Edited for the ATF's latest clarification.

Ah, you’re right, there is that nugget in there.

It’s just all so weird. They’re bending, outright breaking, or otherwise looking the other way on long eatablished and inflexible laws/rules and now saying it’s ok. What has me and other leery.

Your last sentence says it all.

They certainly didn’t arrive at these options/leniency out of the kindness of their black hearts. I’d wager when it’s brought into a courtroom their defense will be akin to “we gave many options, even bent our rules” hoping that it shows “good faith” and won’t get slapped down. I hope a judge sees past that and strikes it down anyways

Assuming the ATF doesn't change their position yet again on any aspect of this whole doorknob fucking escapade of theirs.

Correct.  I had my lingo wrong. Thanks!

The way the AOP reads:

I, *USMCsilver*, as grantor of the *name of Trust*, hereby assign and transfer all of my rights, title, and interest in the following property:
XXX
XXX
... to *USMCsilver*, as trustee of the "name of Trust" dated January 27, 2023.

WELL SHIT - looking at trustee definitions, it has my wife and son (a minor) listed like this:

D. Successor Trustee - Upon death or incapacity of USMCsilver, the trustee of this trust and any children's subtrusts created by it shall be *wife's name*.

When setting them up in the Trust, I recall them being beneficiaries. I understand beneficiaries don't have to fill out the RPQ/prints/photos.

SO... Only upon my death is someone else a trustee, correct? They should NOT need RPQ stuff since they're otherwise not named.

That's my understanding of it yes.

Lol.

So they change statute in their rule, then change more statute in order to make it possible to comply with.

(Will likely repost in one of the subforums, but starting here.)

Reading it now.  I'll just put my notes here as I uncover them.  Please note, I consider the letter signed by the USAG Garland to carry weight upon the allowable conduct a judge will accept.  The question is, what does the LETTER say, vs what does ATF at times say, and my eye is on that as well, as I read this.

Intro - basically what we all know and has been hashed out.  They use the term "objectively", which is to say if it obviously looks like and can be used like a stock, it basically is - and then later give criteria and a basis that are... er, somewhat, defined.  That's not so unconstitutionally vague as people act.

Page 2:
-There it is, they specifically reference MAC "NFA NutKicker" youtube video as evidence (amongst others) of intent.   Dumbass.
-4999.  It's not really as dead as everyone says, it's just not super key anymore.
-Basically it's an SBR based on their 6 criteria points they will be looking at.  Weight, Length of pull, sighting system, surface area of brace, manufacturers (and other promotional by those sponsored, like MAC) marketing materials related to usage, information demonstrating likely usage.  (with fairly scant quantification).
-Rescinds prior letters (which they then spend half the document justifying and saying aren't really wrong)
-If you had possession, you were already in violation of the NFA.  (meaning if there's a record of your purchase of that SKU...)  
-"possessors of such weapons, whether an unlicensed individual or an FFL, may register the firearms to comply with the statutory requirements."  and "Any penalties for failure to take the necessary action for the existing firearms to comply with Federal law would result only from conduct occurring after this time period to take action ends."
(I find the usage of the word "conduct", to be an interesting and carefully selected word.)
-"The Department will consider individuals to be in compliance with the statutory requirements between the date on which a person's application is filed, and the date a person receives ATF approval or disapproval of the application."  So that's your e-mail acknowledgement, counting as your good-to-go.  Frankly, that reads to me that you can put a stock on right away - is how I read that; since you are now in compliance.

page 4

-After the 120 day gig for those weapons affected, the gig closes and "The Department at that time may take enforcement action against any person in possession of an affected firearm that is a short-barreled rifle for which a registration has not been submitted".  Meaning no AHA Gotcha for submitting, and also, they are not going to do enforcement before then, if it still has an armbrace that is.  Again, I find the usage of the word "May" to be a carefully selected word.  Meaning, they May Not, as well.  My personal opinion is that for the vast majority of random private citizens, they Won't.  Though if I were MAC, I'm guessing he's well aware Copper Custom is going to get an audit on June 1; bet you they have a hardon for his NFANutkicker.
-Some language on modifications, as a route.
-$200 fee waiver.
-Anything NEW within the 120 period, is not covered and will be treated like straight new NFA.  (basically, a shot at PSA et al, that they will immediately begin enforcement upon them starting today, if they continue to make and sell <16" AR's with stabilizing braces and not register and treat as NFA SBR's).
-ATF economics estimate.  Which is of course bullshit, but it's likely some kind of requirement by code somewhere that they have to come up with a number.  They are claiming $266.9 million dollars as the cost of the rule.  (LOVE the 4 sig-figs of precision on that).  Which is of course bullshit, because they are counting the $200 tax stamp losses, in addition to admin costs.  That's lost fantasy revenues, since over the last 10 years, you were never going to get $266.9 million dollars worth of new SBR registrations on its own.  I'd call them slimy fucks for pull that shit, but that's DC, every department everywhere does this crap, and it's just part of the game.  Which means they all are basically shady, I suppose. The real question is what additional administration and operating expense is the ATF going to incur from doing this? It's not going to be super trivial, but it's no $300MM.     Followed up by For The Public Safety.  The political theater of all isn't really my purpose here, so whatever.
-Quotes the USCode giving the USAG authority to do all this (which is actually true, well at least for the tax waiver and prosecution enforcement pause)

Page 5-20
-References the GCA violations as 5 years, $250,000 and NFA which is 10 years, $10,000.  While the ATF deserves (ahem) .. ire, at times (looking at you Weaver family and WACO, plus more), the reality is this problem orginates from a fucking whacked out Congress that passed absurd level penalties for this shit.  These prison sentences and fines are INSANE, in comparison to such for acutally hurting people.  But I digress.  Well, that and a USSC that was complicit with the whole shit.
-Some blah blah -  prior letters weren't really our fault  (which, hate to say it, is only partially bullshit - lots of people read way more into those letters than was there.  What IS their fault is their lack of follow-up on enforcement allowed this to runaway, and a lot of good folks thought they were being compliant, who now find themselves going WTF?!)  
-And documenting how people submitted one thing for the letters, and then kind of went runaway on things weren't submitted. (which, again, is actually kind of true - but take that up with Springfield Armory - not random dudes who bought legit shit on the shelf wall)
-I kind of glazed over it after that, as it was just a pile of Brace authorization letters and commentary up the ass.
-WEelllll shit.   I see what they are doing. The build a 15 page case that their prior letters that people used to all buy questionable Arm Brace designs, were in fact consistent and correct.  And frankly, the case isn't as bad as everyone here dismisses.  And so those SB gen3 AR's being mass produced and bought, and were not so approved like that, and were in fact SBR's the whole time.   Meaning, they are making the case that they don't need to Grandfather even.   Crafty.  Might work.  Again though, their failure to enforce that for so long, is going to undermine the shit out of that.  Not sure if that part is addressed or not, I didn't see it but I can't read all this.

Page 20.
-Interesting that they break out form letters.  Basically, if you want to be heard and taken seriously, don't do a form letter - apparently.  Though interesting to see that of the 8% of the letters that were in support of the ruling,  90% of those were form letters.  That tells me there was a major Mother against Guns or whatever movement that they just blanketed people.  I bet at least half of those were fake, TBH.  Of the pro-gun side, about half were originally written comments and letters.  That's not bad.  Also, if 8% of those who wrote in support the rule; with a total of 3% of all respondents being original letters, apparently that means "Many commenters generally supported the rule".  (did you expect them to say anything less?)
-Some of the pro-rule commentary was irritating to read.  
-Ok, they were honest and do say "a majority of commenters opposed the proposed rule..."    And some of these are actually pretty darned well worded and written.  

pg 26
-GROAN:  "...one article posted on SB Tactical's website, dated Dec 23, 2014, which discussed an award for SB Tactical's CEO... states 'its no secret that Bosco's brace can also be used as a shoulder stock by people with two good arms.  With Bosco's brace, all Americans are able to modify an AR-15-style pistol into what's effectively (a short-barreled rifle) - without additional ATF infringement on their gun rights."  
Fuuuuhhhuucck.  That, is the smoking gun that will sink the cause, more than anything.   People got way too comfortable getting away with shit.  Meanwhile the ATF DataCenters were just click click click.  And then more ship-sinking paragraphs of SB shenanigans.  Pro-tip, never just stop wink-wink, when you get away with wink-wink.
-Interesting on how they paint SB Tactical in a bad light by SB's attempt to circumvent "shoulder fired" by showing it sternum fired and chin-fired, basically saying it's therefor obviously shoulder fireable in the manner shown, and that's the bulk of how it will be used.   Mixed emotions on how much I actually buy that, but I can see a judge/jury buy it, with the right presentation.
-And they just pile on piles of NFA Nutkicker style documentation thereafter.

page 31
-Link armbraced guns to crims, including the 19 person massecre.  

page 32
-violates ADA-handicaps.  They say no, because ADA applies to state and local, not Executive branch.  That's a Hell of a path to take, but they say it.  But then go on to state if you have one of the shitter braces nobody wants, and actually use it by a brace, there you go.  Or just register it.   that and, Nobody is allowed to violate the NFA just by being handicapped.

page 35 - buffer tubes.
-Word salad gone wild.  It sounds like a regular buffer tube alone is fine.  

page 37
weight and length.  Basically these are dropped as pre-requisites.     but wait, they then  go word salad again.  And give a several page table fo guns they drew from the National Firearms Collection and weighed (which you have to admit, would have been bad-ass to get that assignment).  Which is to say, if you are as long and heavy as it's rifle counterpart - they are saying it's a rifle.  I guess.

Page 42
-But *I* am using the brace as a brace.  They say that doesn't matter.  

Page 52
-After 10 pages of SEE the ArmBrace is same as a stock!, they then show honey badger on page 52.  To me, that's double dipping dick move, because they already enforced on honey badger for this very thing.  If anything, that selective enforcement lead a lot of people to conclude the other brace systems must be fine, since clearly the ATF is active and  engages in enforcement on what they deem to be an NFA SBR violation - as evidenced by the Honey Badger raid.

Page 68.   First time they've been objectively outright petty.  All the other times they could use those examples as route to show violation.  Here, they call out SB Tactical website for saying "Stiff-Arm The Establishment".   That could mean anything, and even if they meant you ATF, that doesn't mean anything.  

Page 71: This is the one I was worried about. Basically they are making the case that this doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, and reference the 2009 Marzarella case, where "The USSC has made clear the 2nd Amd does not protect ... types of weapons" such as "machine guns or SBR or any other dangerous unusual weapon".   And quite Heller line of "important limitation on TRTKBA with... with historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons", and with that the court rejected challenges to machine gun regulations, and Heller apparently even made it clear that SBR's weren't protected by 2nd amendment"   I
m not super convinced it really said that, but that's what they are claiming.  Maybe.  Basically they are using the fine-print from those very rulings, to make their case.

Page 72: they avoid 4th and 5th amendment arguments saying they aren't taking anything away.  And the tax is free, so that can't be used as a hardship either.  Also site USSC prior ruling that owners "ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless".  

Page 76: Ex Post Factor laws.
Basically they are not criminalizing prior conduct nor will enforce. Only going forward.  and enforcement will be on things only now going forward, which there is plenty of precedent.  And a forebarance is granted, to get everyone into compliance.

Page 78 (Good God this thing just drags on and on):law abiding citizenry are going to be trapped by this, since ATF said it was OK, and now they are not.   ATF responds similarly to before (and this will be the heart of their case), that they did NOT authorize most of the forms of braces that were bought and sold.   Which is great, but again, you guys came down on Honey Badger, and nobody else - sending a pretty strong message that everything else must be OK, and so;  Soccer Dad bought one, thinking it was fine.

Page 79: This was politically motivated and so improper.   Answer, this was initially proposed under the Trump administration.  Which.. welll. shit.

Page 80: But my state bans SBR and Assault weapons, mostly limiting options.  Answer: sucks to be you - not our job.  Combined with, remove the brace and make it actually be a pistol, and there you go.   For the ones that don't pragmatically have any options, well, there's not very many of you.  (Seriously, it kind of says that).

Page 82:  What if I submit towards the end, and the system is bogged down, and I don't get my emailed letter of acknowledgement in time?  We got you buddy, we'll extend that for you "in our enforcement discretion".  

Page 86:
-is where they document that you can use pre-existing markings on the firearm, and not engrave.  (80% boys will have to)

Page 87  AH yes, the 922(r) part  (this is kind of the high drama one, that I do have to acknowledge did cause some concern)  
-You don't have to replace parts, because the crime already happened (it's an action crime, not a possession crime) And "Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in this standalone Regulator Impact Analysis, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy."   TBH, I'm not really sure what that even means.  That doesn't actually say the guns must be destroyed.  I think what they are saying is the portion of such affected firearms that would be destroyed, is the same as the baseline portion of all the other firearms that would elect to go the route of destruction or surrender.   And to come up with an estimate of that number, use the same portion that were turned in during the bumpstock ban, as a Proxy, is I think what that's really saying. It's not well written. But it seems to say what I just said, more that it's saying all imported pistols in question must be destroyed.  That's what it looks like to me.   Note, they use similar language in the very next response regarding brace disposal costs, which is consistent with my own estimated interpretation of that meaning.

Page 92:
On the topic of dudes taking advantage and registering a lot of shit that isn't actually with a brace on it, i thought this was interesting

"...did not offer to forbear the NFAtax out of concern that individuals and entities could register all pistols in their possession as SBR ... with the intent of later(making it an SBR).  The Dept still has concerns that allowing tax-exempt registration could induce individuals to register other firearms with the later intent of creating an SBR. Nevertheless, after careful consideration of the comments, the Dept has decided to forbear the making tax when individuals and entities register their affected firearms within a defined period of time....   ATF form 1 requires individuals to sign under penalty of perjury that the description is accurate..."  with pointing out penalties to suggest don't be playing games.
(basically, they know some people are going to pull shit.  For the most part for a private citizen, meh. But if you do so in a way that they can prove (or your tongue and smart-phone document) that you lied, they could come down on you.  So really, If you DO plan on playing grey games, I would suggest taking some photos with the relevant parts on it, and so you can say "see!  there it is" if it comes up.  Frankly, I would suggest everyone who registers, keeps such a photo on file, under your control   I will say, the language seems very clear on the possession before go date.  I guess I'll need to read it again, but it doesn't say ON high-noon ON specific date, so in theory, if you started your Anderson lower as a pistol briefly before you then turned it into a rifle, and it's a rifle today, I think you can still register it.  At least, that's what I see.  And as an individual, pretty much they aren't going to care.  For businesses and FFL's, expect a higher level of scrutiny if you put down 400 units that are all just stripped lowers right now).

Page 93.  Once gun is in limbo (awaiting Stamp), you can't transfer it.   (I wondered about that.  I think ATF is going to lock down a lot of guns that can't be transferred, by slow-rolling the voluntary processing team overtime team on these.)
- A very curious line here.  "removal of a brace from a firearm originally received as an SBR, results in the production of a "weapon made from Rifle", as defined by the NFA.  ATF will use their authorized discretion to allow all the manufacture of a pistol from a rifle without special requirements, so long as done by May 31."  (with some liberties with wording I took, in my quote).  In some ways, is that a unique backdoor to basically convert a firearm that began life as a rifle, into a pistol, with zero action or communications needed to do so?  A curious opportunity if you bought a SCAR rifle, and now want it to be a SCAR 10" pistol, with no brace, you might actually be able to do that - even though it started life as a rifle.  It also suggests that rifles converted to this configuration, may now remain in this configuration and be registered as well - I think.  And there's no paperwork documentation required.  Just, if it ever comes up 10 years from now (it won't), that hey man, that pistol is a rifle: all you have to do is say no-no, that occurred during the forbearances, which the US AG signed a public legal document saying via his authorized discretion, that was a legal and authorized action.

 
Page 94.  Go day is today.  All transfers of so affected firearms are subject to NFA transfer.   (and here's the question - since they aren't yet stamped, can you transfer them?  It would appear the answer is a hard no.  Which means dealers that chose to just NFA stamp their inventory, now may have unmovable inventory for a long time, since stamps are being treated "special".   Meaning, I think a whole lot of braces are being pulled off and thrown away right now)
-Note this also means the guns are now viewed as NFA.  Giving or selling one to your brother or co-worker, is an NFA violation now.

page 97.   Their modification of the definition of a rifle in code  478.11 is lengthy and sucks.  It's basically a condensed form of the Form 4999 type of logic, with so much handwaving a layman is going to have no idea now.  

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.

Heh, I can drink to that.

*Maybe if I act right, my husband will stop beating me...*

You mean to sit there and tell us the ATF contradicts themselves in a single document while acting outside their legal purview? Gasp. Shock. Surprise.

This is what they wrote.  Do with it as you will.

"Why of course we said people can shoulder braces, BATFE said it was fine"

They were playing chess, not checkers.

Have to disagree with your smoking gun.

Just because one person intends to use a brace as a stock does not make all braces stocks.

If I was a lawyer, I would give a long list of items that are legal but could be used in an illegal way.


Glue. Just because some people sniff it and get high, are we to redefine it as a drug ?

Screwdrivers and icepicks. Just because some people use them as weapons are we to redefine them as weapons.

One could easily give lots of examples.


To decide person As intent by pointing at person Bs use is not a fair application of the law.

Moving on to "designed" - unless and until they find some papertrail ( or an employee as in the case of solvent traps ) that a manufacturer did R+D on how to disguise a stock as a brace - they have no evidence that they are designed as such.

And have to rely on intent...........

They never actually said that.  The perceived inconsistency in their letters, wasn't nearly so much as inconsistent with what people cherry picked, exaggerated, selective heard, and ran to the hills with.  Don't get me wrong, fuck them, not happy with them, hope NFA SBR gets declared unconstitutional.  They mishandled it.  Their actions and inactions indeed set up this shit show; one of which the guys NOT reading this forum are the ones I feel for, as many will have no idea their heretofore seemingly OK possession and behavior, suddenly is not.  But when I read those letters years ago, they didn't say what everyone said and acted like they said.

P93 re: “authorized discression” allowing a factory braced pistol to return to pistol status even though it started as a rifle in their eyes.

I’m curious about the phrasing. Are we talking “in the field” case by case discression? Or “because we make the rules, we’re able to say -from the top- it’s allowed”?

Not really.

That you think the brace rule will stand ckmes across as concern trolling.

I hear you, but none of that is actually going to hold water.  They have pages and pages of documentation showing this is obviously the intent.  And even some damning statements saying it's the intent.  Some of which can be dismissed as just typo's, IMHO.  Some, will be harder.  SB Tactical got cocky, and hosting an article saying that shit on their website, was ego before brains.  Also, just because you don't use machine-gun in full-auto mode, isn't going to be sufficient to say the regulation shouldn't apply to you.  As to glue and screw-drives; those actually do get managed as drugs and weapons, depending on the setting.   Regarding "anything can be a weapon".  Sure, but nobody uses an M2 Browning as a drink coaster - if they can convince a judge and jury such is the obvious intended use; there you go.

ATF was clever in this letter.  They pre-shoot down a lot of our arguments, and do a better job than given cred.  To me, the biggest hole they have is the HoneyBadger enforcement, which defacto sent a confirming message that the other practices are A-OK.  They fail to address that.  But even with that, they are smart enough to claim that all prior letters were actually correct, but mis-run with.  Personally, I wouldn't have rescinded them, because doing so just undermined their very case that they weren't actually wrong or misleading, but just misapplied.  

I think it's more likely to stand than I thought it would yesterday, now that I actually read what the wrote.  They were more clever little fucks than I was expecting.  I still don't think it's certainty though.  I think there's a strong chance aspects of it will not stand.  I wouldn't bank on it.  That said, as a non-FFL regular possessor, your own odds of real problems from ignoring it will likely be remarkably low.  To that end, their usage of certain words was interesting.  They are careful to use words like Conduct, after the 120 days, and words like May.   I think they have a hard-on for the likes of PSA, SB Tactical, and FFLs, who engage in the Conduct of making arm-braced pistols, more than just random dudes who own one, for the most part.  I suspect it will be a rare DA who wants to drag "some guy" in front of a judge over this 121 days from now.

Right -so that one took me a second.  When I first read this, they use the word "discretion", which I initially took to mean "oh, we'll decide, based on how good our coffee was this morning", discretion.  But if you read some of the legal code, there is language that the US AG has the "discretion" to do things.  It's a specific meaning and what I think they are saying is this letter is documenting that "we have taken the discretion", to do this policy, is what I think it really means.  I think it's more definitive than "if we feel like it at the time", which is what it looks like at first glance.

What was different about the Honey Badger?

they had an "arm brace" design with the same LoP as the regular identicle stock, and had a generous section of surface on the back of it.   ATF raided them over it, saying it wasn't an arm-brace and violated NFA as an SBR, and just calling it armbrace was insufficient.

By doing that, they defacto confirmed the criteria for enforcment action, and acknowledged the much higher adopted SB Tactical systems were just fine.

FYI the ATF is offering online training directed at FFLs on the new rule.

There are two more trainings tomorrow. You should listen in.

How does one prove intent ?

1. testimony from someone who says that the defendant told them that he or she intended to commit the crime,

2. an eyewitness saying that the defendant acted deliberately,

3. the defendant's confession that he or she intended to act

It has nothing to do with others intent. Or others use of an article.

In short - each and every brace user would have to individually be proven to have intent.

One cannot just simply decide all users of an article intend it for something for which it was not designed.

You remember those colt lowers that could be built as pistols and sold for $800-1200 a pop?  Time to make some more colt AR pistol-able lowers.

So they are saying there is no need to engrave these since they were already made?

Kind of makes the engraving of any other SBR irrelevant on a serialized weapon as well.

I’ve been wondering that myself. How are they going to know which SBR’s should or shouldn’t have engraving? Is it going to be noted on the approval somehow?

The next rule will probably be mandatory engraving

@Kharn

Thank you for the new signature

And then the next rule after that?


If there is any truth to the adage; History Repeats Itself, then the next rule after that will give you 2 options:

- surrender
- destruction


That's how the State of California did it.
That's how the State of New York did it.

Gentlemen & Ladies:  There is only one reason the federal government needs you to register your pistols.  Solo uno.

It's essentially annotated on the F1 because you checked the tax forbearance box.

All the words and paragraphs makes everyone look over the most important few sentences. The one where the law describes rifle. Then the few sentences in ATF letters where they say adding a brace to a pistol is just that.. a brace on the pistol. It does not remake or reconstruct a pistol into a rifle. Nor a NFA item.

When all semi-automatic rifles and pistols are NFA items, the additional engraving won't be needed anymore. The manufacturer's model and serial numbers will suffice.

The issue I see for them is they can't have any way of knowing who should be engraved on the item.

If you bought a lower and assembled it into a braced pistol, their position is you are the maker and you should engrave your city and name on it.  But what if you tell them you bought the gun secondhand from some guy at a gun show?  Who's name should be engraved?  You flat out dont know who the maker is.  If they did require engravings, they could have 40M forms all with bullshit makers like "Gunny McGunface".  The engraving would be completely useless.  Anybody could make up whatever they wanted and the ATF couldn't prove otherwise.  Even if they knew I ordered a pistol and I ordered a brace, they don't have any clue if hunter biden himself broke into my house and put the brace on the gun.

Separate the alleged NFA violations into the act of making vs the act of possessing.  The engraving is something the maker is supposed to do.  Since they cannot prove who made the "SBR" illegally, and who was supposed to engrave it, they could not tag anybody with improper engraving.  They are saying they will wave the punishment for you possessing the NFA item.  Its not up to the possessor to do the engraving.  That was something the maker was supposed to do.

@EEgeek
Attached File


Kharn

I do got a question someone may can answer. I have gotten into retro rifles the past year. I see many doing the electro etching lowers to look like the original. I even ordered me myself some Colt M16A1. M16A2, Colt 607, and a few other stencils.

Say you had a Colt 607 clone and went to NFA SBR it. You make your own unique serial up before you order the stencil. When you do a form 1, Would you actually put Colts name and address on the form 1 just as you would Palmetto State Armory lower?

No, you are the maker, so it is your information that is engraved and submitted.

And SB Tactical's remarks in 2014 were before ATF said no shouldering in 2015, then changed their minds and said incidental shouldering was OK in 2017.

Kharn

They change the definition of rifle.  It's absurd, but at the end, they take those two sentences that define a rifle, and turn it into 20.  See my last note

Lawsuit printer goes brrrr



https://will-law.org/military-veterans-sue-biden-administration-to-protect-second-amendment-rights/

Chris Dorner discombobulation/terror results x 1,000.  10,000.  50,000.  Terms are being discussed at that point.  Ask the rank-and-file ATF what they think of this “ruling.” The same dudes that stay away from Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans.  Hmm…

Delete]

NRA has promised to file suit:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230130/updates-to-atf-final-rule-on-stabilizing-braces

Probably not going anywhere, but if Republicans actually do their job, this could demonstrate that it's a partisan issue.



https://www.paul.senate.gov/dr-paul-joins-sens-marshall-and-kennedy-rep-clyde-in-reintroducing-short-act-to-roll-back-atfs-new-pistol-brace-rule/

Why should a Citizen have to do ANYTHING because of an arbitrary/capricious decision by some chump-ass agency? Register, sign, ask, plead or even cooperate?  Why do we have to do anything because of an agency’s fuckups?

Fuck them.  Make examples of 10-20-50 or 100 people.  Great!   At some point you are going to cross some lines.  No threat.  Fact.  Now ask yourself, why?  I missed the big pistol brace crime spree.  I read about a bunch of Glock brrtttss!  Do those not keep ya’ll busy enough?  Haha, those motherfuckers will shoot back at your scared ass.

Industry is suing as well.

FRAC (Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition) filed a suit with Franklin Armory on 4 January that involves braces.
https://www.fracaction.org/franklin-armory-and-frac

The FPC suit is solid and even attacks the NFA as violating the 2nd.

I think the courts would likely use one of the lesser attacks to roll back this overreach, and there are many that all have a decent chance.

Ohhh.....   The lawsuits ARE hitting 5th circuit.  And maybe even better than just that.    Oh man, this is going to get interesting.


You know the advise of "don't do jack shit for now".   Yea, stick with that.