User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:40:29 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:44:05 PM EST
[#2]
I still agree with the previous posted theory that there was a demand made that something must be done right now and the AFT just printed whatever the fuck half assed revision they were still working on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:44:16 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an visit about from the feds once the 120 days is up...  ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination than you might not even realize...this isn't 1990s anymore...so...learn to STFU about certain things...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... You sound a bit paranoid, true tinfoil hat stuff  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:44:23 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:45:05 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Isn't logic awesome! Thank you John! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:45:18 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You sound a bit paranoid, true tinfoil hat stuff Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an visit about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination than you might not even realize...this isn't 1990s anymore...so...learn to STFU about certain things...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... You sound a bit paranoid, true tinfoil hat stuff Naw...its a fact...but keep on keepin' on and find out one day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:45:49 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Their APPROVAL letters are what led to the creation the entire braced-pistol industry. If braced pistols were always illegal, that’s entrapment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You do understand ex post facto, right? They can't charge you with a crime for doing (or buying) something that was legal the time. Doesn't matter what you 'admit' if you're complying with the new rule within the window they give. BATFE's position is that it was not legal at the time. Their APPROVAL letters are what led to the creation the entire braced-pistol industry. If braced pistols were always illegal, that’s entrapment. Well they were for the past decade. As of this rule's publishing, they will have never been legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:46:03 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Not true. That is the viewpoint that gives them the benefit of the doubt. They changed their mind. No lawsuit or court came in to say that they had been in error. Nothing “happened” that made ATF change the rule. They simply decided to make the change to achieve a different desired end-state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:46:40 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Isn't logic awesome! Thank you John! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Isn't logic awesome! Thank you John! That’s not logic. It’s an unsupported leap to insist that a change of the rule implies an admission of error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:49:31 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 6:59:17 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Screw that crap...free men do how they please...free to make whatever decision they deem fit for them...but that doesn't mean it does not have consequences or reward down the road...cause/effect... Having seen how things play out on the corporate side of things when it comes to online presence...it can bite people in the rear immediately or in the future short or long term...freedom still comes at a cost...you have the freedom to say whatever you want on here...sometimes it is best to STFU...do you know how many times people self-incriminate themselves on a traffic stop or an investigatory session both on civil or criminal side of things because they can't STFU...a lot... Do you really think Brownell's (who owns ar15.com) at the end of the day are going to risk their multimillion dollar business over not complying with a federal warrant ... pleeeaaaseeeeee ... get real about that stuff ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:00:37 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many bump stock owners got their doors kicked in when that went into effect? The same number that sent the FATF their name, address and rifle serial # along with a statement saying they still had it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:01:05 PM EST
[#13]
I efiled 8 last week, including 4 imported pistols.
I didn’t mind registering, I already have multiple stamps-but I’m not destroying or surrendering shit. Come with a warrant or send bachelors |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:03:10 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Screw that crap...free men do how they please...free to make whatever decision they deem fit for them...but that doesn't mean it does not have consequences or reward down the road...cause/effect... Having seen how things play out on the corporate side of things when it comes to online presence...it can bite people in the rear immediately or in the future short or long term...freedom still comes at a cost...you have the freedom to say whatever you want on here... Do you really think Brownell's (who owns ar15.com) at the end of the day are going to risk their multimillion dollar business over not complying with a federal warrant ... pleeeaaaseeeeee ... get real about that stuff ... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Screw that crap...free men do how they please...free to make whatever decision they deem fit for them...but that doesn't mean it does not have consequences or reward down the road...cause/effect... Having seen how things play out on the corporate side of things when it comes to online presence...it can bite people in the rear immediately or in the future short or long term...freedom still comes at a cost...you have the freedom to say whatever you want on here... Do you really think Brownell's (who owns ar15.com) at the end of the day are going to risk their multimillion dollar business over not complying with a federal warrant ... pleeeaaaseeeeee ... get real about that stuff ... Look at my user name. Do you see me cower? They know who I am and took the same oath. I believe If we had a citizenry full of men this action on their part wouldn't even be conceivable because the outcry would be universal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:04:14 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Isn't logic awesome! Thank you John! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Since it's 180 reversal, and they are rescinding previous opinion letters, it's implied there was an error originally. If there are two mutually exclusive rulings, one earlier than the other, and the earlier one is being rescinded - by the act of resention the earlier ruling was plainly made in error. Isn't logic awesome! Thank you John! I forgot to add "Your Honor" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:05:11 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look at my user name. Do you see me cower? They know who I am and took the same oath. I believe If we had a citizenry full of men this action on their part wouldn't even be conceivable because the outcry would be universal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Screw that crap...free men do how they please...free to make whatever decision they deem fit for them...but that doesn't mean it does not have consequences or reward down the road...cause/effect... Having seen how things play out on the corporate side of things when it comes to online presence...it can bite people in the rear immediately or in the future short or long term...freedom still comes at a cost...you have the freedom to say whatever you want on here... Do you really think Brownell's (who owns ar15.com) at the end of the day are going to risk their multimillion dollar business over not complying with a federal warrant ... pleeeaaaseeeeee ... get real about that stuff ... Look at my user name. Do you see me cower? They know who I am and took the same oath. I believe If we had a citizenry full of men this action on their part wouldn't even be conceivable because the outcry would be universal. But that doesn't change the fact on how the world works in FY2023 and beyond...online presence tracing is real...and have been used in court...over and over and over... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:06:49 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But that doesn't change the fact on how the world works in FY2023 and beyond...online presence tracing is real...and have been used in court...over and over and over...you can thank the Patriot Act for boosting that capability... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Screw that crap...free men do how they please...free to make whatever decision they deem fit for them...but that doesn't mean it does not have consequences or reward down the road...cause/effect... Having seen how things play out on the corporate side of things when it comes to online presence...it can bite people in the rear immediately or in the future short or long term...freedom still comes at a cost...you have the freedom to say whatever you want on here... Do you really think Brownell's (who owns ar15.com) at the end of the day are going to risk their multimillion dollar business over not complying with a federal warrant ... pleeeaaaseeeeee ... get real about that stuff ... Look at my user name. Do you see me cower? They know who I am and took the same oath. I believe If we had a citizenry full of men this action on their part wouldn't even be conceivable because the outcry would be universal. But that doesn't change the fact on how the world works in FY2023 and beyond...online presence tracing is real...and have been used in court...over and over and over...you can thank the Patriot Act for boosting that capability... Again, veiled threats and intimidation. An American would only dig his heels in further when faced with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:06:54 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same number that sent the FATF their name, address and rifle serial # along with a statement saying they still had it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many bump stock owners got their doors kicked in when that went into effect? The same number that sent the FATF their name, address and rifle serial # along with a statement saying they still had it.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:08:03 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If BATFE operated in good faith and had proved to be a trustworthy organization I wouldn't be concerned. But that's not the case. A person would have to be out of their fucking mind to trust the ATF to tell them the sky is blue without getting a letter and checking for yourself. Once the ATF gets a pretty good percentage of braces registered, they will change their mind again to rule the people that registered them as knowingly broke the law and will collect the braced pistols. Or SBRs. Go to the various firearm subreddits. They are lining up to suck the ATF dick on the free stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:08:05 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not true. That is the viewpoint that gives them the benefit of the doubt. They changed their mind. No lawsuit or court came in to say that they had been in error. Nothing “happened” that made ATF change the rule. They simply decided to make the change to achieve a different desired end-state. Granted, these are Leftists we're talking about. And Leftists have the uncanny ability to hold two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously and be wholly and genuinely committed to both, however "changing their mind" implies they made an error - since ostensibly, they are interpreting the law and the law hasn't changed, so their earlier interpretation must have been in error. Your Honor No lawsuit has drawn this conclusion yet.  If they simply changed their mind because they felt like it, that is being capricious and a court will not accept that action. It also introduces ambiguity and then the concept of Lenity applies. The ATF have backed themselves into a logic trap here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:10:36 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an email about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination that you think you are...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... Ah yes, the pussies who talk about the fearful BATFE but have never looked death in the face and said fuck you. Sorry your balls haven't dropped bro... ROCK6 Cool man...because people haven't been charged on stuff based on what they have typed,said,recorded etc online...come on man...its not about fearfulness...its really about common sense...which some of you do not have... BTW, I've seen death...faced death....dealt with people that gave death to others...several times over...so attacking people behind a keyboard is really manly... So you suggest we act like so many fearful Soviets rather than free men? When he attacked Nolo I knew he was full of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:11:24 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When he attacked Nolo I knew he was full of shit. Attacked...really...I pointed out faults in the 88 day statement that spread like wildfire...I responded to him...he responded back...wasn't told I was wrong but was provided with opinions... ...he wasn't sure if resubmits are covered under the tax-exempt rule...they are...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:12:26 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Granted, these are Leftists we're talking about. And Leftists have the uncanny ability to hold two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously and be wholly and genuinely committed to both, however "changing their mind" implies they made an error - since ostensibly, they are interpreting the law and the law hasn't changed, so their earlier interpretation must have been in error. Your Honor No lawsuit has drawn this conclusion yet. If they simply changed their mind because they felt like it, that is being capricious and a court will not accept that action. It also introduces ambiguity and then the concept of Lenity applies. The ATF have backed themselves into a logic trap here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not true. That is the viewpoint that gives them the benefit of the doubt. They changed their mind. No lawsuit or court came in to say that they had been in error. Nothing “happened” that made ATF change the rule. They simply decided to make the change to achieve a different desired end-state. Granted, these are Leftists we're talking about. And Leftists have the uncanny ability to hold two mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously and be wholly and genuinely committed to both, however "changing their mind" implies they made an error - since ostensibly, they are interpreting the law and the law hasn't changed, so their earlier interpretation must have been in error. Your Honor No lawsuit has drawn this conclusion yet. If they simply changed their mind because they felt like it, that is being capricious and a court will not accept that action. It also introduces ambiguity and then the concept of Lenity applies. The ATF have backed themselves into a logic trap here. My wife changes her mind about what color we should paint the kitchen without EVER admitting that her previous color choice was a mistake. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:12:36 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think most people first saw a pistol brace and laughed and thought, "There is no way the ATF will let that slide." But then they did. They made multiple approval letters, and everyone was pleasantly surprised. Then, taking the supposed authority on the matter at their word, companies manufactured braces and braced guns, people bought them, and they were possessed and used peacefully for many years. Regardless of the rules, I don't think that SBRs should be regulated differently than any other conventional rifle or pistol. It all comes down to the way the political winds blow. The media has successfully frightened a voting majority of people into thinking guns should be heavily regulated. Conservatives will never control the media, sports, music and entertainment industries, so gun owners will never have public opinion on our side. Our numbers will continue to dwindle until we end up like most western countries with gun bans, or until the US splits up and a gun friendly country emerges. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: anybody who didnt see this pistol brace fiasco coming from the beginning is an absolute moron. Probably the most accurate, concise statement of this thread. I think most people first saw a pistol brace and laughed and thought, "There is no way the ATF will let that slide." But then they did. They made multiple approval letters, and everyone was pleasantly surprised. Then, taking the supposed authority on the matter at their word, companies manufactured braces and braced guns, people bought them, and they were possessed and used peacefully for many years. Regardless of the rules, I don't think that SBRs should be regulated differently than any other conventional rifle or pistol. It all comes down to the way the political winds blow. The media has successfully frightened a voting majority of people into thinking guns should be heavily regulated. Conservatives will never control the media, sports, music and entertainment industries, so gun owners will never have public opinion on our side. Our numbers will continue to dwindle until we end up like most western countries with gun bans, or until the US splits up and a gun friendly country emerges. Wrong. As our country has declined, there are more and more gun owners, of increasing types of people. Gun regulation has largely been on the decline. Especially at the federal level and in Red states. The only place it is regularly getting worse, are the liberal strongholds. And the Supreme court has just begun doing the lords work to end their tyranny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:12:48 PM EST
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:15:37 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I efiled 8 last week, including 4 imported pistols. I didn’t mind registering, I already have multiple stamps-but I’m not destroying or surrendering shit. Come with a warrant or send bachelors I am glad you 922r those imported pistols prior to getting your brace. That was forward thinking. I hope more people did the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:19:30 PM EST
[#27]
edited and warning sent - AJE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:21:29 PM EST
[#28]
edited - AJE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:21:58 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is the more likely scenario? 1. For the last 11 years every gun manufacturer that manufactured braced pistols, every importer and every gun dealer that sold braced pistols, and every retail customer that bought a braced pistol on a 4473 are all guilty of NFA violations for either manufacturing, importing , selling or possessing an unregistered SBR - totaling 10 to 40+ million violations. There is paperwork to prove it all assuming the "registration is a trap" crowd is correct that this rule is retroactive without exception. These people will be rounded up over time and arrested and put in prison. 2. The ATF allows 10-40 million people to register their braced pistols tax free without maliciously prosecuting them for made-up crimes that a court would throw out in 2 seconds. Being that the first part of #1 is ACTUALLY HAPPENING (again), I'm leaning towards the ATF going back on the word (again) and making felons out of people who went out of their way abide by the rules the ATF initially laid out and said was OK. #2 is bull. According to you and your ATF friends, there are no "braced PISTOLS" to register. They never existed. All letters rescinded. Only Illegal SBR's. Besides, why would I want to register something that does not need to be registered? Should we start registered semi-auto rifles as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:26:48 PM EST
[#30]
User is done for the thread - AJE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:30:44 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok. I guess we disagree. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Problem is you and your organization do too much interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:31:12 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:32:50 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All you have to do is just remove the brace from the gun. Then get rid of the brace, or destroy the brace to the point that it can't be reattached to the gun. You don't have to modify your gun in any way. The ATF said a standard buffer tube is fine as long as you don't have a stock or brace in your possession or control. If you have other stocks, in order to remove doubt I would have them all attached to legal firearms. Definitely don't store a spare stock with your AR-15 pistol, because the appearance is that you have that stock in your possession to put on that AR-15 pistol since they're both stored in the same place. In other words don't give the ATF a reason to prosecute you. Quote HistoryQuoted: All you have to do is just remove the brace from the gun. Then get rid of the brace, or destroy the brace to the point that it can't be reattached to the gun. You don't have to modify your gun in any way. The ATF said a standard buffer tube is fine as long as you don't have a stock or brace in your possession or control. If you have other stocks, in order to remove doubt I would have them all attached to legal firearms. Definitely don't store a spare stock with your AR-15 pistol, because the appearance is that you have that stock in your possession to put on that AR-15 pistol since they're both stored in the same place. In other words don't give the ATF a reason to prosecute you. Hey ATF dude stop pretending. You still never answered my question about being a native Texan. I mean, why would you be scared of being in front of an Obama judge when you live in a 2A sanctuary state that is in the 5th (most Trump appointees) circuit? Anyway, the response to this list request is....NO. Why should anyone remove and destroy a brace that they spent money on, and that the ATF repeatedly said is "OK" over the span of a decade? ATF trying to pretend this list never existed with some "we changed our minds retroactively" nonsense. ATF classified the following brace devices prior to August 2018: SB Tactical SB15 (marketed by SIG) SB Tactical PSB Brace Shockwave Blade Version 1 Shockwave Blade Version 2 Shockwave Blade with KAK Tube Gear Head Works Tailhook Version 1 Gear Head Works Tail Hook Version 2 Safe Pistol Arm Brace Strike Industries Stabilizer Three Versions of Strike Industries Stabilizers Strike Industries Stabilizer/Blade Trinity Force AR Pistol Stabilizer Bicep Brace Version 3 Accu Pistol Brace Version 2 Forearm BraceBP15 “AR15-type” Pistol Stabilizing Brace Version 2 Minimal Arm Brace Buffer Tube Adaptor for AK w/ SB15 Additionally, in 2020ATF classified a Ruger 556 pistol with a SB Tactical SBL Mini “stabilizing brace attached as a pistol and not a rifle. What about the 922r folks? The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implicationsresulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r) generally makes it unlawful “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy. They CAN'T remove their brace, even though they followed the ATF rules. No, I think I shall keep my braces on, and wait for the lawsuits to start. There is no need to rush into any of this hot mess that looks beyond Unconstitutional...especially post Bruen/WV/Cargill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:33:04 PM EST
[#34]
The ATF and their " rules" are so tiresome
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:33:19 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh good grief man...GROW UP! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP!  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:35:02 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Triggered-143.gif I am not the one triggered here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:35:40 PM EST
[#37]
I am not caught up, yet again...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5848 26 U.S. Code § 5848 - Restrictive use of information ( a ) General rule No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or records required to be submitted or retained by a natural person in order to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations issued thereunder, shall, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or on currently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence. ( b ) Furnishing false information Subsection ( a ) of this section shall not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information. I was unaware of this until Mark Smith posted a video on YouTube about it.  CRITICAL ATF OMISSION: PISTOL BRACE REGS FAIL to Cite CRITICAL NFA Federal Law (I wonder why?) I still wouldn't use the special brace eForm if I were going to stamp it as an SBR because it gives numbers for them to misrepresent regarding compliance and number of braces. IIRC, they mentioned bumpstock forfeiture in a similar way. If you absolutely have to stamp it right now, I would choose to cough up the $200 and do it the normal way so the numbers are not usable by the agency. Better yet, just wait and see how it plays out. Best yet, fuck all that noise and register nothing. ETA: Since 26 USC 5848 uses "natural person", I'm not sure how that would work out for trusts? I really don't know; perhaps a non-issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:42:38 PM EST
[#38]
How is the NFA not similar to a Poll Tax?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:43:08 PM EST
[#39]
What happens when we line up like cattle in compliance to their arbitrary rule change. What happens 6 months from now when they decided semis are autos in disguise? 'Fear not we will open the auto registry just register them please.' What then? Why should we let it get to that point? Everyone knows that is where this is leading. The days of academically discussing reaction to a future out of control government are over. It is here now. That present government has already repeatedly and publicly stated who it sees as the enemy. That enemy is us. In addition, it has mocked the citizenry's power (ARs vs F15s) while publicly declaring they will be disarmed.
We have right, heritage and the Constitution on our side. In addition, MANY of us have taken oaths meaning duty is involved. Do not allow them to coerce you into slavery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:43:28 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:44:45 PM EST
[#41]
So if one just wishes to divest inventory, can you even transfer it at this point?
TR |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:44:52 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh good grief man...GROW UP! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:49:34 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an visit about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination than you might not even realize...this isn't 1990s anymore...so...learn to STFU about certain things...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... I am sorry but I am just about out of ....... Yes sirs, I comply, please take more of my freedoms away from me sir. Giving out them cards my entire life is why I don't have nothing but crumbs left. We will be applying for ammo purchase cards next at this rate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:54:45 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See below. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:55:09 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:56:26 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same number that sent the FATF their name, address and rifle serial # along with a statement saying they still had it. Not sure how many did that, BUT I BET IT WAS FREE, TOO! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:56:29 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:57:29 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am sorry but I am just about out of ....... Yes sirs, I comply, please take more of my freedoms away from me sir. Giving out them cards my entire life is why I don't have nothing but crumbs left. We will be applying for ammo purchase cards next at this rate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also the same can be said about members that say I won't comply...which one do you think gets an IP address trace...which scenario do you think the ownership of AR15.com will get an visit about from the feds once the 120 days is up... ...many of you are doing more self-incrimination than you might not even realize...this isn't 1990s anymore...so...learn to STFU about certain things...Just saying...each do your own thing...comply or not comply...that is the choice...each...of...us....have.... I am sorry but I am just about out of ....... Yes sirs, I comply, please take more of my freedoms away from me sir. Giving out them cards my entire life is why I don't have nothing but crumbs left. We will be applying for ammo purchase cards next at this rate. Do you only fight for 2A rights or all others don’t matter because I don’t see many people actually doing anything about their rights outside of being online stating “I will not comply”…but in the end…you’ve already caved on many freedoms outside the 2A spectrum and even within it without a single “fight”…it’s cool to be brave online though… |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 7:59:51 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See below.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. FIFY because that's your argument |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 8:03:10 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… Says the guy trying to get as many people jammed up with a shitty legal situation as he possibly can. |
|
|
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.
