User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You can place it on a rifle - no problem. The issue is if the brace is an extra accessory just laying around and you also have an AR pistol in your possession. Then they can charge you with But if we keep going with this....it means that having flip-up sights...or a scope....or handstop...or a 3x multiplier...or an extra stock... laying around could also mean constructive possession. I mean, I own a both rifles and pistols. I have a bunch of shorty uppers and extra stocks laying around. A stock on my pistol or a shorty upper on my rifle "could"be an SBR. Funny...ATF says I have to destroy the brace....but what about the flip up sights? And what happens if I simply remove the brace? Are flip up sights good to go again? So much fail with the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:02:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did anyone post, just silly range toy, I can kill things at a 1000 yard, just an ATF workaround yet? But seriously, ATF needs to spend more time at their glory-holes and less time making up silly rules no one can understand. Those are only used when someone is bitching about the Republicans fucking us over. Everyone is on the same page now that it's the dems doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:03:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. And you wonder why no one like you 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:05:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OOF that worksheet is killing AR pistols 100% Page 16 & 17 for those curious. If its not a hand gun, its a rifle. The way I read it, foregrips, even horizontal foregrips...makes it an sbr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:05:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Too complicated, too arbitrary, not gonna worry about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:06:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Trump won in 2020. I voted for him happily twice. Democrats would have found a way to fuck us no matter what.
BUT The bump stock "re-definition" of what counts as a machine gun 100% set us up for this, as both the 80% rule and this rule are "re-definitions" and we have to squarely put that on President Kushner and his puppet, Donald Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:06:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But if we keep going with this....it means that having flip-up sights...or a scope....or handstop...or a 3x multiplier...or an extra stock... laying around could also mean constructive possession. I mean, I own a both rifles and pistols. I have a bunch of shorty uppers and extra stocks laying around. A stock on my pistol or a shorty upper on my rifle "could"be an SBR. Funny...ATF says I have to destroy the brace....but what about the flip up sights? And what happens if I simply remove the brace? Are flip up sights good to go again? So much fail with the ATF. "Constructive possession" only applies when the only possible configuration of an assemblage of parts/components results in an NFA weapon |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:07:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These rules are just absurd. You get a point if your gun has no sights. If the gun is borderline on points and you take your red dot off to change the battery, did you just construct an SBR by doing so? Clown world. You also get a point if you have flip up sights. But I guess fixed sights are OK.....including a carry handle.  HONK!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:07:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its brutal. You can tell they learned and adapted. BUIS, angle grips, weight, even red dot sights... all count against you. If it looks like you could shoulder it, its a rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Its brutal. You can tell they learned and adapted. BUIS, angle grips, weight, even red dot sights... all count against you. If it looks like you could shoulder it, its a rifle. Even having no sights counts against you... Looks like long eye relief scopes and fixed iron sites only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:09:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not what ex post facto means at all. I'm amazed how many people here don't seem to understand that idea. What it means is that they cannot charge you with a crime after the fact for something you owned legally previously that is now illegal but you no longer own - they can't charge you with complying with the law now but not before the law was a law basically. "After the fact" more or less. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Looking at this BS, I’m thinking it can be used against the gayTF in several ways; ADA discrimination, for one. That’d be fun. For two, arbitrary and capricious design, including their little “we can declare anything an SBR at our discretion” shows that its obviously biased to allow them to persecute anyone they want. Finally, by declaring almost anything/everything an SBR/SBS in an ex post facto fashion after approving them for commercial release, (and millions of sales) it falls under the common use clause laid out by the USSC. That's not what ex post facto means at all. I'm amazed how many people here don't seem to understand that idea. What it means is that they cannot charge you with a crime after the fact for something you owned legally previously that is now illegal but you no longer own - they can't charge you with complying with the law now but not before the law was a law basically. "After the fact" more or less. I didn’t mean that exact clause, but in the spirit of the law. I’m referring to the fact that the gayTF has flip-flopped several times on the legality of braced pistols, allowed them to reach great commercial success, and is now going to unilaterally declare them all SBR’s at their own discretion. It’s pushing chevron far too close to the point of actually changing the law rather than interpreting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:09:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's amazing... people are gonna legally buy a braced pistol (even after the ruling), screw some cheap chinesum crap onto it (unknowingly putting their gun past the prerequisite point count) and get arrested at the range for illegal possession of an NFA restricted gun. Total madness. Why don't our goddamn elected officials actually protect law-abiding folks and just take the arbitrary 16" barrel requirement out of the NFA?! There's already a bill languishing somewhere to do just that.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Its brutal. You can tell they learned and adapted. BUIS, angle grips, weight, even red dot sights... all count against you. If it looks like you could shoulder it, its a rifle. It's amazing... people are gonna legally buy a braced pistol (even after the ruling), screw some cheap chinesum crap onto it (unknowingly putting their gun past the prerequisite point count) and get arrested at the range for illegal possession of an NFA restricted gun. Total madness. Why don't our goddamn elected officials actually protect law-abiding folks and just take the arbitrary 16" barrel requirement out of the NFA?! There's already a bill languishing somewhere to do just that. What is it now, like 40 states with legal medical marijuana... yet still cricjets from congress... thew WANT us to be criminals, so they can selectively enforce laws against conservatives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:10:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Ask Randy Weaver's wife and son... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:11:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules.  Attached File Attached FilePathetic |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:12:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Oklahoma just passed 2nd amendment sanctuary law which allows okie cops to arrest feds if they try to enforce federal gun laws... we'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:12:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ask Randy Weaver's wife and son... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Ask Randy Weaver's wife and son... Point of order: Waco and Weaver were problems of opposition failing to achieve critical mass. This is a VERY important point to appreciate when considering how you choose to interpret these new "rules". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:13:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Trump won in 2020. I voted for him happily twice. Democrats would have found a way to fuck us no matter what. BUT The bump stock "re-definition" of what counts as a machine gun 100% set us up for this, as both the 80% rule and this rule are "re-definitions" and we have to squarely put that on President Kushner and his puppet, Donald Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:14:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump won in 2020. I voted for him happily twice. Democrats would have found a way to fuck us no matter what. BUT The bump stock "re-definition" of what counts as a machine gun 100% set us up for this, as both the 80% rule and this rule are "re-definitions" and we have to squarely put that on President Kushner and his puppet, Donald Trump. You do realize that the ATF, and it's predecessor agency have been reclassifying firearms and accessories since the NFA was written ????? The "set up" for this started almost 90 years ago.....when the law gave them the authority to do it. The only "fix" would be to effectively remove their interpretation / rule-making authority by rewriting Title 2 of the GCA......and that would require actual legislation. When was the last time you think such legislation would have made it's way thru the House/Senate, and to the Presidents desk?? hint: never |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:15:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't take orders from criminal pedophiles. I dont take orders from POTUS I dont work for the Gov. I'm not a peasant either I wont do what the king says, fuck that dickhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:15:38 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:16:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oklahoma just passed 2nd amendment sanctuary law which allows okie cops to arrest feds if they try to enforce federal gun laws... we'll see. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Without Congress passing legislation, or a Court ruling, how much legal weight does that worksheet carry? Congress seems to not want to dive back into the mess of passing gun control laws, even with the democrats supposedly being in charge (they seem more interested in coming up with fortifications and armed men to protect them from the voters). Courts seem to be working toward dismantling gun restrictions. States have been passing laws prohibiting state and local law enforcement helping enforce federal gun control laws. Would ATF stepping up their jack-booted thugness lead to more people complying with their rules? Or more people giving them the finger? Oklahoma just passed 2nd amendment sanctuary law which allows okie cops to arrest feds if they try to enforce federal gun laws... we'll see. Wow,nice. Going after the feds would be great,BUT,I don't see it happening. I hope it does,but we all know how that usually goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:17:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Just as a follow up:
https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/05/atf-rescinds-prior-methods-to-measure-a-firearms-overall-length-when-equipped-with-a-stabilizing-brace/ 2 years ago the ATF revised how to measure OAL. --------------------- In its letter, ATF specifies that [m]akers also create an artificial overall length measurement by attaching a folding stabilizing brace. Such a measurement would be problematic because the firearm could avoid classification as an “AOW,” yet retain the conceivability and remain fully functional. Measuring a folding (or telescoping) stabilizing brace would therefore undermine the comprehensive statutory and regulatory design of the GCA and NFA.…The measurement of a folding or collapsible stabilizing brace in the overall length of a firearm creates an artificial overall length that would permit a maker to avoid classification as an NFA “firearm” without a viable design purpose or legal justification. It goes on to say that even stationary braces cannot be included in the overall length measurement, but the receiver extension can be. Based on this letter, it is safe to say that ATF is taking the position that firearms equipped with stabilizing braces need to have their overall length measured with the brace folded or to the end of the receiver extension if the brace is stationary and non-adjustable. Adding a vertical foregrip to a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches results in the making of an AOW, which is subject to the National Firearms Act. -------------------------- So as of right now (unless a proposed change happened), we are measuring from the buffer tube, not the brace extended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:18:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this is obvious but there needs to be a HUGE fucking fire mission on here once the comments open on this rule change (if they haven’t already). Maybe one of the resident attorneys on here can come up with a template comment for those of us who don’t have a way with words. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:19:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do realize that the ATF, and it's predecessor agency have been reclassifying firearms and accessories since the NFA was written ????? The "set up" for this started almost 90 years ago.....when the law gave them the authority to do it. The only "fix" would be to effectively remove their interpretation / rule-making authority by rewriting Title 2 of the GCA......and that would require actual legislation. When was the last time you think such legislation would have made it's way thru the House/Senate, and to the Presidents desk?? hint: never Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Trump won in 2020. I voted for him happily twice. Democrats would have found a way to fuck us no matter what. BUT The bump stock "re-definition" of what counts as a machine gun 100% set us up for this, as both the 80% rule and this rule are "re-definitions" and we have to squarely put that on President Kushner and his puppet, Donald Trump. You do realize that the ATF, and it's predecessor agency have been reclassifying firearms and accessories since the NFA was written ????? The "set up" for this started almost 90 years ago.....when the law gave them the authority to do it. The only "fix" would be to effectively remove their interpretation / rule-making authority by rewriting Title 2 of the GCA......and that would require actual legislation. When was the last time you think such legislation would have made it's way thru the House/Senate, and to the Presidents desk?? hint: never And obama tried to get Bumpstocks banned twice-and failed. Then along comes Trump to show how it's done-tell the doj to force the atf to change the definition of something. Gets it done with almost no pushback. Shirley the dems didn't pay attention to the way it was done and decided to do it the same way? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:22:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. Like they really care about anyones comment pro or con. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:22:53 PM EDT
[#25]
I sure hope the industry, and by that I mean every AR pistol maker, the maker of every brace, etc....gets on board with this and puts their power to work. Any company that does that will receive more business from me.
This is about the most ludricous thing I have ever seen from government...even more than the $100 hammer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:26:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like they really care about anyones comment pro or con. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. Like they really care about anyones comment pro or con. Nope,decisions have already been made. Just doing the formality shit to give the sheep the illusion of making a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:26:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But if we keep going with this....it means that having flip-up sights...or a scope....or handstop...or a 3x multiplier...or an extra stock... laying around could also mean constructive possession. I mean, I own a both rifles and pistols. I have a bunch of shorty uppers and extra stocks laying around. A stock on my pistol or a shorty upper on my rifle "could"be an SBR. Funny...ATF says I have to destroy the brace....but what about the flip up sights? And what happens if I simply remove the brace? Are flip up sights good to go . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can place it on a rifle - no problem. The issue is if the brace is an extra accessory just laying around and you also have an AR pistol in your possession. Then they can charge you with But if we keep going with this....it means that having flip-up sights...or a scope....or handstop...or a 3x multiplier...or an extra stock... laying around could also mean constructive possession. I mean, I own a both rifles and pistols. I have a bunch of shorty uppers and extra stocks laying around. A stock on my pistol or a shorty upper on my rifle "could"be an SBR. Funny...ATF says I have to destroy the brace....but what about the flip up sights? And what happens if I simply remove the brace? Are flip up sights good to go . Yes. Read the proposal. Remove the brace and use a bare “pistol” tube and the sights don’t matter |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:26:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any type of handguard can fit this criteria. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56078/4_JPG-1970531.JPG Yep.. they just outlawed ak47 pistol, ar15 pistols, the scorpion, etc, etc, etc... welcome to AWB 2.0 Except this time we will need to ADD weight to keep legal guns. Fucking minimum weight now instead of max weight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:27:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. Just wait for them to declare every semi-automatic or double action firearm you own to be readily convertible to a machine gun. Pistol braces meet the letter of the law as per the NFA and meet it better than something like a Glock 17. "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:28:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even having no sights counts against you... Looks like long eye relief scopes and fixed iron sites only. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That worksheet is about as cut and dry as you can get. Its really worth looking at. Thats probably how they’ll attempt to frame an assault weapons ban next. Its brutal. You can tell they learned and adapted. BUIS, angle grips, weight, even red dot sights... all count against you. If it looks like you could shoulder it, its a rifle. Even having no sights counts against you... Looks like long eye relief scopes and fixed iron sites only. No. Flip sights, rifle sights and no sights are treated the same. One point. Red dot optic with unlimited eye relief is zero points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:30:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: unfortunately the pictures are dead in this thread... https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/3D-printed-swift-link/23-503692/ The pictures may be dead. But, the signal lives on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:31:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Loosing the velcro on the original sig brace automatically makes it an sbr, regardless of other feature A strap of VELCRO.... determines if its and SBR.. you cant even make this shit up  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Regardless of any accessories attached, right off the bat they're saying that the KAK Shockwave and SBA3 have enough features to put them over the 4 point limit: https://i.imgur.com/fuTz9Gu.png https://i.imgur.com/kaIndL7.png https://i.imgur.com/KJDSEq5.png https://i.imgur.com/w1SuYsb.png Loosing the velcro on the original sig brace automatically makes it an sbr, regardless of other feature A strap of VELCRO.... determines if its and SBR.. you cant even make this shit up Shockwave with velcro added is gtg? Take off velcro from sig brace.. go to jail... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:35:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just wait for them to declare every semi-automatic or double action firearm you own to be readily convertible to a machine gun. Pistol braces meet the letter of the law as per the NFA and meet it better than something like a Glock 17. "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. Just wait for them to declare every semi-automatic or double action firearm you own to be readily convertible to a machine gun. Pistol braces meet the letter of the law as per the NFA and meet it better than something like a Glock 17. "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." Dude probably doesn't even own firearms. Well, hopefully not anyway. Someone that is consumed with that much TDS probably shouldn't own firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:43:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Their excuse is that the rear peep sight is only usable with your eye up close, so you'd have to shoulder the gun to aim it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Too many hoops.... Too arbitrary.... Too late.... I'm curious as to what braces sold today, as is, would actually pass as a brace. I don't think anyone will get rid of their brace (some might take them off), and there will be lawsuits for years....assuming this even goes through. You can still fail on other metrics like weight(both low and high), overall length, magnified optics, front grips and even flip up sights add a point towards failing. I bet they included flip up sights because of the multitude of pistols coming with MBUS sights. Cheap and light weight, so ATF figured to include them. Kharn Their excuse is that the rear peep sight is only usable with your eye up close, so you'd have to shoulder the gun to aim it.  Attached FileThe 0-200 aperture works just fine at arm's length. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:44:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dude probably doesn't even own firearms. Well, hopefully not anyway. Someone that is consumed with that much TDS probably shouldn't own firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. Just wait for them to declare every semi-automatic or double action firearm you own to be readily convertible to a machine gun. Pistol braces meet the letter of the law as per the NFA and meet it better than something like a Glock 17. "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." Dude probably doesn't even own firearms. Well, hopefully not anyway. Someone that is consumed with that much TDS probably shouldn't own firearms.  Sorry I'm not going to forgive and worship a lying fuck that ran on the 2nd and promptly fucked some of us over. Not sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:45:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Defund the ATF
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:54:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dont take orders from POTUS I dont work for the Gov. I'm not a peasant either I wont do what the king says, fuck that dickhead. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't take orders from criminal pedophiles. I dont take orders from POTUS I dont work for the Gov. I'm not a peasant either I wont do what the king says, fuck that dickhead. If that’s true... why dick around with the brace in the first place |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:55:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. Read the proposal. Remove the brace and use a bare “pistol” tube and the sights don’t matter Yes, I know. That is the point of my comments. What they proposed makes zero sense. Let's say you ONLY own a pistol with an SB Mini that is considered legal under the new proposal. If you have flip up sights, a finger stop, and a 3x laying around, do you have to destroy some of them since they could turn your pistol into an SBR? I would assume that because you can take the approved brace off, you could then add the finger stop, the 3x and/or flip-ups (which makes ZERO logical sense). If you don't have an approved brace, do you just buy a 16" upper and throw it in the closet? You can remove your brace and keep it with the 16" upper (if one wanted to go that route while waiting out the court cases sure to come). I'm not sure how the ATF thinks this is saving lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:55:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually I take that back…the worksheet defines braces as an accessory and then goes on to say the pistol should be weighed with accessories removed. An SBA3 is 6.75oz, which would put a 15-22 pistol underneath the 48oz threshold necessary to trigger scoring of the brace attachment. Not a lawyer, but I believe 15-22 pistols should be good to go Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: M&P 15-22 pistol weight is 53.6oz per S&W. I am betting there is a way to remove 5.6oz from that thing. Actually I take that back…the worksheet defines braces as an accessory and then goes on to say the pistol should be weighed with accessories removed. An SBA3 is 6.75oz, which would put a 15-22 pistol underneath the 48oz threshold necessary to trigger scoring of the brace attachment. Not a lawyer, but I believe 15-22 pistols should be good to go Check the fine print, they call the brace an assessors, but then say it don't count as an assessors for purposes of their fycking marix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:56:48 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can place it on a rifle - no problem. The issue is if the brace is an extra accessory just laying around and you also have an AR pistol in your possession. Then they can charge you with intent. If it’s like stocks, it’s only “intent” (or constructive possession) if you have nothing else that a stock can legally go on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 12:59:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't braces originally come about to help amputees and the disabled? Is anyone going after them from that angle? Why does the Biden administration hate disabled people?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:00:43 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:01:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oklahoma just passed 2nd amendment sanctuary law which allows okie cops to arrest feds if they try to enforce federal gun laws... we'll see. Seriously? I thought most 2A sanctuary laws just prohibit local LEO from assisting the Feds. I think laws that say local cops can arrest federal cops for enforcing federal law isn’t going to go down well, and is probably unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:02:40 PM EDT
[#44]
The whole problem is they need moar $200 so if we just send them some cash they will back down. Right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:05:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not actually supported it,but many made excuses/justifications/defenses for it. And some of us voiced the concern over that not being the last thing they go after without the need for Congress. And here we are. Well,here you are,since I don't own a Brace or AR pistol and at this point will comment in favor of the new rules. For informational purposes, I would like you to consider a few of the facts of life: 1. "Everyone commits three felonies a day" 2. You are explicitly declaring that you are going to help the AFT. And haven't made any indication that it is for accelerationist purposes. 3. Snitches get stitches. Careful about being too quick to open doors that should remain closed. There was a greek lady who discovered to her sorrow the consequences of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:06:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even having no sights counts against you... Looks like long eye relief scopes and fixed iron sites only. Scout scopes? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:07:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You can place it on a rifle - no problem. The issue is if the brace is an extra accessory just laying around and you also have an AR pistol in your possession. Then they can charge you with ...intent to manufacture an SBR IF you have an extra AR pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:09:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You do realize that the ATF, and it's predecessor agency have been reclassifying firearms and accessories since the NFA was written ????? The "set up" for this started almost 90 years ago.....when the law gave them the authority to do it. The only "fix" would be to effectively remove their interpretation / rule-making authority by rewriting Title 2 of the GCA......and that would require actual legislation. When was the last time you think such legislation would have made it's way thru the House/Senate, and to the Presidents desk?? hint: never Right. Bumpstocks were a royal fuck up on Trump's part and I condemn on that*, but lets not act like the AFT were a bunch of saints who he single-handedly turned to the path of evil. * though it is funny how most of Trump's worst mistakes so often have either a cabinet member, or a conservative luminary in the background pushing the decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:09:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good to go? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/240/5D5EB30F-C374-4C17-9EA5-A669A410E77F_jpe-1971617.JPG SBA brace, fixed sights, 10” barrel. Did you make that with the intent to use it from the shoulder or to use as a braced handgun? Even if it passes the point system. It fails if you intended (or they determined you intended) to use the brace as a shoulder stock. This important point is being missed in this thread. Intent may be hard or impossible to prove, but rap/ride and all that. Note: I don’t like any of this. But that is the reality of the world we live in with the laws as they are |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2021 1:10:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oklahoma just passed 2nd amendment sanctuary law which allows okie cops to arrest feds if they try to enforce federal gun laws... we'll see. I wouldn’t trust the state to defend me anymore than I do the feds. That law is a feel good law for conservatives. You know it as well as I do. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File