User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 1:47:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True but it shows the intent of Congress 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 2:06:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no way in hell they would give out member lists to those tyrants Prior to that, the agent working the case will serve them with an order to preserve those records, and also a gag order to not disclose the ongoing investigation, under penalty of law, signed by a federal judge. Some of you guys don't understand how data in the US works, when it comes to the feds. Anyway, this is way "into the weeds" so to speak. The reality is they're not going to care who's a member and who isn't. We're all pretty much going to "ride the wave" on this issue, however it pans out in a 5-10 year timeframe. That's how case law works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 2:11:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They will if there's a warrant for it, otherwise it would get seized (along with whatever contains that data). Some of you guys don't understand how data in the US works, when it comes to the feds. Anyway, this is way "into the weeds" so to speak. The reality is they're not going to care who's a member and who isn't. We're all pretty much going to "ride the wave" on this issue, however it pans out in a 5-10 year timeframe. That's how case law works. A member list is useless since it would not say who owns a brace or not, and this case will be heard in the merits in a few weeks anyway, so there is no need to go after such a list right now. Plus, going after such a list would be tantamount to a list of "probable gun owners", which would be illegal (not that they care). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 3:19:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In a nutshell, that is very accurate. Complete and total clusterfuck. Only govt can mess stuff up this bad. lol The simplest solution to this is to just take SBRs off the NFA registry. Problem solved. There's no reason for them to be regulated as such. They're only on the registry because of the government's failure to remove them when handguns were removed from the NFA registry (1934) at the last minute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 3:23:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The simplest solution to this is to just take SBRs off the NFA registry. Problem solved. There's no reason for them to be regulated as such. They're only on the registry because of the government's failure to remove them when handguns were removed from the NFA registry (1934) at the last minute. I wish. SBR/SBS/AOW are some of the most pointless laws/taxes out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 3:25:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The simplest solution to this is to just take SBRs off the NFA registry. Problem solved. Abolish the NFA. Republicans would've already done something helpful if they actually cared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 3:27:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A bill in congress means nothing. Biden would never sign it and they do not have the votes to override a veto in the Senate. This is only going to be resolved in the federal appeals courts. Exactly. It's just pandering that will go nowhere. We needed pro gun bills when Republicans had control of the house, senate and the Presidency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 4:15:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This right here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: True but it shows the intent of Congress This right here. The only intent is for fundraising, the bill would never see the light of day if R's controlled all three. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 10:32:10 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 10:37:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only intent is for fundraising, the bill would never see the light of day if R's controlled all three. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: True but it shows the intent of Congress This right here. The only intent is for fundraising, the bill would never see the light of day if R's controlled all three.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 10:41:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. It's just pandering that will go nowhere. We needed pro gun bills when Republicans had control of the house, senate and the Presidency. And when they did control all three last time around we got bump stocks and red flags, go figure... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 10:42:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryBut was there mass non compliance? How many did comply by removing rehi brase od getting a longer barrel.? WEhave no way of knowing. The real test would be massive open defiance protests. Thats the only true way to know. But we are a law abiding culture and they know it |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2023 11:06:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why stop there? Abolish the Republicans would've already done something helpful if they actually cared. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2023 1:00:14 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2023 1:42:27 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why stop there? Abolish the Republicans would've already done something helpful if they actually cared. FIFY The only thing worse than the ATF would be abolishing them, and creating (or transferring their responsibilities to) another alphabet agency in todays political climate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2023 7:18:46 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing worse than the ATF would be abolishing them, and creating (or transferring their responsibilities to) another alphabet agency in todays political climate. If we're going down the pipe dream route hopefully the FBI and USDE are abolished at the same time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2023 5:20:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Has it been announced if the buffer tube with foam on the end is illegal on a pistol?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2023 5:38:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has it been announced if the buffer tube with foam on the end is illegal on a pistol? Shall Not Be Infringed 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 10:54:16 AM EDT
[#19]
Just got an NRAILA "urge lawmakers yada yada yada" email blast
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 11:12:52 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has it been announced if the buffer tube with foam on the end is illegal on a pistol? It's definitely not definitely illegal. Rifle specific sights/scope would make it technically illegal. Practically, it's very, very unlikely to even get a second look considering everything else that's still going on and will be for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 1:44:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Which one of you guys are “armed scholar” on you tube?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 2:36:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. It's just pandering that will go nowhere. We needed pro gun bills when Republicans had control of the house, senate and the Presidency. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A bill in congress means nothing. Biden would never sign it and they do not have the votes to override a veto in the Senate. This is only going to be resolved in the federal appeals courts. Exactly. It's just pandering that will go nowhere. We needed pro gun bills when Republicans had control of the house, senate and the Presidency. From what I understand it actually does not need the presidents signature because it deals with a rule change interpretation and not a new law, it just has to pass both houses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 2:50:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what I understand it actually does not need the presidents signature because it deals with a rule change interpretation and not a new law, it just has to pass both houses. It's not legislation but CRA still requires presidential signing(or override) CRA is ENTIRELY about rule changes. https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/cra-tracker-congressional-review-act-in-the-117th-congress/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 3:26:42 PM EDT
[#24]
 The White House Addresses Bill To Overturn ATF Pistol Brace Rule |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 6:54:23 PM EDT
[#25]
On a side note the brace ban issue made me renew a while back with NAGR, FPC, GOA and SAF.
Today I was advised I won the giveaway for NAGR as a frontline defender (type of membership). So not only has it paid off with the injunction I won a Springfield M1A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 7:07:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which one of you guys are “armed scholar” on you tube? That dude needs to stop with the click bait hyperbole titles. He does have some good content. Gets a little far into the legal weeds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 7:08:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That dude needs to stop with the click bait hyperbole titles. He does have some good content. Gets a little far into the legal weeds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 7:40:25 PM EDT
[#28]
He isn't as bad as Texas Gun Vault. He grinds my gears.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2023 8:07:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On a side note the brace ban issue made me renew a while back with NAGR, FPC, GOA and SAF. Today I was advised I won the giveaway for NAGR as a frontline defender (type of membership). So not only has it paid off with the injunction I won a Springfield M1A. Thank you and congratulations! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 12:48:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On a side note the brace ban issue made me renew a while back with NAGR, FPC, GOA and SAF. Today I was advised I won the giveaway for NAGR as a frontline defender (type of membership). So not only has it paid off with the injunction I won a Springfield M1A.  Very cool, congrats! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 9:03:52 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On a side note the brace ban issue made me renew a while back with NAGR, FPC, GOA and SAF. Today I was advised I won the giveaway for NAGR as a frontline defender (type of membership). So not only has it paid off with the injunction I won a Springfield M1A.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 10:49:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That dude needs to stop with the click bait hyperbole titles. He does have some good content. Gets a little far into the legal weeds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which one of you guys are “armed scholar” on you tube? That dude needs to stop with the click bait hyperbole titles. He does have some good content. Gets a little far into the legal weeds. Absolutely. I blocked that fucker. He has a new video about twice a week with a clickbait title where he proceeds to talk about the same court cases and “if this happens or doesn’t happen.” I figure he’s a member here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 6:05:28 PM EDT
[#33]
 Attached FileTwo Republicans — Reps. Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — broke from the party and voted against the bill, while two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 6:59:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/222048/05D4A79D-E0D7-4EC0-94A6-CCF7BB2B0EC3_png-2850457.JPG Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — broke from the party and voted against the bill, while two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 7:22:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which one of you guys are “armed scholar” on you tube? Dude is pure fucking clickbait |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 8:37:41 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/222048/05D4A79D-E0D7-4EC0-94A6-CCF7BB2B0EC3_png-2850457.JPG Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — broke from the party and voted against the bill, while two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure. Good to hear....now those in NJ and PA should remember that come voting time. Prolly wont but maybe. I fear this was a show and wont go anywhere and those Republicans that so "fearlessly voted for this" did so knowing it does not have much life after this. Or am I missing a bigger picture? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 8:44:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good to hear....now those in NJ and PA should remember that come voting time. Prolly wont but maybe. I fear this was a show and wont go anywhere and those Republicans that so "fearlessly voted for this" did so knowing it does not have much life after this. Or am I missing a bigger picture? Well, think back to when they vote to repeal Obama care like 50+ times from 2011-2016 when they had the house, but then in 2017 they had the house, senate, and presidency ........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 8:50:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/222048/05D4A79D-E0D7-4EC0-94A6-CCF7BB2B0EC3_png-2850457.JPG Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — broke from the party and voted against the bill, while two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure. I think getting the new House members on record for gun rights is the only benefit of this action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 8:58:18 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 9:05:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Wife and I did just contact our Congressmen by email. Hope others will do the same and keep pressing the fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2023 11:37:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good to hear....now those in NJ and PA should remember that come voting time. Prolly wont but maybe. I fear this was a show and wont go anywhere and those Republicans that so "fearlessly voted for this" did so knowing it does not have much life after this. Or am I missing a bigger picture? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/222048/05D4A79D-E0D7-4EC0-94A6-CCF7BB2B0EC3_png-2850457.JPG Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — broke from the party and voted against the bill, while two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure. Good to hear....now those in NJ and PA should remember that come voting time. Prolly wont but maybe. I fear this was a show and wont go anywhere and those Republicans that so "fearlessly voted for this" did so knowing it does not have much life after this. Or am I missing a bigger picture? I think some people have mentioned it may help the lawsuits a bit. If Congress has said the ATF shouldnt have the authority, and Congress is who passes the laws for the ATF to enforce, there has to be some logic to say the ATF shouldnt have the force of law for this rule |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 9:46:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think some people have mentioned it may help the lawsuits a bit. If Congress has said the ATF shouldnt have the authority, and Congress is who passes the laws for the ATF to enforce, there has to be some logic to say the ATF shouldnt have the force of law for this rule I gotcha, makes sense |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 11:20:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's definitely not definitely illegal. Rifle specific sights/scope would make it technically illegal. Practically, it's very, very unlikely to even get a second look considering everything else that's still going on and will be for years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Has it been announced if the buffer tube with foam on the end is illegal on a pistol? It's definitely not definitely illegal. Rifle specific sights/scope would make it technically illegal. Practically, it's very, very unlikely to even get a second look considering everything else that's still going on and will be for years. On page 26 of the Factoring Criteria document they do mention a foam padded stabilizer tube. One company in 2014 submitted a “Pistol Overmold Kit” with a “foam padded stabilizer tube” intended to accommodate a Glock-type pistol and requested a classification of the firearm to determine if it would be regulated under the NFA. The company likened its product to installing a receiver extension/buffer tube on an AR type pistol, a configuration that FATD had earlier decided was not a shoulder stock when installed on that type of firearm and did not result in a change of that pistol’s classification. However,FATD concluded that the “foam padded stabilizer tube” served “no legitimate, functional purpose other than to extend additional contact surface rearward” on Glock-type pistols and therefore would result in the manufacture of a “short-barreled rifle.”30 30 That section talks about a Glock and not an AR so there's that. But, using their logic, the foam padding serves no functional purpose other than increasing the rearward contact area at the end of the buffer tube which has only one purpose, to shoulder the weapon. Thus, the weapon meets the design criteria of a rifle therefore it's an SBR. There's also a section that talks about "cheek welding"(pp 78-79) where they try to make the case that the user is within inches of shouldering the weapon. In this section the pictures show people using braces as cheek rests and not foam padding. However, I'd agree with kzin that, practically, it's very unlikely to draw attention but we all have to make our own interpretation and choices. Just as with filing taxes, if you choose take a position on something you should be able to defend it. To me, the foam padding is enough of a grey area, pending further clarification about what criteria they'll be using to go after people who kept their pistols as pistols, that I removed mine. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 11:24:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On page 26 of the Factoring Criteria document they do mention a foam padded stabilizer tube. That section talks about a Glock and not an AR so there's that. But, using their logic, the foam padding serves no functional purpose other than increasing the rearward contact area at the end of the buffer tube which has only one purpose, to shoulder the weapon. Thus, the weapon meets the design criteria of a rifle therefore it's an SBR. There's also a section that talks about "cheek welding"(pp 78-79) where they try to make the case that the user is within inches of shouldering the weapon. In this section the pictures show people using braces as cheek rests and not foam padding. However, I'd agree with kzin that, practically, it's very unlikely to draw attention but we all have to make our own interpretation and choices. Just as with filing taxes, if you choose take a position on something you should be able to defend it. To me, the foam padding is enough of a grey area, pending further clarification about what criteria they'll be using to go after people who kept their pistols as pistols, that I removed mine. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Has it been announced if the buffer tube with foam on the end is illegal on a pistol? It's definitely not definitely illegal. Rifle specific sights/scope would make it technically illegal. Practically, it's very, very unlikely to even get a second look considering everything else that's still going on and will be for years. On page 26 of the Factoring Criteria document they do mention a foam padded stabilizer tube. One company in 2014 submitted a “Pistol Overmold Kit” with a “foam padded stabilizer tube” intended to accommodate a Glock-type pistol and requested a classification of the firearm to determine if it would be regulated under the NFA. The company likened its product to installing a receiver extension/buffer tube on an AR type pistol, a configuration that FATD had earlier decided was not a shoulder stock when installed on that type of firearm and did not result in a change of that pistol’s classification. However,FATD concluded that the “foam padded stabilizer tube” served “no legitimate, functional purpose other than to extend additional contact surface rearward” on Glock-type pistols and therefore would result in the manufacture of a “short-barreled rifle.”30 30 That section talks about a Glock and not an AR so there's that. But, using their logic, the foam padding serves no functional purpose other than increasing the rearward contact area at the end of the buffer tube which has only one purpose, to shoulder the weapon. Thus, the weapon meets the design criteria of a rifle therefore it's an SBR. There's also a section that talks about "cheek welding"(pp 78-79) where they try to make the case that the user is within inches of shouldering the weapon. In this section the pictures show people using braces as cheek rests and not foam padding. However, I'd agree with kzin that, practically, it's very unlikely to draw attention but we all have to make our own interpretation and choices. Just as with filing taxes, if you choose take a position on something you should be able to defend it. To me, the foam padding is enough of a grey area, pending further clarification about what criteria they'll be using to go after people who kept their pistols as pistols, that I removed mine. YMMV. I'm trying to imagine the kind of person who owns one or two guns worrying about the minutiae like this. The image just isn't forming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 3:43:20 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 4:51:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was painful. My I did not know these ghost guns were automatic. I still haven’t even see a ghost gun, lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 4:57:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was painful. My I did not know these ghost guns were automatic. I still haven’t even see a ghost gun, lol Well, that last part makes sense at least. They're ghostly and all, probably pretty hard to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 5:30:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was painful. My I did not know these ghost guns were automatic. I still haven’t even see a ghost gun, lol    Vintage Hasbro Toy "The Ghost Gun" (1974) I had one growing up |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 6:45:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"You can buy a brace without a background check" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2023 6:54:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think some people have mentioned it may help the lawsuits a bit. If Congress has said the ATF shouldnt have the authority, and Congress is who passes the laws for the ATF to enforce, there has to be some logic to say the ATF shouldnt have the force of law for this rule None of this is necessary. Bruen happened a year ago. Can't wait for ANYONE to start heeding the decision. The entire nfa can be defeated based on bruen. I hope the backlash for the pushing of this bs goes that far, but I doubt it. We'll just get one painful thing at a time. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File