[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 66 of 160)
|
Quoted: No shit? Not sure what that has to do with the fact that the information in the video was already being talked about IN THIS THREAD before the video was posted. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Go back, read post #31 on page 62, and apologize. Not gonna happen. The video is of HIM. It's not some random blogger trying to earn a buck off of this. Nolo is a random blogger? The video is of HIM, the person referenced in the tweet. The video is of Nolo. No shit? Not sure what that has to do with the fact that the information in the video was already being talked about IN THIS THREAD before the video was posted. The person you quoted wasn't saying Nolo was a random blogger. As in, the person in the video isn't a random vlogger, it's the guy who made the tweet -- Nolo. There's more information in the video than is found in the tweet. |
|
Quoted: The person you quoted wasn't saying Nolo was a random blogger. As in, the person in the video isn't a random vlogger, it's the guy who made the tweet -- Nolo. There's more information in the video than is found in the tweet. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Go back, read post #31 on page 62, and apologize. Not gonna happen. The video is of HIM. It's not some random blogger trying to earn a buck off of this. Nolo is a random blogger? The video is of HIM, the person referenced in the tweet. The video is of Nolo. No shit? Not sure what that has to do with the fact that the information in the video was already being talked about IN THIS THREAD before the video was posted. The person you quoted wasn't saying Nolo was a random blogger. As in, the person in the video isn't a random vlogger, it's the guy who made the tweet -- Nolo. There's more information in the video than is found in the tweet. Yeah, I got that. I was responding to the poster who said whatever his name is was spreading misinformation because the info in the video (from Nolo) is essentially the same info that was in the tweet (from Nolo) which was already being talked about here, before the video dropped. |
|
Quoted: Posted this in another thread, but I'll re-iterate here as this is the master BS thread. ..... Not shitting on the GOA, but the dude needs to clarify what this 88 day thing is because many people have been stuck in NICS (not a denial, but "researching") for a considerable amount of time more than that, and the application is NOT thrown out. This absolutely IS conjecture, false info and fear-mongering, which in this matter shouldn't be taken lightly, as many peoples' lives can/will be affected by the brace rule and look to gun rights advocates and "lawyers" for guidance and clarification in order to make a decision which they can live with. The clickbait Guntuber bullshit needs to chill tf out and be very concise when people may be using these videos to try to make an "informed" decision, and informed is not "dude trust me, I talked to this ATF agent and he told me", especially when anybody here with an FFL and who's had an audit or two knows that what ATF agent Bill tells you to do in 2018 might get you in deep shit when ATF John comes the next year to do the same audit. We find FACTS in the matter by the text in the ruling, the text of the application itself, as well as the actual actions of the ATF en masse as an agency. .... That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? |
|
Quoted: Yeah, I got that. I was responding to the poster who said whatever his name is was spreading misinformation because the info in the video (from Nolo) is essentially the same info that was in the tweet from (from Nolo) which was already being talked about here, before the video dropped. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Go back, read post #31 on page 62, and apologize. Not gonna happen. The video is of HIM. It's not some random blogger trying to earn a buck off of this. Nolo is a random blogger? The video is of HIM, the person referenced in the tweet. The video is of Nolo. No shit? Not sure what that has to do with the fact that the information in the video was already being talked about IN THIS THREAD before the video was posted. The person you quoted wasn't saying Nolo was a random blogger. As in, the person in the video isn't a random vlogger, it's the guy who made the tweet -- Nolo. There's more information in the video than is found in the tweet. Yeah, I got that. I was responding to the poster who said whatever his name is was spreading misinformation because the info in the video (from Nolo) is essentially the same info that was in the tweet from (from Nolo) which was already being talked about here, before the video dropped. Got ya -- I think some wires got mixed somewhere. |
|
Quoted: But the original AR pistols in the 90s (80s, when was the first AR pistol?) that lacked a butt stock weren’t intended to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm that lacks a butt stock is either an AOW, firearm (no special category), or pistol. The argument is that something that can function as a stock, is a stock. A screwdriver can function as a scraper or pry bar, but it is neither. Interestingly, no one sells 16” barrelled rifles using a brace as a stock (that I’m aware of), so braces aren’t stocks. Once one has a firearm that can freely take a stock, real stocks are used. The feds are going to waste an awful lot of money and effort on nothing of criminological consequence just to continue to feel in control of an archaic law already made useless to some extent by modular designs. Braced 16"+ ARs and other similar guns exist. They became popular in California because not being intended to be fired from the shoulder (and CA DOJ declaring that braces are not stocks unless individually determined otherwise) and not meeting the CA definition of a handgun due to barrel length, they were in a category of firearm known as an "other" which was exempt from the AWB until it was amended recently, as the AWB only applied to rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and these guns were none of the above. There is a similar Federal category (Title 1 Other or firearm, IIRC). I think Franklin Armory was selling guns configured this way. |
|
Quoted: Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that they sent a totally unqualified agent to a public convention to act as the face of their agency you think that the average agent on the street will have their act together better than the person the ATF sent to represent them to this public event? The reason people are pissed is that the wolf is telling you they are going to eat us and some sheep are saying well, they really don't mean they are really going to eat us. Fuck that noise. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is worth watching as the presenter seems to know his topic. No matter where you are on this topic, just sit for a bit. But TBH, I wouldn't read too much into that. You have a couple ATF flunkies who aren't even issued cards, assigned to SHOT show, where everyone can stare daggers at them. This isn't their best and brightest. A lawyer walks up and starts asking questions. Number 1 priority is to Look Official and Important, and #2 priority is not have that lawyer walking off with a statement form you, that could be used to saying people can get away with shit. Frankly, I think you had an inept ATF agent who is about 4 floors 2 buildings, and 3 states away from the decision room; saying answers from the position of showing strength in a room full of hostiles, to a lawyer asking questions she doesn't know the answer to. That's how I saw it. But yea, worth asking and following up on. One of a lot of questions and general vibe I would suggest just sitting and let ferret out for a month or so, before rushing out to register at the front end of this 120 day window; if that's your intended path. Also, FWIW, the 88 days (seriously? that's the number? wow) apparently is based on when the background check is initiated, not based on the number of days after one filed. And props to GOA video creators to add that correction - they get professionalism and credibility points from me on that. Frankly, the vast bulk of commentary media on this topic is emotionally charged, poorly executed, and just unprofessional - to the point of more damaging than useful. This video was a little bit alarmist, but professional and relevant, as in this one, you at least had a competent lawyer relaying a real conversation that I have no doubt he relayed to us accurately. But it was with an ATF agent who's words are on a topic she's talking above her pay grade on, that struck me as more of a CYA flippant answer, than a sneak peak at the master plan. Also, in the actual ATF FAQ, they address this very question, and basically say if you are denied, and feel the denial is in error, and it's after the 120 day window now, you may refile via paper for the amnesty program offered. In the end, I don't believe the insinuation that this is an insidious masterminded trap designed to mass prosecute people - as much as I do have to acknowledge the basis for the sentiment behind that suspicion. There have been... issues, in the past. That said, I don't put it above ATF to just clusterfuck the whole thing and end up being a mess, where some degree of that ends up happening in the end. Just wait. Wherever you are, just sit and wait. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/fo2qw1y35zd61_jpg-2678724.JPG Something this well vetted by the ATF lawyers after months and months of work by them with god only knows how many man hours they put into that document and you think it's just a total accident they missed this detail and totally forgot to educate the people paid to represent them to the public. Wow... just fucking wow. At least you aren't claiming Nolo just made the whole fucking thing up. They didn't miss the detail. She did. They address this at least in part, in the FAQ. People are reading a whole lot into a flippant answer from an underqualified agent who isn't even printed a logo'd card. NOLO's good. Glad he's on it. I think he's surrounded by an emotionally charged crowd right now too. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that they sent a totally unqualified agent to a public convention to act as the face of their agency you think that the average agent on the street will have their act together better than the person the ATF sent to represent them to this public event? The reason people are pissed is that the wolf is telling you they are going to eat us and some sheep are saying well, they really don't mean they are really going to eat us. Fuck that noise. I'll give you that. Frankly - I'm with you on that. |
|
Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.); Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.); Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.); Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.); Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or Dishonorably discharged from the military; So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? |
|
Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. |
|
Quoted: Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Quoted: Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.); Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.); Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.); Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.); Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or Dishonorably discharged from the military; So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Thanks man.. That's all anyone here needs to see to know how much to value your opinion. You just showed everyone who you are. |
|
Quoted: Dumb bitch at 33min talking to them like their kids. Quoted: Dumb bitch at 33min talking to them like their kids. She may not even be giving good advice to dealer-FFLs stuck with re-classified dead inventory. Telling a dealer-FFL to simply “replace the barrel with a 16” barrel” I believe is something the ATF considers manufacturing. So for non-manufacturing licensed FFL removal of the brace and/or non-functional extension/buffer tube might be the only recourse. Covered around the 45 minute mark. Attached File |
|
Quoted: Thanks man.. That's all anyone here needs to see to know how much to value your opinion. You just showed everyone who you are. So instead of addressing and countering anything which I have said (which is more than reasonable, I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass here, we're just talking about the facts), you are just ducking any type of discussion because of, what, some appeal to authority? This isn't a Project Veritas secretly recorded video of him recording an ATF agent, it's literally heresay and is not anything that we don't already know that the ATF and Law Enforcement already to, which is to remove guns from those who may have already been transferred them after it's found they are a prohibited possessor. Yes, the people should know that is an added risk, but I believe this goes without saying already when buying a gun from a gun store, does it not? |
|
Quoted: Braced 16"+ ARs and other similar guns exist. They became popular in California because not being intended to be fired from the shoulder (and CA DOJ declaring that braces are not stocks unless individually determined otherwise) and not meeting the CA definition of a handgun due to barrel length, they were in a category of firearm known as an "other" which was exempt from the AWB until it was amended recently, as the AWB only applied to rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and these guns were none of the above. There is a similar Federal category (Title 1 Other or firearm, IIRC). I think Franklin Armory was selling guns configured this way. Quoted: Quoted: But the original AR pistols in the 90s (80s, when was the first AR pistol?) that lacked a butt stock weren’t intended to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm that lacks a butt stock is either an AOW, firearm (no special category), or pistol. The argument is that something that can function as a stock, is a stock. A screwdriver can function as a scraper or pry bar, but it is neither. Interestingly, no one sells 16” barrelled rifles using a brace as a stock (that I’m aware of), so braces aren’t stocks. Once one has a firearm that can freely take a stock, real stocks are used. The feds are going to waste an awful lot of money and effort on nothing of criminological consequence just to continue to feel in control of an archaic law already made useless to some extent by modular designs. Braced 16"+ ARs and other similar guns exist. They became popular in California because not being intended to be fired from the shoulder (and CA DOJ declaring that braces are not stocks unless individually determined otherwise) and not meeting the CA definition of a handgun due to barrel length, they were in a category of firearm known as an "other" which was exempt from the AWB until it was amended recently, as the AWB only applied to rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and these guns were none of the above. There is a similar Federal category (Title 1 Other or firearm, IIRC). I think Franklin Armory was selling guns configured this way. Well, according to Mr. ATF in their Shot Shitshow Seminar those can now be rifles because taken in totality the brace is a stock, ya know because a brace on a Barott .50 is a stock too. Does Barott even make a .50 with a barrel less than 16”. These clowns would see you caged or murdered over this through-the-looking-glass word dissembling. |
|
Quoted: Well, according to Mr. ATF in their Shot Shitshow Seminar those can now be rifles because taken in totality the brace is a stock, ya know because a brace on a Barott .50 is a stock too. Does Barott even make a .50 with a barrel less than 16”. These clowns would see you caged or murdered over this through-the-looking-glass word dissembling. Both him and the lady were talking out of their asses, big time. |
|
Random high school basketball game in a midwestern rural town. Several guys from different towns having a conversation about pistol braces standing in line for the concession stand. I think there are way, way more of those out there than anyone in authority seems to think. Quoted: But the original AR pistols in the 90s (80s, when was the first AR pistol?) that lacked a butt stock weren’t intended to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm that lacks a butt stock is either an AOW, firearm (no special category), or pistol. As a trivia point, there were ARs sold as pistols in the 80s that were XM177 clones with a carbine stock pinned in the closed position. |
|
Quoted: Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. Quoted: Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. Would you need to switch out the buffer tube too? |
|
Quoted: Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Quoted: Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.); Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.); Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.); Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.); Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or Dishonorably discharged from the military; So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Actually I think the NSSF, TTAG, etc scream FOR prosecution for lying on the 4473, e.g. Hunter Biden. There are statistics about 4473, denial, and follow up arrests /prosecution. It's dismal and comical and pathetic - here the FFL is gift wrapping a felony denial, and has the perp, etc, and the ATF FBI etc is like "nah we won't follow up, let's go hassle ADCO. Send the SS to go steal Hunter Biden 4473 records." Sheesh. Example https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440 In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases. Helllloooooo -- take out false denials or delays and UPIN cases .. surely we could find more than 12 dangerous felons and known wolves to throw behind bars. |
|
Quoted: Actually I think the NSSF, TTAG, etc scream FOR prosecution for lying on the 4473, e.g. Hunter Biden. There are statistics about 4473, denial, and follow up arrests /prosecution. It's dismal and comical and pathetic - here the FFL is gift wrapping a felony denial, and has the perp, etc, and the ATF FBI etc is like "nah we won't follow up, let's go hassle ADCO. Send the SS to go steal Hunter Biden 4473 records." Sheesh. Example https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440 In fiscal 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,700 denied purchases to its field divisions for investigation. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorney’s Offices prosecuted 12 of these cases. Helllloooooo -- take out false denials or delays and UPIN cases .. surely we could find more than 12 dangerous felons and known wolves to throw behind bars. Interesting, this is the first I've seen these stats, I was under the impression that prosecution was much higher than 12 holy shit. I mean this is again just more reinforcement that this is a giant problem for the ATF that they are incapable of dealing with regardless which way the public leans via compliance or otherwise. But "the sky is falling" shit is so cringe, It's really tiresome. |
|
Quoted: Both him and the lady were talking out of their asses, big time. Quoted: Quoted: Well, according to Mr. ATF in their Shot Shitshow Seminar those can now be rifles because taken in totality the brace is a stock, ya know because a brace on a Barott .50 is a stock too. Does Barott even make a .50 with a barrel less than 16”. These clowns would see you caged or murdered over this through-the-looking-glass word dissembling. Both him and the lady were talking out of their asses, big time. The concern is the same level of understanding and commitment & certainty in position will be the training & marching orders for armed, persistent, committed men of action looking to execute on this new Indian Treaty. Free blankets… |
|
Quoted: I can't believe this smug ass lady thinks she's the good guy. Quoted: I can't believe this smug ass lady thinks she's the good guy. They’re very comfortable standing in front of a crowd of people they’re fucking over for no good reason. That’s very disturbing. |
|
On a side note, the trust popup has been fixed: Accordingly, any trust that seeks to register a "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm pursuant to Final Rule 2021R-08F must include with the eForm 1 application evidence that establishes the trust is the current possessor of the "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm, and possessed it before the date the Final Rule is published in the Federal Register. This evidence will generally include the signed, dated, and notarized terms of the trust or trust schedules that list or provide a description of the property held in trust. Accordingly, for trust applicants, ATF will perform a thorough review of the trust documents provided with the eForm 1 application to ensure the firearm sought to be registered to the trust was property possessed by the trust before the date the Final Rule is published in the Federal Register. Therefore, an eForm 1 application to register a "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm to a trust will be disapproved if the applicant fails to demonstrate the trust possessed the firearm before the date the Final Rule is published in the Federal Register. Some code jockey just put that date in as a place holder and no one caught it before the release went to production.... Guess how I know this... |
|
Quoted: Kharn (some update edits in red for clarity, this morn) Watched it. To their credit, ATF did bring the people qualified to answer questions, to this presentation. And they did a decent job of engaging in the presentation and Q&A, TBH. I can see how some folks may not react well to her style, but I thought she was fine. She was ATF's best choice for the job. The only one that demonstrated might have done as well was the older blonde - who looks like the agency employee there who actually does work. Stage guy was closer to condescending and combative than red-coat chick. what I got out of Q&A: They do make sure to reiterate that the rule is NOT yet in effect. The fellow at the ATF table in the black suit, bald, bad beard (where the council brain-trust was) - have we seen him before somewhere? He looks familiar like he's shown up in video's before and I can't place him. He is one of the higher authorities on the ATF legal interpretations. Per video (it looks like they have their big-guns here, so probably what they say in this video is going to be correct.. probably) Items in transit: recipient apparently is consider legal, even if it arrives after date, if it was in transit. BUT, that would be your FFL - not you. So transfer to you, will fall under the old conventional NFA transfer requirements rule though. (Interesting to see the question of "what happens during transit" is answered). Also, apparently since it's not published yet, FFL's are good to go to transfer existing arm-brace inventory as before - until publish (I know some FFL's are pissed and freaked out over that question). They don't have an answer to who owns and is allowed to be under amnesty, if the gun is in pawn or under repair. I'll give them props to saying they don't know, vs making shit up at least. It sounds like they are advising the pawn shops/gunsmiths to return with the brace removed, when done, to be sure. Which doesn't really answer the question on if those folks are eligible for amnesty registries - if they desire. Standard buffer tube isn't a stock and won't be called one. (but wait, this comes up again) FFL's who end up with 100 armbrace now SBR guns, yes, can sell those as NFA items; without getting an SOT; this one time to divest. Not clear to me how that works, since they still will have to be NFA transferred, but apparently this comforted some of the FFLs in the room. Not sure I said this right. One of the speakers (more Sr. Blonde lady - the one every office has, who's the one that actually gets shit done) apparently is her job to improve processing times, and is saying this impact on the regular load is going to be managed and shouldn't excessively slow that down. Apparently has recently added and gotten through training 20 new examiners to help with the existing backlog. And are "plussing up resources" to help with the anticipated surge from this - whatever that means. (FBI?) For markings - answering an FFL question: "You can adopt the markings that the manufacturer already put on there.... If you are an FFL, we really shouldn't be dealing with anything that isn't already marked". (I guess if an FFL, and you end up with someones 80%, you were supposed to already have marked it then, anyway.) Holy shit, and now they just contradicted the whole conventional buffer tube vs bare pistol buffer tube. OK, Stage chick, actually did fine. Stage dude, bungled it a bit. And black-suit bad-beard guy corrects him, and says no, you can have the normal buffer tube, but you can't have the brace, or a stock, with it (constructive intent) - which kind of sucks, because I suppose anyone who owns spare stocks, would be at risk of that - if they elected to go the route of compliance of removing the brace only. They recommend a pistol buffer tube, but not a hard requirement. Stage guy cleans up his act a bit here. If have a rifle with stock + a pistol (conventional carbine bare of a stock or armbrace tube) in the same trunk of the car, then no, ATF doesn't call that constructive intent since both firearms are complete and complete in Non-NFA configuration. Questions that should have been asked: -For people who thought in good faith put on a buffer tube and short barrel on a gun that started as a rifle (technically a no-no), are those able to be register such under this amnesty? There ARE going to be people who did this. -Confirmation on the 88-day drama-fest we had earlier today -Confirmation that once NFA registered, reconfiguring it from SBR back to non NFA configuration, is sufficient to allow handling and transfer of the firearm as a Title 1 gun, with no further action. (Maybe they addressed that during their actual presentation - which I skipped?) -Confirmation that the trust registration is a HARD 1/13/23, or is it by publication date? (There's a potential for Trust dudes to get seriously hosed here btw, if they moved over to the trust within the window and intended to register, and now the locked-out trust owns the guns, not the individual, who is now locked out as well, since he doesn't own the guns on go-date, the Trust does - the Trust that didn't own them before 1/13/23). -In light of the USSC ruling in Bruen and instructions to the judiciary to apply 2nd amendment more literally. What is ATF's intended defense in court to the upcoming lawsuits on that topic? |
|
Quoted: Would you need to switch out the buffer tube too? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. Would you need to switch out the buffer tube too? One probably should if they are going that route. If I owned any braces, I wouldn't but then again I'm very lazy and am old enough to not GAF. ETA: According the the fATF Q&A post above this one; the standard tube is fine? So, who really knows anymore. 
|
|
Quoted: One probably should if they are going that route. If I owned any braces, I wouldn't but then again I'm very lazy and am old enough to not GAF. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. Would you need to switch out the buffer tube too? One probably should if they are going that route. If I owned any braces, I wouldn't but then again I'm very lazy and am old enough to not GAF. Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. |
|
Quoted: Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. Pack it in a box and store it there. How is anyone of note going to know unless y'all tell them. Or, give it to the family member to then give back to you after the courts smack fATF's pee-pee. It is the family member's legitimate property until they give it back to you. We did this with firearms all the time when someone would have bail conditions (private sale state). It was a non-issue. I wouldn't have a bit of concern giving a brace to a family member that doesn't have an AR pistol in their household. IMHO, it's not really a calculable risk. Would you need to switch out the buffer tube too? One probably should if they are going that route. If I owned any braces, I wouldn't but then again I'm very lazy and am old enough to not GAF. Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. I added to my post before reading this. Yep, it's all sorta, maybe, perhaps... vague. Life's too short for me to wrangle up all of the firearm parts and be concerned about playing "Mother May I" with the feebs. IMHO, this latest ruling is going to be pretty much DOA soon. If it stands, there's no rule of law anymore and we might as well put stocks on there. |
|
Quoted: Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/504/505.html summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co.#:~:text=The%20legal%20dispute%20in%20United%20States%20v.%20Thompson-Center,a%20short-barreled%20rifle%20under%20the%20National%20Firearms%20Act. |
|
Quoted: I tend to agree with this grumpy gentleman.  A large percent of the gun-legal videos are clickbait and fluff. 2 minute intro, some begging for likes/subscribes/comments, then repetitively dragging the point to stretch one single thought into a 15 minute video. Then on top of that, you got the gunsandgadgets guy and those like him where every video is some chicken little, sky is falling, end of the world issue that turns out to be a nothingburger. If you post one of these videos, don't expect everybody to watch it. I'm not gonna. How about you take the time to click the little share button on the video, then pull the auto-generated closed captioning transcript, and paste that for us? https://iili.io/Hcfp8rv.png Quoted: Quoted: No. I don't have the time to spend on a 12 minute video so someone can make a living on YouTube. If the information could be conveyed in a short paragraph that takes 12 seconds to read, expecting people to watch a q2 minute video is ridiculous. I have seen so many videos posted in this thread that I'd be occupied for hours if I watched them all. Just fucking no. Posting videos without a synopsis for busy people should be a bannable offense. And, the site should charge you to post videos if it's your own channel. I tend to agree with this grumpy gentleman. A large percent of the gun-legal videos are clickbait and fluff. 2 minute intro, some begging for likes/subscribes/comments, then repetitively dragging the point to stretch one single thought into a 15 minute video. Then on top of that, you got the gunsandgadgets guy and those like him where every video is some chicken little, sky is falling, end of the world issue that turns out to be a nothingburger. If you post one of these videos, don't expect everybody to watch it. I'm not gonna. How about you take the time to click the little share button on the video, then pull the auto-generated closed captioning transcript, and paste that for us? https://iili.io/Hcfp8rv.png That's exactly what this one is too, IMO. |
|
Quoted: It is worth watching as the presenter seems to know his topic. No matter where you are on this topic, just sit for a bit. But TBH, I wouldn't read too much into that. You have a couple ATF flunkies who aren't even issued cards, assigned to SHOT show, where everyone can stare daggers at them. This isn't their best and brightest. A lawyer walks up and starts asking questions. Number 1 priority is to Look Official and Important, and #2 priority is not have that lawyer walking off with a statement form you, that could be you saying people can get away with shit. Frankly, I think you had an inept ATF agent who is about 4 floors 2 buildings, and 3 states away from the decision room; saying answers from the position of showing strength in a room full of hostiles, to a lawyer asking questions she doesn't know the answer to. That's how I saw it. But yea, worth asking and following up on. One of a lot of questions and general vibe I would suggest just sitting and let ferret out for a month or so, before rushing out to register at the front end of this 120 day window; if that's your intended path. Also, FWIW, the 88 days (seriously? that's the number? wow) apparently is based on when the background check is initiated, not based on the number of days after one filed. And props to GOA video creators to add that correction - they get professionalism and credibility points from me on that. Frankly, the vast bulk of commentary media on this topic is emotionally charged, poorly executed, and just unprofessional - to the point of more damaging than useful. This video was a little bit alarmist, but professional and relevant, as in this one, you at least had a competent lawyer relaying a real conversation that I have no doubt he relayed to us accurately. But it was with an ATF agent who's words are on a topic she's talking above her pay grade on, that struck me as more of a CYA flippant answer, than a sneak peak at the master plan. Also, in the actual ATF FAQ, they address this very question, and basically say if you are denied, and feel the denial is in error, and it's after the 120 day window now, you may refile via paper for the amnesty program offered. In the end, I don't believe the insinuation that this is an insidious masterminded trap designed to mass prosecute people - as much as I do have to acknowledge the basis for the sentiment behind that suspicion. There have been... issues, in the past. That said, I don't put it above ATF to just clusterfuck the whole thing and end up being a mess, where some degree of that ends up happening in the end. Just wait. Wherever you are, just sit and wait. Quoted: It is worth watching as the presenter seems to know his topic. No matter where you are on this topic, just sit for a bit. But TBH, I wouldn't read too much into that. You have a couple ATF flunkies who aren't even issued cards, assigned to SHOT show, where everyone can stare daggers at them. This isn't their best and brightest. A lawyer walks up and starts asking questions. Number 1 priority is to Look Official and Important, and #2 priority is not have that lawyer walking off with a statement form you, that could be you saying people can get away with shit. Frankly, I think you had an inept ATF agent who is about 4 floors 2 buildings, and 3 states away from the decision room; saying answers from the position of showing strength in a room full of hostiles, to a lawyer asking questions she doesn't know the answer to. That's how I saw it. But yea, worth asking and following up on. One of a lot of questions and general vibe I would suggest just sitting and let ferret out for a month or so, before rushing out to register at the front end of this 120 day window; if that's your intended path. Also, FWIW, the 88 days (seriously? that's the number? wow) apparently is based on when the background check is initiated, not based on the number of days after one filed. And props to GOA video creators to add that correction - they get professionalism and credibility points from me on that. Frankly, the vast bulk of commentary media on this topic is emotionally charged, poorly executed, and just unprofessional - to the point of more damaging than useful. This video was a little bit alarmist, but professional and relevant, as in this one, you at least had a competent lawyer relaying a real conversation that I have no doubt he relayed to us accurately. But it was with an ATF agent who's words are on a topic she's talking above her pay grade on, that struck me as more of a CYA flippant answer, than a sneak peak at the master plan. Also, in the actual ATF FAQ, they address this very question, and basically say if you are denied, and feel the denial is in error, and it's after the 120 day window now, you may refile via paper for the amnesty program offered. In the end, I don't believe the insinuation that this is an insidious masterminded trap designed to mass prosecute people - as much as I do have to acknowledge the basis for the sentiment behind that suspicion. There have been... issues, in the past. That said, I don't put it above ATF to just clusterfuck the whole thing and end up being a mess, where some degree of that ends up happening in the end. Just wait. Wherever you are, just sit and wait. So another case of "ignorance is no excuse" unless of course you are the one charged with enforcement.  Quoted: The lawyer in the video is Nolo. Correct, it had already been posted. |
|
Quoted: So after you submit the form one, you can just throw stocks on your guns? Because they are already SBRs? And you have the pending paperwork? Why does this BS keep coming up. Zero logic to support this assumption. Maybe you are aft and just trying to lure someone into making this mistake - entrapment comes to mind. |
|
Quoted: Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. One would assume that if there is a lawful use for parts, spares are no problem legally. Owning just one taxed, signature approved, tax stamped, registered SBR that multiple short uppers and a variety of modular stock configurations can fit onto gives those parts a lawful use. Once again they discuss this law as if modular firearms don’t exist. Plenty of dealers who sell uppers, built up lowers, and upgrade parts could be imputed to be in constructive possession of untaxed SBRs. Dealers don’t have much worry there because their lawful explanation is business inventory for display, sales, repairs. Few would sell those parts together in a single sale, however. The problem is the gun tax police know their odds of catching a tax cheat in possession is low so they keep trying to pervert their rules up the supply chain. Why under these circumstances they’d want to create a sea of legal, proper-stock equipped, un-engraved SBRs that makes local law enforcement threshold of detection higher is counter productive. So I suspect some other utility function is at work. |
|
Quoted: Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Quoted: Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.); Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.); Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.); Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.); Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or Dishonorably discharged from the military; So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Yes....people should 100% not listen to one of the most prominent 2A lawyers on this site, who's been balls deep on fighting state and federal laws.....they should listen to the low post count new guy. 
|
|
Quoted: Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? Quoted: Quoted: That's your take on @NoloContendere and his knowledge and motivation? Is he God or something? My take is I'm hearing talk from a supposed Law Professional who has said after talking to two rando .gov employees who (regardless of their stated position) he admits not to not having their shit together or being able to cite from the ruling's text to explain the specific matter. The question that was asked was "if the individual is DENIED on his application, what happens", and subsequent response being "an enforcement action". Instead of a discussion of how or why one may be denied and what an "enforcement action" may mean, we get ' "Holy Hell guys, you heard it first, REGISTRATION MEANS THEIR KICKING DOWN YOUR DOOR AND SHOOTING YOUR DOG". Again, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept the new found info, but I'm asking a simple question of wtf does an "88 day" thing mean at all when on an NFA application one can be in NICS hell for months without the application being denied, and how is this different than somebody failing a NICS check after having already been transferred a firearm at a gun shop after the Brady Date following a 4473 application? Who's screaming about the sky is falling there? I mean, we willingly fill out a Form 4473 knowing well that "lying" on the form is a felony alone. The same criteria for owning a regular firearm is the same for owning an NFA item, which is Felon - (Additionally, persons awaiting trial on felony charges are prohibited from receiving firearms.); Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); Alien - (Includes illegal aliens and aliens lawfully admitted under non-immigrant visas, i.e., those aliens not admitted for permanent residence. This provision does not prohibit aliens who lawfully possess a so-called “green card” from possessing guns or ammunition.); Is subject to a domestic restraining order - (The order must prohibit contact with an intimate partner, or child of the subject, and must have been issued only after a hearing of which the subject was notified and at which the subject had an opportunity to participate. The order must also find the subject poses a threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or must prohibit the use, threatened use or attempted use of physical force.); Has a prior conviction for domestic assault - (Includes a prior conviction for any assault or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a present or former spouse or partner or child or guardian of any such person. The subject must have been entitled to a jury trial and been represented by counsel in the prior proceeding or be shown to have waived those rights.); Fugitive from justice - (Fled any state to avoid being prosecuted or to avoid testifying in any criminal proceeding.); or Dishonorably discharged from the military; So why are we not screaming for people not to comply with going to a gun store and completing a 4473 when the risks are potentially the same (especially with the Biden DOJ)? |
|
Quoted: I have read in the NFA subforum here, multiple instances, of people being denied Form 1/4s because their background check "timed out". It’s pretty common on reddit NFA and Form 1 sub-Reddit’s too. The whole FBI dies NICS for NFA is a clusterfuck. FBI does NFA NICS check at a lower priority. A big rush of “tax-forebeared” registrations won’t help that bottleneck. Regular paid Form 1 and Form 4s are very likely going to get delayed even if ATF “plus-ups” their form reviewers for their cattle drive. |
|
Quoted: Holy shit, and now they just contradicted the whole conventional buffer tube vs bare pistol buffer tube. OK, Stage chick, actually did fine. Stage dude, bungled it a bit. And black-suit bad-beard guy corrects him, and says no, you can have the normal buffer tube, but you can't have the brace, or a stock, with it (constructive intent) - which kind of sucks, because I suppose anyone who owns spare stocks, would be at risk of that - if they elected to go the route of compliance of removing the brace only. They recommend a pistol buffer tube, but not a hard requirement. Stage guy cleans up his act a bit here. If have a rifle with stock + a pistol (bare tube) in the same trunk of the car, then no, ATF doesn't call that constructive intent since both firearms are complete and complete in Non-NFA configuration. What if I take the brace off but still keep it, but I already have SBR ARs that it could go on? I do have a legal way to use the brace. |
|
"This circumstance caused the court to apply the rule of lenity since the NFA carries criminal penalties with it. This meant that ambiguous statutes are interpreted against the government." |
|
Quoted: https://youtu.be/DggOmUXxVWY?t=284 video queued up to the right point around 5 minute mark. What a load of unadulterated bullshit you are spitting out of your mouth and you should be ashamed. He says in the video he JUST talked directly to the ATF and is reporting what was said in that RECENT conversation. I mean if you gotta make shit up, go for it, but how about not in a thread that is discussing how millions of people are about be arrested and treated like felons because some un-elected desk jockeys changed their minds about something they have no right to change their minds about. It's not for clicks it for justice, freedom and American fucking way of life. Quoted: Quoted: It's nothing that hasn't already been posted in this thread. Just in a sensationalized video for clicks. https://youtu.be/DggOmUXxVWY?t=284 video queued up to the right point around 5 minute mark. What a load of unadulterated bullshit you are spitting out of your mouth and you should be ashamed. He says in the video he JUST talked directly to the ATF and is reporting what was said in that RECENT conversation. I mean if you gotta make shit up, go for it, but how about not in a thread that is discussing how millions of people are about be arrested and treated like felons because some un-elected desk jockeys changed their minds about something they have no right to change their minds about. It's not for clicks it for justice, freedom and American fucking way of life. Nolo said he talked directly to ONE ATF agent. ONE agent who said "I'll have to have division get back with you" to answer your question. That "enforcement action" could be varying degrees of severity depending on the situation. If the applicant was denied because they are a prohibited person, well they are probably going to arrest you and seize the illegal SBR. If you refuse to send in fingerprints or failed to respond to a request to make the application complete, they are probably going to stop by your house and ask you to turn over the brace or whole pistol. If you comply they will likely just take the brace or maybe even the whole gun. If you refuse, they will get a warrant and seize the gun and arrest you. |
|
Quoted: I have a question. How far is constructive intent? If I have a family member hold the brace at their home and keep a gun in pistol configuration, would that be constructive intent? This person has no guns in their home. I think it will get struck down, but I can’t risk it with my family. If the parts are "under your control" is what determines that. |
|
Quoted: One would assume that if there is a lawful use for parts, spares are no problem legally. Owning just one taxed, signature approved, tax stamped, registered SBR that multiple short uppers and a variety of modular stock configurations can fit onto gives those parts a lawful use. Once again they discuss this law as if modular firearms don’t exist. Plenty of dealers who sell uppers, built up lowers, and upgrade parts could be imputed to be in constructive possession of untaxed SBRs. Dealers don’t have much worry there because their lawful explanation is business inventory for display, sales, repairs. Few would sell those parts together in a single sale, however. The problem is the gun tax police know their odds of catching a tax cheat in possession is low so they keep trying to pervert their rules up the supply chain. Why under these circumstances they’d want to create a sea of legal, proper-stock equipped, un-engraved SBRs that makes local law enforcement threshold of detection higher is counter productive. So I suspect some other utility function is at work. Quoted: Quoted: Basically... Kinda - is the answer I got out of their Q&A. The regular buffer tube alone isn't an automatic problem, but if you go the regular buffer tube route, make sure you have no spare stocks or braces anywhere. One would assume that if there is a lawful use for parts, spares are no problem legally. Owning just one taxed, signature approved, tax stamped, registered SBR that multiple short uppers and a variety of modular stock configurations can fit onto gives those parts a lawful use. Once again they discuss this law as if modular firearms don’t exist. Plenty of dealers who sell uppers, built up lowers, and upgrade parts could be imputed to be in constructive possession of untaxed SBRs. Dealers don’t have much worry there because their lawful explanation is business inventory for display, sales, repairs. Few would sell those parts together in a single sale, however. The problem is the gun tax police know their odds of catching a tax cheat in possession is low so they keep trying to pervert their rules up the supply chain. Why under these circumstances they’d want to create a sea of legal, proper-stock equipped, un-engraved SBRs that makes local law enforcement threshold of detection higher is counter productive. So I suspect some other utility function is at work. How many collectors have a box or two of random cast off 4 position telestocks, commercial diameter carbine tubes, A2 grips and rifle stocks, slim and single heat shield hand guards, etc? And will just throw their braces in the same boxes? And then have their rainy day box of virgin lowers, next to the boxes upon boxes of NIW Pmags and Daily Deal uppers. Kharn |
|
This video should be at the top of every page. NOLO, knows what’s up. You file and there is no guarantee of a free stamp. Just a promise. They have , by designed and or by sheer stupidity, a means to deny you based on their lack of resources to process your stamp in 88 days. They will deny and enforce, by their own admission, you for possession of an unregistered SBR. Which as an added bonus you’ve admitted to owning when you filed for your tax stamp waiver. Also, you freely providing to them, a picture of the weapon, your name, current address and finger prints.  BREAKING ATF NEWS! Gun Owners of America Uncovers Fatal Flaw In Pistol Brace Rule...IT'S A TRAP!!! |
|
Quoted: Nolo said he talked directly to ONE ATF agent. ONE agent who said "I'll have to have to division get back with you" to answer your question. That "enforcement action" could be varying degrees of severity depending on the situation. If the applicant was denied because they are a prohibited person, well they are probably going to arrest you and seize the illegal SBR. If you refuse to send in fingerprints or failed to respond to a request to make the application complete, they are probably going to stop by your house and ask you to turn over the brace or whole pistol. If you comply they will likely just take the brace or maybe even the whole gun. If you refuse, they will get a warrant and seize the gun and arrest you. Bless your heart. |
|
Quoted: This video should be at the top of every page. NOLO, knows what's up. You file and there is no guarantee of a free stamp. Just a promise. They have , by designed and or by sheer stupidity, a means to deny you based on their lack of resources to process your stamp in 88 days. They will deny and enforce, by their own admission, you for possession of an unregistered SBR. Which as an added bonus you've admitted to owning when you filed for your tax stamp waiver. Also, you freely providing to them, a picture of the weapon, your name, current address and finger prints.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggOmUXxVWY |
|
Quoted: This video should be at the top of every page. NOLO, knows what’s up. You file and there is no guarantee of a free stamp. Just a promise. They have , by designed and or by sheer stupidity, a means to deny you based on their lack of resources to process your stamp in 88 days. They will deny and enforce, by their own admission, you for possession of an unregistered SBR. Which as an added bonus you’ve admitted to owning when you filed for your tax stamp waiver. Also, you freely providing to them, a picture of the weapon, your name, current address and finger prints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggOmUXxVWYQuoted: This video should be at the top of every page. NOLO, knows what’s up. You file and there is no guarantee of a free stamp. Just a promise. They have , by designed and or by sheer stupidity, a means to deny you based on their lack of resources to process your stamp in 88 days. They will deny and enforce, by their own admission, you for possession of an unregistered SBR. Which as an added bonus you’ve admitted to owning when you filed for your tax stamp waiver. Also, you freely providing to them, a picture of the weapon, your name, current address and finger prints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggOmUXxVWYWhat’s the rule against self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment? ETA: Proper application? ”The privilege allows an individual to reject producing or turning over incriminating documents that constitute self-incriminating testimony even if that person is served with a subpoena for doing so. The privilege does not prevent the use of some documents, like incriminating:… |