We tried the plan where we cower and try to make the ATF happy. We tried it for DECADES.

And you know what it accomplished? Repeatedly losing. Then people stopped trying to placate the bully and we started wining almost every fight.

+1

Who cares? Not I.

$200 is $200

Who’s only mad at the aft? But right, the AFT is made of mostly good hard working folk, it’s just their boss that’s a fag.

This, plus they screwed up (in their view) approving braces to begin with and are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they let the genie out to begin with and think the NFA is bullshit, but there was a real simple way to allow braces for disabled shooter that worked like braces and not stocks and they fucked up. They are trying to undo their decision because they created this market. Some rocket surgeon in government figured this out and told them to fix it.

You need to read up a bit.....

The NRA was the only reason that pistols weren't added to the NFA.

The largest force lobbying for the entire act was the "General Federation of Women’s Groups"

https://www.alternatewars.com/Politics/Firearms/NFA_Hearings_HR-9066_Complete.htm

FP fuckin’ NI.

Fuck the entire ATF, from the top brass, down to the interoffice mail guy, and everyone in-between.

The federal government weaseled around the 2nd Amendment with the NFA, GCA, Hughes, et al; as well as the court decisions that gave them the "precedent" to justify the conflict with the BoR.

They see pistol braces as the populace circumventing around their weaseling in order to get back to a more true 2A environment without exposing themselves to fedgov lawfare. Let's not forget that they approved braces for sale for nearly a decade before changing their minds. Also don't forget a healthy dose of opinions sprinkled into that decade such as "well it's legal if you rest it on your forearm or your dick, but not your shoulder. Ok, now this very same item is legal if you rest it on your shoulder, but only for a little while, kinda."

It's not because they're losing money on NFA stamps. The overhead for that program loses more money than they gain in tax revenue. Moreover, they would reduce overhead and encourage ownership of NFA items by approving form 4s at point of sale like they do for NICS checks in order to increase the revenue stream if it were about money. They'd also probably be back under the Department of the Treasury instead of the DoJ.

It's not because they believe in the rule of law, because if they did, then they wouldn't be enforcing gun control "laws" that conflict with the BoR.

They are allowed to ignore laws, and they get exceptions written into laws for themselves. They are allowed to carry machineguns, SBRs/SBSs, and shoot unarmed mothers holding infant children without any sort of liability or repercussions because someone allegedly said you had a shotgun with a barrel 1/4" shorter than their regulations allow-even though the USAO says it actually isn't. You don't get to do any of those things.

They want registration of everything, the NFA was an increment towards that goal. Mandatory background checks on new gun sales are another one that very obviously lead to the next increment of requiring them on private sales as we see proposed and implemented at the state level already. Then when they know who has everything they can do what Castro's boy up in Canada is doing right now. In their eyes, braces allow one of the classes of weapons that they've already rolled under their umbrella of regulation to be pulled out from under it, which is the opposite direction from where they want to go. Additionally, braces make them look like the buffoons they are, so there is a personal aspect to it as well (sort of like when VW made the EPA look like idiots with their reliable, fuel efficient diesels that passed EPA testing).

Attached File

How is it a slap in the fact of LE as a whole?  The rise in pistol braces has resulted in us seeing a larger number of carbines with sub 16" barrels being seized as evidence at crime scenes, but their use by non-criminals hasnt impacted us in any way (speaking for my area since some tool will bring up some obscure news story about Bumblefuck Town USA PD doing something not remotely related to this but will say that it is somehow related  )

I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that this is the level of law that people should follow, and not the higher level of law that it contradicts. Is it because there are armed men willing to enforce this level and not the higher one?

1. People aren't skirting the law, they are being 100% compliant as approved by the very same ATF that's now having a problem with it.  If they were skirting it, they'd find a way to be using actual stocks.  Now does this compliance expose how arbitrary the restriction is today, and do they not like that?  Absolutely.  But if they're gong to sit there and accuse owners of pedantry...pot meet kettle.

2. But...they're only proliferating because of their popularity and availability.  Their use in crimes is not unique to their 'format'...i.e. we're not seeing a rash of subterfuge or security breeching with concealed rifles or subguns.  And we're not seeing any shooting with a braced AR pistol where they couldn't have achieved the same thing with a full rifle...no concealment or increased lethality because of being shorter.  It just happened to be what they bought.  They're also not taking the place of regular handguns in any substantial or even noticeable way in crime.  It again calls attention to the ineffectiveness of SBR restrictions in the first place, because they're not doing anything to increase gun crime by design.



Of course it's met with scrutiny and vindictiveness by the ATF...but it's the only way they'll notice.  And it should come as little surprise that the only response they have to their rules being exposed as irrelevant is to...yep...make them harsher.  But to be fair, I have a feeling that they wouldn't have been so 'proactive' about this had it not been for the country's potato-head-in-chief.  They all need to keep re-affirming their relevance (and budget), and this fruit couldn't be hanging any lower.

If the Gov wants the 200 for an SBR, just tack it on like they do cigarettes and bottles and pay it at the time of purchase.  You’re already cleared to buy it and they have the required 4473. What makes a barrel less than 16 more dangerous than a longer barrel?  Just my opinion.

Both. Except the 200 isn't about the stamp revenue it's about the registration.

I'm in the "they don't like NFA workarounds" camp.

Many new inventions basically make the NFA irrelevant.

By the time bloated burocracies are able to act, the new rules are already obsolete too.

Like the war on drugs.  It's a game .gov will never win.

This.

They’re spending your money, and could give a shit less what it costs or benefits.

They want power, and want to put the boot down on anyone that usurps that power lest they lose or perceive to lose some.

I'm not limiting myself, I'm referring to everybody who has the 5.56 AR pistols. The support or lack of support for one thing does not mean support or lack of support for another.

"I like dogs" does not equate to "I hate cats". It's a common phenomena in today's internet discourse.

Revenue Generation, Job Security and Justification of Existence.

FATF

Yet people are buying a design that can be shouldered with the intent to shoulder it…

Based.

Absolutely, unequivocally based.

Hiding your head in the sand doesn’t work.

Revel in the absurdity of it all.

Its called "job security".  Making up regulations as they please to keep their statistics up... Got to get approved for next years budget increase!

What is the publish date for this illegal crap? December sometime right ?

This. This right here.

ETA: A couple things I've learned about the ATF after 20+ years in the industry: The ATF does NOT like to be circumvented, taken lightly, or made a fool of.

People need to start viewing government as an angry mom with a smart assed kid, while the dad’s at work, because that’s basically what it is.

Job security?

Problem is that it doesn't really matter what the manufacturer describes it as, or what they say its "intent is"

We all know how we ended up here

What are we looking at here-is it a law, proposed rule, or opinion?

*rhetorical

You raise a fairly interesting point.

Interpreting Pistol Braces to be SBR's would be a massive clusterfuck for the ATF and .Gov in general.


So you are saying that there are 10m of these in circulation that you allowed to be sold for a decade, and now suddenly they were never actually legal and every owner that doesn't have any clue that they are commiting a crime is in possession of an unregistered SBR?


They got us with Bump Stocks and FRT type triggers, just due to them not be all that popular and firearm owners being skeptical. Pistol braces have been widley adopted across the board.

the whole thing is absurd......but if they actually prosecute a Legally aquired pistol braced firearm for an unregistered SBR.....it could be the last chink in the armor to take down Chevron.

They are a bureaucracy that should NOT even exist. They can FOAD.

The reasonable conclusion here is that SBRs/SBSs shouldn't be NFA items, which means BATFE will conclude that everything should be an NFA item.

Are you still a member of the NRA?

Firing a glock with two hands makes it an AOW since it's no longer "intended" to be fired with one hand.

They are eating their elephant one bite at a time.

It sounds like a major question, one that maybe Congress should answer.
Attached File


Kharn

They've always been surprisingly accepting toward braces used as braces.
Even the new rule says braces used as braces are fine and leaves them quite possible to create.

They've always said that sham 'braces' used to make backdoor sbrs are not ok.

"This item's legality depends on which part of your body touches it."

FPNI.

The existence of braces is an innovative middle finger to the AFT's retarded rules. They cannot have that.