pending in separate circuits on the same issue. If the individual circuit courts issue conflicting rulings on the same issue, the next step would be for the US Supreme Court to decide which is the correct ruling (though it is possible for things to be left with conflicting rulings in separate circuits). Isn't there a circuit split because of a machinegun ruling many years ago out of Illinois? |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 2:33:43 AM EDT
[#27]
GOA VOWS TO SUE OVER ATF’S PISTOL BAN Our attorneys are working on filing a lawsuit against the ATF to stop them from enforcing this unconstitutional pistol ban and collecting personal information about you and your firearms. https://www.gunowners.org/na02012023/ |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:25:48 AM EDT
[#28]
This only goes to further demonstrate why you never write a letter to the ATF. You or I write one it is bad enough. But when Matt Geatz decides he is getting to much heat from banging underage girls rounds up 6 other reps and write a letter demanding objective criteria - this is what you get.
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:26:03 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jambalaya: Isn't there a circuit split because of a machinegun ruling many years ago out of Illinois? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jambalaya: Originally Posted By JPN: Roughly, federal courts are divided up into regional circuits. Cases can be pending in separate circuits on the same issue. If the individual circuit courts issue conflicting rulings on the same issue, the next step would be for the US Supreme Court to decide which is the correct ruling (though it is possible for things to be left with conflicting rulings in separate circuits). Isn't there a circuit split because of a machinegun ruling many years ago out of Illinois? The case you're thinking of is likely United States v. Rock Island Armory. If so - no not really. It's not a long read either but the gist is the government no longer charges people specifically for avoiding the $200 tax when caught with an unregistered MG. |
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:27:47 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: This only goes to further demonstrate why you never write a letter to the ATF. You or I write one it is bad enough. But when Matt Geatz decides he is getting to much heat from banging underage girls rounds up 6 other reps and write a letter demanding objective criteria - this is what you get.  low mana - touch grass (Music Video) Seriously. I'm not sure we're living in the same universe. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:43:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Stiles1410]
[#31]
So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr’s and all the restrictions that come with it? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens?
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:49:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr’s? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr’s? Good question - no one knows. It could end up being the sort of situation where "sorry there's no free stamp you owe us $200 per SBR you admitted to already having" happens. Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? Agreed. 120 days is a long time. I'll decide what to do on April 28th or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:50:58 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr’s and all the restrictions that come with it? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? Some are unable to resist the temptation to kneel. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:52:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr's? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:57:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: jasonm4]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr’s and all the restrictions that come with it? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? I will laugh my ass off. Many of folks have been suggesting from the start to wait a bit, even after it hits the register. #YouGetWhatYouFuckingDeserve |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 9:58:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: My guess is you get to keep your free stamp. SBR's are only a SBR when in SBR configuration. So if the brace ruling is struck down you can keep/reinstall a brace and it not be considered an sbr. I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: Originally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr's? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. LOL really? Is that the route you're taking and not mentioning their prior blessings? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:00:03 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Or ignore the bastards all together. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By FishKepr: So what would ‘going forward’ mean, especially for those in states where SBRs are banned? Grandfather existing braces and cut off sales of new ones? What a mess this is… There is no grandfathering of braces. Again, braces aren’t illegal. Creating a SBR by putting one on a pistol is what they are saying is illegal. If somehow this brace use stands, then people who live in states that don’t allow SBRs can remove the brace, or put a 16” barrel on it. Or ignore the bastards all together. 
|
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:03:55 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: [snip] ...the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. Look at the violations of the APA. The final rule published is very different than the rule put out for the legally required comment period. The ATF absolutely didn't go "through all the correct steps" on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:08:58 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: My guess is you get to keep your free stamp. SBR's are only a SBR when in SBR configuration. So if the brace ruling is struck down you can keep/reinstall a brace and it not be considered an sbr. I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority.  Attached File |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:16:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Scoot03]
[#40]
Not sure if this question has been asked, but when can an agency dictate when taxes can be waived ? If an agency now says a piece of property now falls under a category that is usually taxed, how can that agency say the tax stamp can be waived. Just another thing Congress only has the power to do I think, along with the definition of what an sbr, machine gun, etc are.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:18:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scoot03: Not sure if this question has been asked, but when can an agency dictate when taxes can be waived ? If an agency now says a price of property now falls under a category that is usually taxed, how can that agency say the tax stamp can be waived. Just another thing Congress only has the power to do I think, along with the definition of what an sbr, machine gun, etc are. |
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:19:57 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scoot03: Not sure if this question has been asked, but when can an agency dictate when taxes can be waived ? If an agency now says a piece of property now falls under a category that is usually taxed, how can that agency say the tax stamp can be waived. Just another thing Congress only has the power to do I think, along with the definition of what an sbr, machine gun, etc are. It's federal law that the ATF through the AG can absolutely do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:27:29 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stiles1410: So if this gets shut down in court what happens to all the people who prematurely filed and are now stuck with registered sbr's and all the restrictions that come with it? Seems like the better option would be to wait and do nothing and see what happens? SBR's are easy to remove from the NFA registry. You write a letter saying your firearm has been removed from an NFA configuration and needs to be removed from the registry. That's it. You no longer have a registered SBR. Or leave it on the registry and put a stock on it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:29:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: My guess is you get to keep your free stamp. SBR's are only a SBR when in SBR configuration. So if the brace ruling is struck down you can keep/reinstall a brace and it not be considered an sbr. I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. My money is on the ATF losing for violating the APA. Unfortunately I think it will take a few years. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:29:43 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: SBR's are easy to remove from the NFA registry. You write a letter saying your firearm has been removed from an NFA configuration and needs to be removed from the registry. That's it. You no longer have a registered SBR. Or leave it on the registry and put a stock on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:32:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scoot03: Not sure if this question has been asked, but when can an agency dictate when taxes can be waived ? If an agency now says a piece of property now falls under a category that is usually taxed, how can that agency say the tax stamp can be waived. Just another thing Congress only has the power to do I think, along with the definition of what an sbr, machine gun, etc are. It's written in law the AG can have amnestys in a manner they prescribe. If it gets brought up in court they'll probably claim that gives them the authority. Your honor it was a limited 90 day amnesty followed by a second 30 day amnesty, performed as I saw fit in accordance with my legal authority coded in the law. They'll get away with it just like obamacare fines were a tax. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:33:38 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: SBR's are also only SBR's when in SBR configuration. I can take the stock off of my sbr and sell it face to face all without telling the atf or take my stock off and travel across state lines without a form 20. Correct. Pop the stock off and do what you want. You are not legally required to notify ATF of changes, they just prefer you notify them if the change is permanent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 10:35:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: It's written in law the AG can have amnestys in a manner they prescribe. If it gets brought up in court they'll probably claim that gives them the authority. Your honor it was a limited 90 day amnesty followed by a second 30 day amnesty, performed as I saw fit in accordance with my legal authority coded in the law. They'll get away with it just like obamacare fines were a tax. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Scoot03: Not sure if this question has been asked, but when can an agency dictate when taxes can be waived ? If an agency now says a piece of property now falls under a category that is usually taxed, how can that agency say the tax stamp can be waived. Just another thing Congress only has the power to do I think, along with the definition of what an sbr, machine gun, etc are. It's written in law the AG can have amnestys in a manner they prescribe. If it gets brought up in court they'll probably claim that gives them the authority. Your honor it was a limited 90 day amnesty followed by a second 30 day amnesty, performed as I saw fit in accordance with my legal authority coded in the law. They'll get away with it just like obamacare fines were a tax. I really wish people would stop using the word AMNESTY. That word is NOT used by the ATF with regard to pistol braces. Merely a tax forbearance and discretionary approach to prosecution. Big difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 11:00:56 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: My guess is you get to keep your free stamp. SBR's are only a SBR when in SBR configuration. So if the brace ruling is struck down you can keep/reinstall a brace and it not be considered an sbr. I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. Yes and no.....you can make an SBR not an SBR by putting a 16" upper on it.....but I don't believe the "once a rifle, always a rifle" rule has changed. I don't believe you'd legally be able to take it back to a pistol. That being said, we're living in clown world....so who knows. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2023 11:04:11 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ajacobs: My guess is you get to keep your free stamp. SBR's are only a SBR when in SBR configuration. So if the brace ruling is struck down you can keep/reinstall a brace and it not be considered an sbr. I am hard pressed to imagine it will be stuck down though. The original NFA says it is a rifle if it is intended to be fired from the shoulder and the ATF has full authority given to them by congress to determine what constitutes intent. People slam their hands and say the ATF can make new law. That is what the entire CFR is, laws made by agencies that were delegated to do so. Challenges to the NFA itself might prevail, etc but the ATF went through all the correct steps and is not acting outside of their authority. The rule they ultimately published was so different than what was actually proposed, and you call that taking "correct steps"? That's certainly not how I see this, they should have re-submitted what we have now for comment then maybe you'd have an argument. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
