[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 67 of 160)
|
I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. |
|
Quoted: Start watching at about the 1:02 mark. ATF will answer that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJENDHjCtNE Quoted: Quoted: 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. Start watching at about the 1:02 mark. ATF will answer that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJENDHjCtNE All I see is them reading the already released info which doesn't cover my questions. There is no reason I should have to destroy the brace because I have a legal way to use it already. If putting a 16" upper on a braced lower is ok, then putting my brace on an existing SBR should be ok. So, what if the brace is laying on my work bench waiting to be put on my SBR ? The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. Or I remove 11.5 upper from brace lower and don't put anything one it? The 11.5 upper is not constructive intent because I have other SBR that I can use it on. The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. The whole constructive intent thing is BS because you can make ARs into a lot of different things without any tools. |
|
Quoted: 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 rule. (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 (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. 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? Thank you |
|
Quoted: Bless your heart. Quoted: 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. He's very invested in believing he did the right thing. |
|
Quoted: 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: 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. The ruling says braced guns are already SBRs If you submit a form 1, for something that is ALREADY an SBR, why would it be a violation to replace the brace with a stock? If it's already an SBR, what difference does it make? 
|
|
Quoted: maybe its time for a site visit https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/3097/95F20E58-A714-4948-8AB1-9DFBA033DC05-1242056.jpg Quoted: Quoted: They're very comfortable standing in front of a crowd of people they're fucking over for no good reason. That's very disturbing. maybe its time for a site visit https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/3097/95F20E58-A714-4948-8AB1-9DFBA033DC05-1242056.jpg @doc_Zox Didn’t the state legislature pass 7 of the 8 anti gun laws after that day? |
|
Quoted: All I see is them reading the already released info which doesn't cover my questions. There is no reason I should have to destroy the brace because I have a legal way to use it already. If putting a 16" upper on a braced lower is ok, then putting my brace on an existing SBR should be ok. So, what if the brace is laying on my work bench waiting to be put on my SBR ? The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. Or I remove 11.5 upper from brace lower and don't put anything one it? The 11.5 upper is not constructive intent because I have other SBR that I can use it on. The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. The whole constructive intent thing is BS because you can make ARs into a lot of different things without any tools. Yep. And since the brace thing dropped 1/13 that little Q&A segment is about the most complete answer I have seen from the ATF of that situation. The standard buffer tube with the locking holes and just having any type brace or stock around. Them two things seems to be the gray area now. Surface area to shoulder and constructive possession of just having something. |
|
Quoted: I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. Is is really that simple though, is that brace worth loosing your rights to own any firearm for the rest of your life? While I agree it's total bullshit, for people to weigh the risk vs reward and decide to register is not the "boot licking" some call it out as. It might just be the best option in front of them at the moment. Destroy the brace, attempt to register the SBR, or be a Felon. What do you choose? Of course people are rushing in to this. It is not even posted to the Federal Register yet and you have 120 days to solve the problem. If I had a brace I would be in the wait and see camp at this point. The legal community has barely had time to process the rule, who know what will shake out in the next few months. It's possible the ATF could back track on their backtrack ( though I highly doubt it). Call your representatives, and call your lawyers, donate to the activists like the 2AF and GOA. Quit blaming other gun owners, that helps nothing. |
|
Quoted: I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. Attached File |
|
Quoted: 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. I can assure you, I am neither at the rearward part of a ship or aircraft Additionally, I will draw you a map since you are directionally challenged- If my previously defined braced pistol is now legally considered a short barrel rifle. Add a stock to it does not change its legal definition. Unless there’s some sort of articulation, that I am mistaken |
|
Quoted: 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. Nothing but the faq that confirms the obvious logic that once its an sbr putting a stock on it leaves it still an sbr. |
|
Quoted: Is is really that simple though, is that brace worth loosing your rights to own any firearm for the rest of your life? While I agree it's total bullshit, for people to weigh the risk vs reward and decide to register is not the "boot licking" some call it out as. It might just be the best option in front of them at the moment. Destroy the brace, attempt to register the SBR, or be a Felon. What do you choose? Of course people are rushing in to this. It is not even posted to the Federal Register yet and you have 120 days to solve the problem. If I had a brace I would be in the wait and see camp at this point. The legal community has barely had time to process the rule, who know what will shake out in the next few months. It's possible the ATF could back track on their backtrack ( though I highly doubt it). Call your representatives, and call your lawyers, donate to the activists like the 2AF and GOA. Quit blaming other gun owners, that helps nothing. Quoted: Quoted: I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. Is is really that simple though, is that brace worth loosing your rights to own any firearm for the rest of your life? While I agree it's total bullshit, for people to weigh the risk vs reward and decide to register is not the "boot licking" some call it out as. It might just be the best option in front of them at the moment. Destroy the brace, attempt to register the SBR, or be a Felon. What do you choose? Of course people are rushing in to this. It is not even posted to the Federal Register yet and you have 120 days to solve the problem. If I had a brace I would be in the wait and see camp at this point. The legal community has barely had time to process the rule, who know what will shake out in the next few months. It's possible the ATF could back track on their backtrack ( though I highly doubt it). Call your representatives, and call your lawyers, donate to the activists like the 2AF and GOA. Quit blaming other gun owners, that helps nothing. Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. |
|
Quoted: Need more info on this. If you fill out the form wrong and its disproved they will come arrest you? It says in the Q&A that they will contact you if there's a entry problem and allow you to ammend it but you will have to use a paper form. But who knows if they'll stick to that or just come get you... |
|
Quoted: All I see is them reading the already released info which doesn't cover my questions. There is no reason I should have to destroy the brace because I have a legal way to use it already. If putting a 16" upper on a braced lower is ok, then putting my brace on an existing SBR should be ok. So, what if the brace is laying on my work bench waiting to be put on my SBR ? The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. Or I remove 11.5 upper from brace lower and don't put anything one it? The 11.5 upper is not constructive intent because I have other SBR that I can use it on. The lower that prior had brace now has a 16" upper and a stock. The whole constructive intent thing is BS because you can make ARs into a lot of different things without any tools. |
|
This was asked early in the thread by someone else, what about simply removing the upper form the lower until this crap blows over? *Seems like the logical choice, at least for those that have to deal with 922 or pre-built pistol on 4473's BS. *As far as I can tell, the ATF (correctly) says that if you have a "braced SBR"  , then you must do something stupid like destroy the brace. But I think they are looking at it from the standpoint of a user only owning ONE weapon. Similar to owning a stock. Even prior to this non-sense, if you ONLY owned an AR pistol with an SBA3, it was wise to make sure you did NOT own a regular stock, or at least own a 16" upper as well. I see the same thing with this. If you own multiple uppers and lowers (and +16" uppers), why not just swap or separate uppers until this is kicked to the curb? This whole "destroy brace, or make it so it can't be re-attached" is non-sense to me. At WORST, I would throw an old brace in the parts bin with all my old stocks. That is where my SB3's are already at. |
|
Quoted: Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. Exactly |
|
Quoted: I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. Food for thought. For litigation purposes you’d actually want some people to register and get screwed over. Not just to be a high and mighty internet warrior. At least 3 people (more is better) who have clear backgrounds and are otherwise sympathetic average people (e.g., a suburban dad/mom, a single young-ish person, and an older person). If at least one of these people are “of color,” so much the better for us and worse for the gun controllers. These actual government victims make it harder for courts to boot on standing, puts a sympathetic face on the case, and ties the constitutional/policy arguments to real harm. The human factor is often overlooked (by the right) in rights cases. Lawyers are good at abstracting arguments and dissociating, it is harder if you’re looking at the government’s victim in the process. |
|
Quoted: Nothing but the faq that confirms the obvious logic that once its an sbr putting a stock on it leaves it still an sbr. Quoted: Quoted: 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. Nothing but the faq that confirms the obvious logic that once its an sbr putting a stock on it leaves it still an sbr. |
|
Quoted: Is is really that simple though, is that brace worth loosing your rights to own any firearm for the rest of your life? While I agree it's total bullshit, for people to weigh the risk vs reward and decide to register is not the "boot licking" some call it out as. It might just be the best option in front of them at the moment. Destroy the brace, attempt to register the SBR, or be a Felon. What do you choose? Of course people are rushing in to this. It is not even posted to the Federal Register yet and you have 120 days to solve the problem. If I had a brace I would be in the wait and see camp at this point. The legal community has barely had time to process the rule, who know what will shake out in the next few months. It's possible the ATF could back track on their backtrack ( though I highly doubt it). Call your representatives, and call your lawyers, donate to the activists like the 2AF and GOA. Quit blaming other gun owners, that helps nothing. Again, there are TWO ways to SBR, if that is the route you want to go. The normal way, and the free candy way the fucks over other gun owners. If those gun owners are rushing in to do the "free candy" route INSTEAD of waiting to see what injunctions shake out, or SBR'ing the normal way, or any other way around this, then THOSE gun owners are the ones not helping, and they will catch blame. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: @doc_Zox Didn't the state legislature pass 7 of the 8 anti gun laws after that day? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/3097/79BA0F68-8368-4315-BC05-C7954BEA2A82-1281235.jpg That was the one out of the 8 they didn’t pass. They passed the other 7 IIRC. |
|
Quoted: Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. |
|
Quoted: We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. Quoted: Quoted: Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. Attached File |
|
Quoted: 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. Quoted: 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. As basically Some Guy on The Internet - my own interpretation is that traditionally that would be OK, if you have otherwise defendable purpose (like, as in really, not wink wink) for having the part, such as a spare to existing legit item. Is traditionally how people have relayed that. That said, keeping them stored together or in close proximity, could still prove awkward. Folks I know who ended up in this boat, would just have a none-affected friend take possession of the offending item until they finally got their stamp processed, in the past. In general, the number of times this will ever actually come up to an otherwise normal dude doing normal shit, is pretty much zero. But still, legit question and they need to make this stuff clear, and consistent with the law. While I'm at it, And the judiciary system needs to unass, and clarify just how consistent this is (not) with higher law; which to date, hasn't happened. To get preachy - Hope is Not a Plan. If the plan is to ignore this and carry on as before, and bank on the hope that courts do their job and speak up that this violates 2nd Amendment - that's a hope. The good news is unless you are otherwise interesting, you're not that interesting, and likely will get away with it regardless, so there's that. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg Are you suggesting passive non-compliance or active? If your idea of non-compliance is hiding them in the attic until legal challenges hopefully prevail, then you are both horribly wrong. If you are aiming for a Lobby-day-style March, with unloaded braced pistols, you are damn right. |
|
Quoted: What’s the rule against self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment? ETA: Proper application? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination Unless they charge you with something you can't self incriminate. Go on YouTube and post a FUCK YOU ATF machine gun conversion video. Show it in operation, with a picture of yourself, picture of the weapon, your address and finger prints. When the ATF shows up at your door, clearly tell them to fuck off, because the reason for their search warrant was invalid due to the Video you posted being allowed, because you have the right to not self incriminate. During the 120 period, your information does not constitute breaking a law. Your request for a stamp under this program is not a guarantee of approval. It's the process they require to get approved. Should they not approve you for 'reasons' you will be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA after 120 days. Your information on how to find you and what to look for in not self incrimination. You provided it freely. Until they charge you, you aren't protected from self incrimination, because you haven't been caught yet. After the 120 days you would be afforded those rights, if charged. Shutting one's pie hole and letting the courts play out is a smart move. If it goes in favor of 2A, then no harm no foul. If it doesn't, one's options are left wide open to MOLON BRACE, boating accident or filing for a $200 stamp if you choose. Freely telling them you own a brace, runs the risk of not getting a Tax Stamp waiver and severely limits the options on what you can do next. It also opens up the chance for legal issues and all that can go along with it. A con is always successful when the mark is promised something they want so bad, that they are willing to throw all caution to the wind because the want overshadows the obvious risk. If it's too good to be true there is a reason no matter how much I want to believe it's going to happen. |
|
Quoted: (in the ATFs mind) It's an unregistered SBR that the ATF is going to allow in that configuration until you get your registered tax stamp. Then you are free to do as you please. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Nothing but the faq that confirms the obvious logic that once its an sbr putting a stock on it leaves it still an sbr. Yeah, you can definitely stock after approval. You definitely have to have a qualifying configuration to file(certify that you do, at least) It's fuzzy where the line is to stock up. I haven't seen anything compelling, just people assuming one way or the other. Given that they accept the receipt as approval of possession of what they insist is an sbr I think you can stock it after receipt. If you do stock it pending approval, keeping some type of evidence that it was amnesty eligible when you filed is probably smart. |
|
Quoted: Are you suggesting passive non-compliance or active? If your idea of non-compliance is hiding them in the attic until legal challenges hopefully prevail, then you are both horribly wrong. If you are aiming for a Lobby-day-style March, with unloaded braced pistols, you are damn right. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Meh, the best way to fight this (or any unconstitutional law) is mass non compliance. Having what seems like a large majority of pistol brace owners chomping at the bit for their ‘free’ stamp really sets in stone the fate of the RKBA in the US. Gun owners that rush to register their braced firearms should be chastised. We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg Are you suggesting passive non-compliance or active? If your idea of non-compliance is hiding them in the attic until legal challenges hopefully prevail, then you are both horribly wrong. If you are aiming for a Lobby-day-style March, with unloaded braced pistols, you are damn right. I would never suggest passive non compliance. |
|
Quoted: Unless they charge you with something you can't self incriminate. Go on YouTube and post a FUCK YOU ATF machine gun conversion video. Show it in operation, with a picture of yourself, picture of the weapon, your address and finger prints. When the ATF shows up at your door, clearly tell them to fuck off, because the reason for their search warrant was invalid due to the Video you posted being allowed, because you have the right to not self incriminate. During the 120 period, your information does not constitute breaking a law. Your request for a stamp under this program is not a guarantee of approval. It's the process they require to get approved. Should they not approve you for 'reasons' you will be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA after 120 days. Your information on how to find you and what to look for in not self incrimination. You provided it freely. Until they charge you, you aren't protected from self incrimination, because you haven't been caught yet. After the 120 days you would be afforded those rights, if charged. Shutting one's pie hole and letting the courts play out is a smart move. If it goes in favor of 2A, then no harm no foul. If it doesn't, one's options are left wide open to MOLON BRACE, boating accident or filing for a $200 stamp if you choose. Freely telling them you own a brace, runs the risk of not getting a Tax Stamp waiver and severely limits the options on what you can do next. It also opens up the chance for legal issues and all that can go along with it. A con is always successful when the mark is promised something they want so bad, that they are willing to throw all caution to the wind because the want overshadows the obvious risk. If it's too good to be true there is a reason no matter how much I want to believe it's going to happen. Quoted: Quoted: What’s the rule against self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment? ETA: Proper application? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-incrimination Unless they charge you with something you can't self incriminate. Go on YouTube and post a FUCK YOU ATF machine gun conversion video. Show it in operation, with a picture of yourself, picture of the weapon, your address and finger prints. When the ATF shows up at your door, clearly tell them to fuck off, because the reason for their search warrant was invalid due to the Video you posted being allowed, because you have the right to not self incriminate. During the 120 period, your information does not constitute breaking a law. Your request for a stamp under this program is not a guarantee of approval. It's the process they require to get approved. Should they not approve you for 'reasons' you will be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA after 120 days. Your information on how to find you and what to look for in not self incrimination. You provided it freely. Until they charge you, you aren't protected from self incrimination, because you haven't been caught yet. After the 120 days you would be afforded those rights, if charged. Shutting one's pie hole and letting the courts play out is a smart move. If it goes in favor of 2A, then no harm no foul. If it doesn't, one's options are left wide open to MOLON BRACE, boating accident or filing for a $200 stamp if you choose. Freely telling them you own a brace, runs the risk of not getting a Tax Stamp waiver and severely limits the options on what you can do next. It also opens up the chance for legal issues and all that can go along with it. A con is always successful when the mark is promised something they want so bad, that they are willing to throw all caution to the wind because the want overshadows the obvious risk. If it's too good to be true there is a reason no matter how much I want to believe it's going to happen. But does anyone actually need to be charged (of anything) for it to apply, really? Self-incriminating is self-incriminating. Seeing as how there really is no choice according the proposed ruling(s), i.e., what would happen if you do not comply with it, when you do comply and your submittal is declined there still remains the fact you were required to self-incriminate yourself in order to comply. ETA: If you’re stopped by a officer/deputy for whatever reason so they may ask you a question or two (investigating, in other words), you’re not charged with anything but you can still incriminate yourself by saying the wrong thing… |
|
My biggest issue with this ruling is the flip from the assumption of innocence to one of assumption of guilt. Even though the law states that intent is a key element, an executive branch enforcement authority is now going to determine your intent through a subjective, arbitrary, and capricious process that starts at the position that you have an unregistered SBR in your possession. If you can't see how unamerican that is... The more logical reading, to me at least, is that the existence of a brace instead of a stock shows the intent to comply with the law. If you didn't intend to comply and planned to build an unregistered SBR you likely would have used a stock from the outset. |
| Out of all the shit we could have seen from a mile a way, I love how it's this thing in particular that so many people claim is the hill they are willing to die on. The grey area accessory meant for cripples that the ATF themselves had changed their opinion on back and forth for the few years they've been in existence. It's not the red flag laws, it's not the Brady Bill, it's not the whole NFA/GCA itself, just the braces. I've also never seen so much disinfo spread so quickly, I feel bad for guys who honestly want to make a decision and can't get legitimate concrete info because guntubers with clickbait titles would rather stir the shit instead of inform people properly of the advantages and disadvantages of whatever option you go with as well as how it works having a registered SBR as opposed to a brace. I still am hearing BS about "they are making you take photos of your felony!11!!1!" when anybody can literally go on the "amnesty" Form 1 application and see everything they ask for, and the only thing on the application is asking for a photo of the markings/serial on the receiver, the same as it is on the "regular" F1 application. The two applications are identical. Like I totally get the trouble for people who's state laws don't let them have SBRs, but telling people to "not comply" as if everybody doesn't have a pot to piss in and wants to risk their career, house, marriage, kids etc over just registering in whatever way the .gov says acceptable, which is about as unreasonable as it gets. |
|
Quoted: Out of all the shit we could have seen from a mile a way, I love how it's this thing in particular that so many people claim is the hill they are willing to die on. The grey area accessory meant for cripples that the ATF themselves had changed their opinion on back and forth for the few years they've been in existence. It's not the red flag laws, it's not the Brady Bill, it's not the whole NFA/GCA itself, just the braces. I've also never seen so much disinfo spread so quickly, I feel bad for guys who honestly want to make a decision and can't get legitimate concrete info because guntubers with clickbait titles would rather stir the shit instead of inform people properly of the advantages and disadvantages of whatever option you go with as well as how it works having a registered SBR as opposed to a brace. I still am hearing BS about "they are making you take photos of your felony!11!!1!" when anybody can literally go on the "amnesty" Form 1 application and see everything they ask for, and the only thing on the application is asking for a photo of the markings/serial on the receiver, the same as it is on the "regular" F1 application. The two applications are identical. Like I totally get the trouble for people who's state laws don't let them have SBRs, but telling people to "not comply" as if everybody doesn't have a pot to piss in and wants to risk their career, house, marriage, kids etc over just registering in whatever way the .gov says acceptable is about as unreasonable as it gets. So which hill then fellow gun owner? |
|
Quoted: But does anyone actually need to be charged (of anything) for it to apply, really? Self-incriminating is self-incriminating. Seeing as how there really is no choice according the proposed ruling(s), i.e., what would happen if you do not comply with it, when you do comply and your submittal is declined there still remains the fact you were required to self-incriminate yourself in order to comply. ETA: If you’re stopped by a officer/deputy for whatever reason so they may ask you a question or two (investigating, in other words), you’re not charged with anything but you can still incriminate yourself by saying the wrong thing… Even if the 5th doesn't precisely apply you'd need a really nasty prosecutor, judge and jury to accept that you deserved a felony conviction for doing EXACTLY WHAT THE REGULATORY AGENCY TOLD YOU TO DO VERY PUBLICLY. |
|
Quoted: My biggest issue with this ruling is the flip from the assumption of innocence to one of assumption of guilt. Even though the law states that intent is a key element, an executive branch enforcement authority is now going to determine your intent through a subjective, arbitrary, and capricious process that starts at the position that you have an unregistered SBR in your possession. If you can't see how unamerican that is... The more logical reading, to me at least, is that the existence of a brace instead of a stock shows the intent to comply with the law. If you didn't intend to comply and planned to build an unregistered SBR you likely would have used a stock from the outset. Agreed. This proposed ruling basically flat out says you are guilty of breaking law even though you only carried out your activity/activities within the scope of prior “interpretations”. It’s creating a condition whereby those who worked within the boundaries of law will be placed on the other side of the line. |
|
Quoted: So which hill then fellow gun owner? I don't know, I really think guns are irrelevant when they've been incarcerating a huge percentage of the population for years over victimless crimes while those who govern you openly commit all types of fraud. Your kids are indoctrinated in public schools and the state of society is in perpetual decay, I think the state of gun legislation is irrelevant. "Free men" are always going to do "free men" shit, but it's often those men who often have the least to lose, unfortunately. How about you? Everybody is a badass until you get that knock on your door. You going to risk not seeing your son or daughter anymore because of a piece of plastic? If so, you do you, fam. I'm waiting for the collapse of the whole system, but I'm not going to act like a badass with nothing to lose on the internet. |
|
Quoted: Out of all the shit we could have seen from a mile a way, I love how it's this thing in particular that so many people claim is the hill they are willing to die on. The grey area accessory meant for cripples that the ATF themselves had changed their opinion on back and forth for the few years they've been in existence. It's not the red flag laws, it's not the Brady Bill, it's not the whole NFA/GCA itself, just the braces. I've also never seen so much disinfo spread so quickly, I feel bad for guys who honestly want to make a decision and can't get legitimate concrete info because guntubers with clickbait titles would rather stir the shit instead of inform people properly of the advantages and disadvantages of whatever option you go with as well as how it works having a registered SBR as opposed to a brace. I still am hearing BS about "they are making you take photos of your felony!11!!1!" when anybody can literally go on the "amnesty" Form 1 application and see everything they ask for, and the only thing on the application is asking for a photo of the markings/serial on the receiver, the same as it is on the "regular" F1 application. The two applications are identical. Like I totally get the trouble for people who's state laws don't let them have SBRs, but telling people to "not comply" as if everybody doesn't have a pot to piss in and wants to risk their career, house, marriage, kids etc over just registering in whatever way the .gov says acceptable, which is about as unreasonable as it gets. We will never have a better chance to peacefully rebel. |
|
Quoted: Unless they charge you with something you can't self incriminate. Go on YouTube and post a FUCK YOU ATF machine gun conversion video. Show it in operation, with a picture of yourself, picture of the weapon, your address and finger prints. When the ATF shows up at your door, clearly tell them to fuck off, because the reason for their search warrant was invalid due to the Video you posted being allowed, because you have the right to not self incriminate. During the 120 period, your information does not constitute breaking a law. Your request for a stamp under this program is not a guarantee of approval. It's the process they require to get approved. Should they not approve you for 'reasons' you will be in possession of a weapon that violates the NFA after 120 days. Your information on how to find you and what to look for in not self incrimination. You provided it freely. Until they charge you, you aren't protected from self incrimination, because you haven't been caught yet. After the 120 days you would be afforded those rights, if charged. Shutting one's pie hole and letting the courts play out is a smart move. If it goes in favor of 2A, then no harm no foul. If it doesn't, one's options are left wide open to MOLON BRACE, boating accident or filing for a $200 stamp if you choose. Freely telling them you own a brace, runs the risk of not getting a Tax Stamp waiver and severely limits the options on what you can do next. It also opens up the chance for legal issues and all that can go along with it. A con is always successful when the mark is promised something they want so bad, that they are willing to throw all caution to the wind because the want overshadows the obvious risk. If it's too good to be true there is a reason no matter how much I want to believe it's going to happen. Playing Three-card Monte with the ATF. |
|
Quoted: Out of all the shit we could have seen from a mile a way, I love how it's this thing in particular that so many people claim is the hill they are willing to die on. The grey area accessory meant for cripples that the ATF themselves had changed their opinion on back and forth for the few years they've been in existence. It's not the red flag laws, it's not the Brady Bill, it's not the whole NFA/GCA itself, just the braces. I've also never seen so much disinfo spread so quickly, I feel bad for guys who honestly want to make a decision and can't get legitimate concrete info because guntubers with clickbait titles would rather stir the shit instead of inform people properly of the advantages and disadvantages of whatever option you go with as well as how it works having a registered SBR as opposed to a brace. I still am hearing BS about "they are making you take photos of your felony!11!!1!" when anybody can literally go on the "amnesty" Form 1 application and see everything they ask for, and the only thing on the application is asking for a photo of the markings/serial on the receiver, the same as it is on the "regular" F1 application. The two applications are identical. Like I totally get the trouble for people who's state laws don't let them have SBRs, but telling people to "not comply" as if everybody doesn't have a pot to piss in and wants to risk their career, house, marriage, kids etc over just registering in whatever way the .gov says acceptable, which is about as unreasonable as it gets. 
|
|
Quoted: (in the ATFs mind) It's an unregistered SBR that the ATF is going to allow in that configuration until you get your registered tax stamp. Then you are free to do as you please. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Nothing but the faq that confirms the obvious logic that once its an sbr putting a stock on it leaves it still an sbr. Here’s another random guy on the internet that’s not a lawyer opinion  .If they had said that these are braced pistols but must be converted to SBR via Form 1, I could understand leaving the brace on until approved. However, they call them SBR’s already, approved or not, in their eyes these are SBR’s. If it’s already an SBR, and a brace is now considered a stock in their eyes, then why can’t you replace the stock (brace) with a different stock. The logic makes no sense to call them SBR’s but then say the brace can’t be replaced with a stock until approved because again, they already consider it an SBR. But then none of this makes sense anyways. 
|
|
Quoted: I said it before and I'll say it again, all of you who bend your knee to the government on this, you deserve what you get in return. I almost hope something happens to those who gleefully rush to register your shit, you can be the sacrificial sheep for the greater good. I don’t disagree with you. |