[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pistol brace rule signed (VACATED 6/13/24) (Page 19 of 160)
|
Don't sit on the sidelines. Donate to SAF and GOA to help fight back. https://www.saf.org/ https://www.gunowners.org/ |
| I’m pretty fucking tired of my government using the taxes I, a law-abiding citizen, pay to label me a criminal for following the government’s bullshit laws to the letter. How much of our tax money did it cost for the AFT to research and write this 293 page abomination that vilifies folks here who try to follow the law and just want to live in peace? I know I’m bitching to the choir. |
|
Quoted: This. Quoted: Quoted: Second Amendment Foundation v BATFE is in the Northern District of Texas, in the 5th Circuit, and has been held pending the final rule for several months. Now that the final rule is at hand, and Cargill v Garland says the ATF does not have the authority to change it's mind on the legality of products subjecting owners to criminal liability, expect things to move quickly. Kharn This. Concur There's too much precedent, and the ATF has dropped a bunch of rulings on pistols, accessories, braces...only to turn around and rescind all of it with this. There's mountains of paperwork regarding pistols that wasn't available for bumpstocks, so this should be relatively straightforward. |
|
Quoted: So this doesn't apply to a Shockwave...firearm. If you'd have read all the ATF information you would understand YOU ARE WRONG. It applies to both the shockwave and their long buffer tubes. Bare buffer tubes can be ruled as a SBR. It's clear, we are in the wrong, ATF says so and they always meant braces to be on AR pistols (i.e. short barrels not 10.5,11,12). |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. LOL. You need to go look at replies to @ATFHQ Link to the Tweets Holy shit those are great |
|
Quoted: wait- so who would have put a braced pistol on their trust? And why??? I bet there are rich gun guys who threw stuff like AR pistols onto a trust that they already had NFA stuff in. Particularly in western states where there are plenty of older rich guys into guns. I see these guys at the local fancy tactical gun shop carrying out stuff like B&T pistols like you guys take PSA build kits home. |
|
Quoted: 5. take the brace off and use it with a bare buffer tube. I am sorry but after reading the ruling and the ATF info on their website, a buffer tube had better be a short buffer tube AND still if you have a rifle sight or magnified scope you have an SBR. Those are their criteria for determining if a firearm is an NFA SBR or a Pistol. |
|
The 'free' tax stamp should come with a free voucher to get that tattooed on the recipients forehead. |
|
Quoted: Don't sit on the sidelines. Donate to SAF and GOA to help fight back. https://www.saf.org/ https://www.gunowners.org/ Yep, time to fight back instead figuring out how to comply harder. |
|
Quoted: Is a bare pistol buffer tube now a stock? It depends on the length of pull, weight of pistol, rifle sight or rifle scope. AFT get's to determine what is and is not an SBR during enforcement. Transferring or building any braced pistol after the rule goes into the federal register will be a violation of the NFA and will be enforced. |
|
Quoted: The 'free' tax stamp should come with a free voucher to get that tattooed on the recipients forehead. Quoted: The 'free' tax stamp should come with a free voucher to get that tattooed on the recipients forehead. Hey if you want to do time over this, God bless you for being a hard ass. Your loved ones will cry and you'll be quickly forgotten here (remember the poor cop here who got J6ed?). I'm not interested in losing out on 3-5 years of my little kid's lives. I never paid much attention to AR pistols and SBRs. I've shot 14.5 ARs plenty and never saw much appeal. Last week figuring this was coming I bought this $ 500 wonder  I haven't had a chance to shoot it but it sure is a sweet looking little lead thrower. Is it worth not putting my kids to bed, taking them to tennis practice, watching them sing in the Christmas Choir show for a half a decade? And let's be honest, you tough talkers aren't going to show up with a helicopter, M4s and a rope ladder when I'm in the prison rec yard. |
|
Quoted: I am sorry but after reading the ruling and the ATF info on their website, a buffer tube had better be a short buffer tube AND still if you have a rifle sight or magnified scope you have an SBR. Those are their criteria for determining if a firearm is an NFA SBR or a Pistol. Are flip up sights considered rifle sights and does a Bushnell Red Dot keep it a pistol? |
|
Quoted: This! Is having a buffer tube attached to a lower considered a stock now? It depends on the configuration of the "pistol". AFT can still determine it to be a pistol if the buffer tube is carbine length or been lengthened for the intended use of shouldering the tube. Remember the lower is the firearm and the SBR/tube is legal on that until you put a barrel < 16" with the lower. I personally think an upper with a 16" barrel attached fixes the situation legally. Also, a box of parts is just that parts. Keep the receiver away from the parts. Lol |
|
Quoted: That would be interesting. Say a million new registered SBRs and then the rule gets thrown out. What would the atf do then? Honestly I wonder if a million or more SBRs were registered, wouldn't that make them fall under common usage and then protected under recent USSC ruling? Since they were free, if braces stay legal, they will cancel the stamps, and it's back to a brace for you. But they still have all your information. |
|
Quoted: I wonder if I can just take a picture of a braced lower with no upper and not get taxed  I don't see how because the definition of an SBR is a rifle( including braced ) with a barrel < 16" in length. You will need at least one upper to move between all your lowers with braces.
|
|
Quoted: Are flip up sights considered rifle sights and does a Bushnell Red Dot keep it a pistol? Quoted: Quoted: I am sorry but after reading the ruling and the ATF info on their website, a buffer tube had better be a short buffer tube AND still if you have a rifle sight or magnified scope you have an SBR. Those are their criteria for determining if a firearm is an NFA SBR or a Pistol. Are flip up sights considered rifle sights and does a Bushnell Red Dot keep it a pistol? NFA and GCA don't say anything about sights. They don't factor,in to what is a pistol. |
|
Quoted: Which is why this ruling will eventually get shot down in court. I suspect you're correct. This fiat decree is about as fatally flawed as it can be, and in more ways than one. I'm sure ATF knows that. This entire stunt is likely an information grab. I hope few fall for it. |
|
Quoted: I hope you're right. You don't have you. You just have to look at the last century of fighting about 2A. The ATF waking up one day and wiping out part of the firearm market is nothing new. What has changed is that where in the 80s no one dared go against them, today the ATF usually loses. |
|
Quoted: Registry. They have been trying to back door one for decades. They have to create one before they can move to national confiscation, which is the actual endgame for them. Probably the main reason along with tax revenue. Wouldn't surprise me one bit for someone in congress to tell the ATF they can't negate the tax and all of the individuals that just registered need to pay $200. |
|
Quoted: Are flip up sights considered rifle sights and does a Bushnell Red Dot keep it a pistol? If it has a peep sight then yes according to AFT. Pistol sights are what it needs. AFT pretty much implies that if they think you can shoulder it and fire it like a rifle, then it is an SBR rifle. The day of strict technical information to make a logical determination is gone. |
|
Quoted: If you'd have read all the ATF information you would understand YOU ARE WRONG. It applies to both the shockwave and their long buffer tubes. Bare buffer tubes can be ruled as a SBR. It's clear, we are in the wrong, ATF says so and they always meant braces to be on AR pistols (i.e. short barrels not 10.5,11,12). He means the Shockwave shotgun. 28. CAN A SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN BE REGISTERED DURING THE 120-DAY TAX FORBEARANCE PERIOD? No. The forbearance period only applies to SBRs. But... Apparently a braced firearm like the Shockwave is not an SBR, and not a SBS either. So a brace is only a stock if it is on a rifle (pistol) but not a shotgun (firearm). 19. IF I HAVE A DISABILITY AND NEED A “STABILIZING BRACE” TO OPERATE THE FIREARM (AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND INTENDED), DO I NEED TO REGISTER IT? • Yes, but only if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is an SBR. If the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is not an SBR, it need not be registered and, consistent with the federal firearm laws, may continue to be possessed and used by persons with or without a disability. See Questions 4 and 5 above for more information on how to determine if the “stabilizing brace” equipped firearm you possess is an SBR. If the firearm is an SBR, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Total ATF logic |
|
Quoted: Yes, that the way I read it. And who’s to say just register one using the same number on all five. Hypothetically, of course. Quoted: Quoted: If I hypothetically have 5 braces, can I get 5 free SBRs? Asking hypothetically. Yes, that the way I read it. And who’s to say just register one using the same number on all five. Hypothetically, of course. I would disagree. I don't think any of us know what they will ask for during eform processing. I think a picture of each firearm and serial number of each receiver. SBRs have barrels, receivers with serial numbers, etc. but if you have the parts you can assemble each and photograph. Good luck. |
|
I don't want to rant or rave about the justice of this (it is totally retarded). But, I need to think through all the options in order to proceed rationally. Let's say someone owned both a Ruger PC carbine and PC Charger. Because the Charger barrel can go right on a PC carbine; would the carbine need to be stamped if the short barrel for it were readily available such as sitting in the same damn safe? |
|
Quoted: NFA and GCA don't say anything about sights. They don't factor,in to what is a pistol. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am sorry but after reading the ruling and the ATF info on their website, a buffer tube had better be a short buffer tube AND still if you have a rifle sight or magnified scope you have an SBR. Those are their criteria for determining if a firearm is an NFA SBR or a Pistol. Are flip up sights considered rifle sights and does a Bushnell Red Dot keep it a pistol? NFA and GCA don't say anything about sights. They don't factor,in to what is a pistol. But the rule mentions rifle sights + pistol = rifle. On the dot yes. But if you have a brace or a buffer tube that is long enough that you could shoulder, remade into a rifle by installing on a pistol then, you have a rifle. Look I am not a lawyer and to interpret the rule is going to take lawsuits and to do that someone has to have standing ( charged with a crime or cost them money like kak ) |
|
Quoted: If you submit within 120 days after publication you are OK. pg 13 This part is a kicker. It says if you're denied within the 120 days, you're gonna be a felon. It also says they won't let you register after 120 days as well. So even if it took someone 120 days to even hear about this and try to do it the "legal" way, they won't let you? How the fuck does that make sense? |
|
I noticed an interesting discrepancy in the FAQ. They say one option is to permanently remove the brace or modify it so it can't be installed again. This way if it was still in your possession along with the pistol, they couldn't claim constructive possession. They later address this saying that possession of pistols and unmodified braces might be constructive possession if they decide to charge you. Another option they give you is to replace the barrel with a 16" or longer barrel. But here's the interesting bit... They don't tell you that you have to destroy or modify the short barrel after removing it, and they don't mention possession of the short barrel along with a rifle in their bit about constructive posession. I'm sure that just an oversight or possibly an intentional omission to give another way to get you if you went the 16" barrel route instead of the brace removal route. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If they wouldn’t, do you really think they should admit to as much on a public forum that’s also regularly monitored by the feds? I don’t. I think that’d be pretty moronic. Almost as moronic as expecting them to do so. LOL. You need to go look at replies to @ATFHQ Link to the Tweets Those are awesome. |
|
Quoted: I suspect you're correct. This fiat decree is about as fatally flawed as it can be, and in more ways than one. I'm sure ATF knows that. This entire stunt is likely an information grab. I hope few fall for it. Quoted: Quoted: Which is why this ruling will eventually get shot down in court. I suspect you're correct. This fiat decree is about as fatally flawed as it can be, and in more ways than one. I'm sure ATF knows that. This entire stunt is likely an information grab. I hope few fall for it. I agree and all of it is so vague and up to AFT enforcement to make final determinations that no one knows precisely what to do. It will be interesting to see what the industry will do about this. |
|
Brace rule: Attached File NYSRPA v Bruen: Attached File So the government cannot simply state "this is outside the second amendment" and be presumed valid. Kharn |
|
Quoted: I don't want to rant or rave about the justice of this (it is totally retarded). But, I need to think through all the options in order to proceed rationally. Let's say someone owned both a Ruger PC carbine and PC Charger. Because the Charger barrel can go right on a PC carbine; would the carbine need to be stamped if the short barrel for it were readily available such as sitting in the same damn safe? my understanding is it comes down to: can your parts not be assembled into a legal configuration. So you can have as many short uppers and barrels as your hearts content as long as you have at least 1 pistol or SBRed lower, regardless of your number of title-1 rifle lowers (but you need one 16"+ upper for each title-1 rifle lower otherwise you'd be in constructive possession). You can also have a 10" upper if you have zero lowers that would accept it, at all (you have no way to assemble a gun from this upper... so its just random parts to them) . But if you have a single 10" upper/barrel with ONLY title-1 rifles lowers (even if each one is completely assembled and has a 16" upper sitting on it) then youd be in constructive possession of an illegal SBR as the 10" upper has no legal way of being assembled into a complete gun AND the possibilty exists that you could). |
|
Quoted: I don't want to rant or rave about the justice of this (it is totally retarded). But, I need to think through all the options in order to proceed rationally. Let's say someone owned both a Ruger PC carbine and PC Charger. Because the Charger barrel can go right on a PC carbine; would the carbine need to be stamped if the short barrel for it were readily available such as sitting in the same damn safe? I think Ruger and other companies will come out with recommend procedures so you do not have to have an NFA item. The easy answer is 16" barrel for the carbine. That would mean your charger will have a spare. |
|
Remember the vaccine mandate? It wasn't but lots of people injected an relatively unknown substance into their body against their better judgment because of a government threat despite their obvious overreach. Now coincidence is suddenly a top cause of death around the world. They are playing the same game. Why would it end differently for those that play along? |
|
Quoted: Brace rule: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/Braces_vs_Heller_20230113_JPG-2671360.JPG NYSRPA v Bruen: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/NYSRPA_v_Bruen_rational_basis_20230113_J-2671357.JPG So the government cannot simply state "this is outside the second amendment" and be presumed valid. Kharn |