AR Sponsor
Keep all ATF Brace rule discussions HERE... UPDATE ON PAGE 26! (Page 25 of 26)
|
Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Do not hear much..But they are are being sold again..So they are OK now..And I think that decision is being appealed to the SCOTUS so we wait...I am certain Garland will lose there..I am doubtful the SCOTUS will even hear the case or the ATF decides to just drop it and let it go.. Only question is, what happens on the Amnesty registered ones.. The approvals say "conditional" so I expect that they will again become "pistols" if those conditions no longer exist. |
|
Brewer Firm Scores Legal Victory for NRA in “Pistol Brace” Lawsuit https://www.brewerattorneys.com/news/2024/3/29/brewer-firms-scores-legal-victory-for-nra-in-pistol-brace-lawsuit |
|
Originally Posted By s4s4u: The approvals say "conditional" so I expect that they will again become "pistols" if those conditions no longer exist. |
|
Originally Posted By keith13b: What about those that put stocks on their newly minted and approved SBR's? They are no longer configured as pistols anymore. It's gonna be a shit show. The approvals specifically say "conditional" as I understand it. I didn't play the game so I have no dog in the race. I knew it wasn't going to hold water in court. |
|
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/federal-judge-stays-entire-atf-pistol-brace-rule/ On Nov. 8, 2023, a Texas-based Federal District Court judge issued a nationwide stay preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing its rule on pistols equipped with stabilizing devices (2021R-08F). Recently, I talked with an AZ DPS Ranger who confirmed that a "pistol" with an arm brace is not considered an SBR as the above stay stops the rule from being enforced, nationwide. Has anyone been recently confronted by local, state, or federal law enforcement officers for having an arm brace on an AR-15 "pistol"? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. |
|
Originally Posted By BigHunt: Has ATF been working on any submissions since the original stay was issued? I have submissions still pending from May of last year. They still show up in my E-Forms account, but they are neither approved or denied. Word is, they stopped all activity due to the injunction. I have a sneaky feeling it will stay that way for a while, perhaps indefinitely. A lesson via Roe v Wade, there is a lot that they could lose by appealing further, and they have other battles to fight. |
|
Breaking news from FPC: Attached File |
“Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it’s sterile and I like the taste.” -Patches O’Houlihan
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Ok hear me out. Who would trade making bump stocks illegal if in exchange SBRs and suppressors were removed from the purview of the NFA? On principle, I’d say fuck no. I don’t own nor do I have any interest in owning a bumpstock. But that’s not a valid reason to say they should be banned just because I don’t have skin in the bumpstock game. Eventually they’ll come after something I do care about. Besides, if you give a mouse a cookie…. However, thinking practically, I’d make that trade. |
“Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it’s sterile and I like the taste.” -Patches O’Houlihan
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Ok hear me out. Who would trade making bump stocks illegal if in exchange SBRs and suppressors were removed from the purview of the NFA? Personally IDGAF for bump stocks, but on principle I say helles NO Give an inch, they take a mile. Be happy you can have a brace on your pistol and do with it what you wish. Suppressors were inches away from being removed from the NFA and then Mandalay Bay happened and scared off what little DFL support there was. We need a suppressor test case to challenge the constitutionality. |
|
Remember the last time we compromised?..This is what our representatives got for us ! Attached File |
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock. And most of all FJB
|
Originally Posted By Rlett4: Remember the last time we compromised?..This is what our representatives got for us ! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160387/IMG_6183_jpeg-3241625.JPG And NRA was just a bunch of FUDD "sportsmen", then and now. |
|
Originally Posted By s4s4u: Personally IDGAF for bump stocks, but on principle I say helles NO Give an inch, they take a mile. Be happy you can have a brace on your pistol and do with it what you wish. Suppressors were inches away from being removed from the NFA and then Mandalay Bay happened and scared off what little DFL support there was. We need a suppressor test case to challenge the constitutionality. Thats where I was going with my statement. The only hope as I see it to get anything removed from the NFA at this point is throwing the other side a bone. Hell, I can't afford the ammo to burn for a bump stock and honestly, I scratched the full auto itch when Uncle Sugar was buying it for me in the military. I would love a favorable SCOTUS ruling on suppressors but that'll be long time coming with a real chance the court makeup could change. |
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Thats where I was going with my statement. The only hope as I see it to get anything removed from the NFA at this point is throwing the other side a bone. Hell, I can't afford the ammo to burn for a bump stock and honestly, I scratched the full auto itch when Uncle Sugar was buying it for me in the military. I would love a favorable SCOTUS ruling on suppressors but that'll be long time coming with a real chance the court makeup could change. Unfortunately, I don't see them compromising on anything with the current state of affairs in DC. It's all TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, no give. Few on the left know or care to know what a suppressor actually does and doesn't do. They are like a snake, the body follows the head, no questions asked. The Courts are the only hope anymore, sadly. |
|
Originally Posted By Rlett4: Remember the last time we compromised?..This is what our representatives got for us ! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160387/IMG_6183_jpeg-3241625.JPG Time is retarded. The Gun Control Act was 1968, not 1938. With its passing, it repealed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. The GCA of 1968 is what created the FFL system and essentially ended mail order firearms. That whole excerpt from Time is just fucking stupid. |
“Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway because it’s sterile and I like the taste.” -Patches O’Houlihan
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
"I don't eff with poorsies."
-Mona-Lisa Saperstein
|
Originally Posted By Luny421: Time is retarded. The Gun Control Act was 1968, not 1938. With its passing, it repealed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Originally Posted By Luny421: Time is retarded. The Gun Control Act was 1968, not 1938. With its passing, it repealed the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Yeah, Time got the name wrong there. The GCA of 1968 is what created the FFL system and essentially ended mail order firearms. That whole excerpt from Time is just fucking stupid. From Google: The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) imposed a federal license requirement on gun manufacturers, importers, and those persons in the business of selling firearms. GCA '68 made it where buyers had to receive transfer of firearms from an FFL within their own state (unless those buyers are cops or other FFLs). It also created the C&R FFL for personal acquisitions since the old mail-order stuff was otherwise cut off. It also restricted NFA imports, limiting them for government sales only, and added the new NFA category of DDs. (I can't remember when AOWs were added, so someone help me out if you know please). GCA 1968 also clarified that MG receivers are MGs all by themselves, and added "parts or collections of parts" specifically designed as conversion devices to the MG definition as well. The only good thing GCA did was to re-define rifles as SBRs when the barrel goes under 16" as opposed to <18" as it had previously been (except for the 16" exception they had previously added in the late 1930s for .22 LR). They also had the famous amnesty registration program, mainly due to all those war trophy (DEWATs) they had now re-defined into being MGs due to their intact receivers, but they also let people register everything (even if it was stolen from the US government). Of course, just like today, a lot of people chose not to register anything. |
The cost of treason isn't paid in Dollars.
Joined:
Sep 2012
Posts:
4777
EE: 100% (3)
USA
|
Originally Posted By s4s4u: Unfortunately, I don't see them compromising on anything with the current state of affairs in DC. It's all TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, no give. Few on the left know or care to know what a suppressor actually does and doesn't do. They are like a snake, the body follows the head, no questions asked. The Courts are the only hope anymore, sadly. Celebrate these brace and bumpstock rulings for the massive legal victories they are. And keep supporting organizations like GOA and the FPC, who are proactively filing these type of lawsuits which win our natural rights back through legal proceedings. |
|
My understanding is that original gun control of 1934 was initially intended for handguns. During the political wrangling, the barrel length restriction (18" for both shotgun and rifles) was also added because they figured people would saw them off to get around the handgun restrictions. By the time the act was voted in, handguns had been removed completely, but the barrel length restrictions remained. Fast forward, and the rifle barrel length was amended to 16" after the government sold over a quarter million surplus M1 carbines to John Q. Public and realized they had 16" barrels, so the rifle length changed as a result. |
Joined:
Jun 2024
Posts:
10
EE: 0% (0)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By Grendelsnap: Bumpstocks would be silly hill to die on, but this vacating the pistol brace rule is massive. Good deal. It was a fight to save semiautomatic weapons. Well worth the effort. Braces opens the door to the next fight. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By tr6r: Is the ATF appealing the final rule in mock v Garland? Haven't heard anything yet. I think it could be a mistake if they did, as they might stand to lose a lot more than they might gain. Braces and AR's are well into common use and the court has been handing down a lot of 2A favorable decisions of late. If AFT contends there is no difference between a brace and a stock, it could be decided that SBR restrictions in general are no longer valid and are in violation of the constitution. Look what happened to R v W.... |
|
Originally Posted By s4s4u: Haven't heard anything yet. I think it could be a mistake if they did, as they might stand to lose a lot more than they might gain. Braces and AR's are well into common use and the court has been handing down a lot of 2A favorable decisions of late. If AFT contends there is no difference between a brace and a stock, it could be decided that SBR restrictions in general are no longer valid and are in violation of the constitution. Look what happened to R v W.... Getting rid of the SBR restriction would be awesome as I've harped on. It's been a dumb restriction all along. That said with the smack down of Chevron I'm curious where the ATF is willing to commit resources now, especially where prosecutions are concerned. Depending on circumstances makes a court challenge more likely IMHO. Hopefully they'll throw everything against gang bangers and their Glock Switches and leave the rest of us the hell alone. |
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Hopefully they'll throw everything against gang bangers and their Glock Switches and leave the rest of us the hell alone. I want a glock switch too though :( |
Prov 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.
|
had a discussion with a "libertarian" friend who seemed to think it was still a matter of consideration. I thought fedbois failed to seek cert with ussc on the vacate decision and haven't proposed a new rule? so we are back to status quo before they tried to reclassify everything and make us all felons. |
The deuce you say.
|
Elections have consequences. Don't forget to vote your rights. President Obama "'Elections Have Consequences" "Elections have consequences," he told then number two Republican Rep. Eric Cantor. "And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you." Interesting turn of phrase. |
|
Imagine that. Something that was never a law, but could send you to jail, is now not a law again, and congress, who make the laws, was never involved in any of it. #makingstuffup |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By durtychemist: So does this mean all those freeBRs are invalid now? Is the atf going to let it sit as an appeal or something forever? They’re going to remain valid SBR registrations. All those people who said otherwise were incorrect. Whether the ATF tries harder in court is a whole other matter, but I doubt they will. They’re pretty thoroughly defeated on this particular issue. |
|
Originally Posted By _DR: Imagine that. Something that was never a law, but could send you to jail, is now not a law again, and congress, who make the laws, was never involved in any of it. Better to leave rule-making to the ATF via changes to CFR, publication in The Federal Register, etc. (which was all standardized under another Congressional act). With the recent USSC overturn of Chevron deference (which was the doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of any ambiguous statute) hopefully the legal landscape which resulted in such BS will improve slightly, but it’s still going to remain as a source of continued ATF bureaucratic bullshit. Older (more established and equally ridiculous) federal regulations (in CFR) aren’t going away without more huge legal battles, which should be fought, but are expensive to fund and difficult to win. It is still easier to overturn CFR than US Code however. |
Joined:
Oct 2024
Posts:
5
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
So, that brace ban thing has been struck down all together for whole US, regardless of member ship in any organization, unless the gayTF wants to maybe appeal and then wins, an no word of that? I would think this would be hard for them to do in light of that other non-firearms ussc case about excessive rule making. I think maybe it was a case against the EPA? |
Member
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
65
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
But….now it seems the ATF is ignoring the courts’ decisions and calling all braced pistols SBRs. Maybe. January 20th can’t come soon enough. https://youtu.be/PdNg_lnA414?si=4nGknnGW9tfS7D6R . |
|
Originally Posted By ForwardResist: But….now it seems the ATF is ignoring the courts’ decisions and calling all braced pistols SBRs. Maybe. January 20th can’t come soon enough. https://youtu.be/PdNg_lnA414?si=4nGknnGW9tfS7D6R . They can call them anything they want, but it doesn't change the court ruling. I saw the letter that someone posted online. I just wonder why people keep writing them. |
Member
Joined:
Feb 2024
Posts:
66
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By ForwardResist: It doesn’t change the ruling, but they are using a different tactic which tries to circumvent the rulings. It can still land you in jail/court until all the legal mumbjumbo is ironed out. Do you want to risk that, right or wrong? January 20th is coming. . I completely ignored AFT the first time they tried the brace ban. They never did show up at my house to take me to the big house, go figger 
|
|
Originally Posted By ForwardResist: It doesn’t change the ruling, but they are using a different tactic which tries to circumvent the rulings. It can still land you in jail/court until all the legal mumbjumbo is ironed out. Do you want to risk that, right or wrong? January 20th is coming. . I know for a fact that local LE will NOT enforce it. They don't agree with it ideologically and they don't want the headache. I'm not worried about the ATF and braces. |
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives."-Abba Eban
"I like it both ways, but still mainly mouth it" -gonzo_beyondo
"I like it both ways, but still mainly mouth it" -gonzo_beyondo
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: Congress was involved decades ago, to the extent that they attempted (successfully) to “delegate” rule-making authority to ATF (and/or their predecessors at the Treasury Department) so Congress wouldn’t have to take as much direct control and continue to be viewed as the “bad guys” restricting firearms, since they quickly realized this cost them votes (and sometimes their seats in office). Better to leave rule-making to the ATF via changes to CFR, publication in The Federal Register, etc. (which was all standardized under another Congressional act). With the recent USSC overturn of Chevron deference (which was the doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of any ambiguous statute) hopefully the legal landscape which resulted in such BS will improve slightly, but it’s still going to remain as a source of continued ATF bureaucratic bullshit. Older (more established and equally ridiculous) federal regulations (in CFR) aren’t going away without more huge legal battles, which should be fought, but are expensive to fund and difficult to win. It is still easier to overturn CFR than US Code however. Wasn't the 1989 "assault weapon" import ban a Cfr? |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By ForwardResist: January 20th can’t come soon enough. I am not convinced Trump will do anything at all about AFT. He didn't do anything his last term, what makes anyone think this term will be different? |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: I am not convinced Trump will do anything at all about AFT. He didn't do anything his last term, what makes anyone think this term will be different? IDK, the AFT director resigned as soon as Trump was elected so he already did "something" |
|
Originally Posted By s4s4u: IDK, the AFT director resigned as soon as Trump was elected so he already did "something" Perhaps, but not intentionally. Don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy 3 times. But the 2A is not his strong suit. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: Perhaps, but not intentionally. Don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy 3 times. But the 2A is not his strong suit. I get it. I just had to post that. The thing with The Donald is that he has two sons who are hunters and avid 2A fanatics. Those boys have his ear. Everybody points to the meeting after that massacre and Trumps words. He wasn't prepared for that. Remember, Trump wasn't a republican until he realized the only way to the WH was with GOP. He is still learning. |
Keep all ATF Brace rule discussions HERE... UPDATE ON PAGE 26! (Page 25 of 26)
AR Sponsor