ATF lands new pistol brace ruling classifying millions of existing firearms as NFA items.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d...ed-convert

This is what I was afraid would happen after Trump did it with bump stocks, and this is probably on better legal footing than the bumpstock classification.

120 days to Form 1 register as an SBR, $200 tax waived.

More unelected bureaucrats enacting law. Such BS. I guess I'll be registering about 4 of mine despite the illegality of a national gun registry.

“This rule enhances public safety..." BS BS BS, this rule does nothing but punish law abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about rules.

(01-14-2023 05:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  ATF lands new pistol brace ruling classifying millions of existing firearms as NFA items.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d...ed-convert

This is what I was afraid would happen after Trump did it with bump stocks, and this is probably on better legal footing than the bumpstock classification.

120 days to Form 1 register as an SBR, $200 tax waived.

Better legal footing? This is unconstitutional as f*ck. And its your team doing it.

Hopefully the NRA will challenge this in the courts but I don't see much happening if they do, at least not until and if it makes it to SCOTUS.

(01-14-2023 11:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 05:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  ATF lands new pistol brace ruling classifying millions of existing firearms as NFA items.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d...ed-convert

This is what I was afraid would happen after Trump did it with bump stocks, and this is probably on better legal footing than the bumpstock classification.

120 days to Form 1 register as an SBR, $200 tax waived.

Better legal footing? This is unconstitutional as f*ck. And its your team doing it.

The legal argument that won the bumpstock lawsuit was that the definition of a machinegun was clearly defined, and a bumpstock still only fired a single round per trigger operation.

The Brace / SBR question is much more subjective. If that brace is considered a stock and meant to shoulder then these guns 100% meet the legal definition of a SBR. It sucks that ATF is going back on years of not considering pistol braces stocks, but this is on stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ruling because they aren’t trying to change the legal definition of an SBR with administrative action.

(01-14-2023 11:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  More unelected bureaucrats enacting law. Such BS. I guess I'll be registering about 4 of mine despite the illegality of a national gun registry.

“This rule enhances public safety..." BS BS BS, this rule does nothing but punish law abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about rules.

The only pistol brace I have I was planning to from 1 any way, I just hadn’t gotten around to it.

I may still be stuck paying the $200, it looks like if I want to do it for free I have to to it in my name and not on the NFA trust. They are saying you had to have transferred the pistol brace gun to your NFA trust before they announced on the 13th, and I don’t put the serial number on my schedule A until I get the form 1 back and engrave the receiver with the trust info.

This just forces so many people who don’t know the nuances of NFA firearms (like transport letters) into navigating it, and if you live in a state that doesn’t allow SBRs you are screwed. Then you die and your kid takes it home not knowing and is an instant felon.

Would be nice to see new SBR rule put in place that is OAL only (since that is what matters) and it’s easier to work around on ARs by getting a slightly longer stock or pinning the adjustment. If the SBR law was about conceal-ability then OAL matters more than barrel length.

(01-15-2023 09:05 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 11:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 05:06 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  ATF lands new pistol brace ruling classifying millions of existing firearms as NFA items.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d...ed-convert

This is what I was afraid would happen after Trump did it with bump stocks, and this is probably on better legal footing than the bumpstock classification.

120 days to Form 1 register as an SBR, $200 tax waived.

Better legal footing? This is unconstitutional as f*ck. And its your team doing it.

The legal argument that won the bumpstock lawsuit was that the definition of a machinegun was clearly defined, and a bumpstock still only fired a single round per trigger operation.

The Brace / SBR question is much more subjective. If that brace is considered a stock and meant to shoulder then these guns 100% meet the legal definition of a SBR. It sucks that ATF is going back on years of not considering pistol braces stocks, but this is on stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ruling because they aren’t trying to change the legal definition of an SBR with administrative action.

No, they're trying to redefine a pistol with an accessory attached. By their logic attaching any or all of a light, an RMR or an extended magazine alters the ability of the shooter to inflict greater harm. So I wonder what they will come after next.

(01-15-2023 09:17 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-14-2023 11:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  More unelected bureaucrats enacting law. Such BS. I guess I'll be registering about 4 of mine despite the illegality of a national gun registry.

“This rule enhances public safety..." BS BS BS, this rule does nothing but punish law abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about rules.

The only pistol brace I have I was planning to from 1 any way, I just hadn’t gotten around to it.

I may still be stuck paying the $200, it looks like if I want to do it for free I have to to it in my name and not on the NFA trust. They are saying you had to have transferred the pistol brace gun to your NFA trust before they announced on the 13th, and I don’t put the serial number on my schedule A until I get the form 1 back and engrave the receiver with the trust info.

This just forces so many people who don’t know the nuances of NFA firearms (like transport letters) into navigating it, and if you live in a state that doesn’t allow SBRs you are screwed. Then you die and your kid takes it home not knowing and is an instant felon.

Would be nice to see new SBR rule put in place that is OAL only (since that is what matters) and it’s easier to work around on ARs by getting a slightly longer stock or pinning the adjustment. If the SBR law was about conceal-ability then OAL matters more than barrel length.

You know as well as I do that it's not about anything other than control and finding out who owns what. 16 inches is arbitrary as hell and you know it.

If I'm going to have to register them anyway I might as well just install collapsible stocks. I hate the braces anyway.

The only one I might keep is the folding brace on my PC Charger.

I'd like to hear the opinions of some of you lawyers here...

Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This isn't just about gun control, this is also about the ability of alphabet agencies to essentially enact law by fiat, completely by-passing congress.

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

Absolutely. There are no blue dog democrats anymore. You cannot own a gun and vote democrat. Well, you can, but only an idiot would vote against their own best interests. And especially regarding THE most important amendment in our constitution...

(01-16-2023 01:04 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

Absolutely. There are no blue dog democrats anymore. You cannot own a gun and vote democrat. Well, you can, but only an idiot would vote against their own best interests. And especially regarding THE most important amendment in our constitution...

1A and 2A ... there's a reason both req'd the other...

@constitutionalYinYang

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Oh my God. Trump did everything evil in the history of the world. These people are just certifiable.

This is retarded.

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Nope. Democrats know their supporters will cuck up and blame Trump instead of them.

IE: for all of your Trump butthurt, I bet you havent even contacted your congressman on this.

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

The only reason pistol braces are legal in the first place is that the ATF looked at them and issued an opinion letter saying "I guess that isn't a stock if the intent isn't to shoulder it". This is them changing their opinion on what is and isn't a stock, unlike the bumpstock ruling where they tried to change the definition of what a machinegun is.

If congress can legislate this away then great, but in the courts this has a better chance of sticking than the bumpstock ruling.

(02-06-2023 09:32 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(02-06-2023 09:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 04:21 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-16-2023 12:43 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Sorry to be that guy, U_of_Elvis, buuuuuuuut...THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! (We tried to warn you and you didn't listen. So don't blame us; blame yourself.)

This is Trumps playbook from bumpstocks being run again on Pistol Braces. Trump laid the groundwork for this.

This just has stronger legal footing than the bumpstock ban.

Yeah? Not so fast. This has already been hit with multiple lawsuits. It is categorically unconstitutional and Congress should see this as an affront to their authority. We cannot have federal bureaucrats effectively legislating from unelected positions.

I don't think this stands.

This senate bill, S.4986, the SHORT act has been re-introduced in the senate. I urge anyone who values our system of government which assures a separation of powers and ALL of our constitutional rights, even you democrats, nay, especially you democrats, to contact your congress critters and urge them to vote in this protection of all of our 2A rights.

We all know that this bill stands no chance if the dems vote in lockstep as they usually do but all it takes is a few to do the right thing.

The only reason pistol braces are legal in the first place is that the ATF looked at them and issued an opinion letter saying "I guess that isn't a stock if the intent isn't to shoulder it". This is them changing their opinion on what is and isn't a stock, unlike the bumpstock ruling where they tried to change the definition of what a machinegun is.

If congress can legislate this away then great, but in the courts this has a better chance of sticking than the bumpstock ruling.

Maybe, but I'd put that chance at less than 25%. It is clearly an end around congress and a clear violation of the 2A. And you support the fools who are driving this. As a gun owner yourself I have to ask, wtf is wrong with you?? You're a gun owner voting against his own interests. It makes no sense.