User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/20/2023 10:23:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree ??% Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They will do all “assault rifles” if they pull this one off. This is a test. Agree ??%  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2023 11:01:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because I prefer not being the Left’s poster boy of a white supremacist with a unregistered SBR. Then having to go through the cost of defending myself in their kangaroo court with no chance of winning. So change the barrel, lose the brace, or just don't do it and say fuck it?? Anything but register and be a bitch to the feds |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2023 11:14:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guess they'll have to come collect all our machineguns  Declare all AR15's machineguns and we'll probably get a preliminary injuction stopping them. Our odds of winning that battle are far higher than bumpstocks and braced guns and I feel fairly rosy about our odds in court on the brace issue. Fingers crossed. I hope they beat it down. A piece if plastic is not what makes an SBR or a pistol. It’s a piece of plastic. It’s pretty obvious. But lawyers and crooked atf can make their own meaning if words and things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2023 11:50:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guess they'll have to come collect all our machineguns Declare all AR15's machineguns and we'll probably get a preliminary injuction stopping them. Our odds of winning that battle are far higher than bumpstocks and braced guns and I feel fairly rosy about our odds in court on the brace issue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Stocks are machine guns. Shoe strings are machine guns. What's to stop them from saying your lower isn't a machine gun? This is all part of a bigger scheme. It always is. Declare all AR15's machineguns and we'll probably get a preliminary injuction stopping them. Our odds of winning that battle are far higher than bumpstocks and braced guns and I feel fairly rosy about our odds in court on the brace issue. That would make many AR owners realize they may as well enjoy themselves with some future home projects! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 12:38:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Did This Guy Actually Give All of Us an Escape Hatch on the Pistol Brace Rule?
 Did This Guy Actually Give All of Us an Escape Hatch on the Pistol Brace Rule? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 3:48:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Anyone figured out what’s legal or not in regards to simply removing the brace ?
Separate ar15 10” upper and braced lower…… legal ? Separate into 3 pieces… upper and lower and remove brace = upper receiver, complete lower without brace, and brace. Legal? Or break the upper down into components, and remove brace from lower = legal ? Saw the atf saying it must be thrown away or destroyed… ( zero chance of that ) but not sure how that’s legal, when having a short upper has always been legal, as was having stocked lowers. What a goat fuck of incompetence and tyrannical over reach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 4:24:29 PM EDT
[#7]
If you own any 16" uppers and/or SBR'd lowers, I would assume you can take the brace off and throw it your spare tools box like any other spare stock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 4:26:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone figured out what’s legal or not in regards to simply removing the brace ? Separate ar15 10” upper and braced lower…… legal ? Separate into 3 pieces… upper and lower and remove brace = upper receiver, complete lower without brace, and brace. Legal? Or break the upper down into components, and remove brace from lower = legal ? Saw the atf saying it must be thrown away or destroyed… ( zero chance of that ) but not sure how that’s legal, when having a short upper has always been legal, as was having stocked lowers. What a goat fuck of incompetence and tyrannical over reach. Remove the brace. Treat the brace exactly as you would treat a stock for constructive intent purposes. Somewhere between discarding/destroying it and simply never having it in the same gear pile as the pistol. The compliance options should be read as 'if you do this you will be legal'. Not 'you must do this to be legal'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 4:31:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you own any 16" uppers and/or SBR'd lowers, I would assume you can take the brace off and throw it your spare tools box like any other spare stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 4:35:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone figured out what’s legal... Unless I missed something there hasn't been any new legislation passed. A rule change based the interpretation of an unelected Executive Agency is as legally binding as the pirates code 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 4:50:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did This Guy Actually Give All of Us an Escape Hatch on the Pistol Brace Rule?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orBXxFtxXQ0People making a big deal of this either never understood the rule(or the previous proposed rule) or are lying. 1. Braces are absolutely unregulated pieces of plastic - like stocks. No argument. ATF says this many times in many places. 2. Braces can make a pistol an sbr - like a stock. This we will argue about in court for a few years. 3. A brace and a pistol could be used to create a case for constructive intent to create an sbr - like a stock. No argument except for what measures make one 'safe' from constructive intent. ATF and a DA would have to make a case to a judge and jury and are very unlikely to even bother trying unless they specifically hate you for something else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 5:14:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless I missed something there hasn't been any new legislation passed. A rule change based the interpretation of an unelected Executive Agency is as legally binding as the pirates code https://media.tenor.com/ry_sCXk6wH0AAAAC/pirates-caribbean-code.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone figured out what’s legal... Unless I missed something there hasn't been any new legislation passed. A rule change based the interpretation of an unelected Executive Agency is as legally binding as the pirates code https://media.tenor.com/ry_sCXk6wH0AAAAC/pirates-caribbean-code.gif You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago. Enforcement took a pause. The R Pres/Congress did fuck-all about it 8 years ago. Now, that shitty legislation is about to be enforced again. Clever arguments centered around "but they said a few years ago..." and "a screwdriver isn't a can opener", are going to faceplant hard when they show the obvious intent for the armbrace to be a stock - which will be the easiest challenge of the week. Possible, and here's hoping the courts toss that 80 year bad law. After the 5th Circuit judge just got his dick slapped this month on his attempt to ban abortion pills, guess how rock-the-boat the circuit judiciary is feeling right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 6:10:31 PM EDT
[#13]
ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces: “Can I Just Remove The Brace?”
 ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces: “Can I Just Remove The Brace?” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 6:39:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone figured out what’s legal or not in regards to simply removing the brace ? Separate ar15 10” upper and braced lower…… legal ? Separate into 3 pieces… upper and lower and remove brace = upper receiver, complete lower without brace, and brace. Legal? Or break the upper down into components, and remove brace from lower = legal ? Saw the atf saying it must be thrown away or destroyed… ( zero chance of that ) but not sure how that’s legal, when having a short upper has always been legal, as was having stocked lowers. What a goat fuck of incompetence and tyrannical over reach. This is my best interpulation: Say you own a 16" or longer upper and a pistol with a regular buffer tube. Remove the brace and put it in a spare parts bin with all the other spare AR parts you have. It's just like owning any other spare stock for your 16". The only thing you have to worry about is the constructive intent or whatever. So they key point is the physical distance and organization of your stuff. You are presumed innocent and to use your property legally, until you store or transport it in a manner than makes it obvious you intend to configure an sbr. Rule specifically states that parts necessary to firearms function such as the AR buffer tube are fine. Some people have chosen to modify by changing to a pistol tube or altering the tube so that it doesn't readily accept a stock. I don't believe that is necessary. If memory serves, the FAQ states you need a pistol tube, but the rule says no such thing. They also state that removing the brace and destroying it would remedy the problem. The only other thing that could cause them to deem your AR pistol an sbr under this rule, would be the sighting system. If I had an ACOG or scope with very short eye relief, I would consider taking that off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 6:58:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces: “Can I Just Remove The Brace?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAYxaLnXgEYThe first 5 seconds is exactly right. (of course they blather on for 9 more minutes) In that one statement ATF is trying to weasel in a level of compliance that is not necessary. Discarding the brace would certainly make you compliant(assuming 1 weapon) but the rule itself and the rest of the documentation make it clearly not required. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 7:15:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago. Enforcement took a pause. The R Pres/Congress did fuck-all about it 8 years ago. Now, that shitty legislation is about to be enforced again. Clever arguments centered around "but they said a few years ago..." and "a screwdriver isn't a can opener", are going to faceplant hard when they show the obvious intent for the armbrace to be a stock - which will be the easiest challenge of the week. Possible, and here's hoping the courts toss that 80 year bad law. After the 5th Circuit judge just got his dick slapped this month on his attempt to ban abortion pills, guess how rock-the-boat the circuit judiciary is feeling right now. That clever “but they said years ago” argument came into play and helped us out with bumpstocks AND 80% lowers. That flip flopping has been called out in Federal court. The question will be how long do we have to wait to get this rule tossed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 7:22:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That clever “but they said years ago” argument came into play and helped us out with bumpstocks AND 80% lowers. That flip flopping has been called out in Federal court. The question will be how long do we have to wait to get this rule tossed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago. Enforcement took a pause. The R Pres/Congress did fuck-all about it 8 years ago. Now, that shitty legislation is about to be enforced again. Clever arguments centered around "but they said a few years ago..." and "a screwdriver isn't a can opener", are going to faceplant hard when they show the obvious intent for the armbrace to be a stock - which will be the easiest challenge of the week. Possible, and here's hoping the courts toss that 80 year bad law. After the 5th Circuit judge just got his dick slapped this month on his attempt to ban abortion pills, guess how rock-the-boat the circuit judiciary is feeling right now. That clever “but they said years ago” argument came into play and helped us out with bumpstocks AND 80% lowers. That flip flopping has been called out in Federal court. The question will be how long do we have to wait to get this rule tossed. Likely some time in the next five years. Hopefully less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 7:33:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago. Enforcement took a pause. The R Pres/Congress did fuck-all about it 8 years ago. Now, that shitty legislation is about to be enforced again. Clever arguments centered around "but they said a few years ago..." and "a screwdriver isn't a can opener", are going to faceplant hard when they show the obvious intent for the armbrace to be a stock - which will be the easiest challenge of the week. Possible, and here's hoping the courts toss that 80 year bad law. After the 5th Circuit judge just got his dick slapped this month on his attempt to ban abortion pills, guess how rock-the-boat the circuit judiciary is feeling right now. The GCA was 55 years ago. This rule attempts to change the language of the statute and will not hold up to legitimate scrutiny |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 7:37:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago... Braced pistols were legal when purchased, changing the definition doesn't change the law. Nice try though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 8:24:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces: "Can I Just Remove The Brace?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAYxaLnXgEYThats a yes or no question. At the end of the nearly 10 minute video, is the answer yes, or no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2023 8:29:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Braced pistols were legal when purchased, changing the definition doesn't change the law. Nice try though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You would be correct. The legislation in question was passed about 80 years ago... Braced pistols were legal when purchased, changing the definition doesn't change the law. Nice try though. Was it a braced pistol when made and bought? Or was it an SBR that was called a braced pistol, and not being enforced actively at the time? That is the claim. Don't expect that to just magic-go-away; because are they actually wrong? Really? Possible the court might toss it. I hope so. Possible the appellate court might agree, and the Supreme Court agrees to hear your case, and exonerates you. Maybe. ATF argument is they were always illegal, and they had an erroneous interpretation allowing the purchase. Based on their misunderstanding of the intent. They are claiming the intent was for it to be a stock, and they were mislead into being told it was an arm-brace. They can very easily extort a shipping clerk somewhere to affirm that statement that the brace was realistically intended to be shoulder fired for the sale; which is exactly what they did with the Solvent Traps last year - and won. The good news is for the most part this IS going to go the way you want it to go for you individually. ATF has little bandwidth and little reward for chasing you in your pre-purchased firearm not otherwise breaking the law. They are going to shut down the trade of the topic though, and any new builds post June 1, 2023, are likely going to be a different conversation. So for the most part, while on paper your case won't hold water like you think; in practice, it basically will - because they really don't care about you. They are going after dealers, and new manufactures predominantly. Not because they are super nice guys, but the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. If you think I'm wrong, take it up with PSA; who have crawfished away from selling arm-braced firearms except as kits with all kinds of NFA warnings now, or as NFA items. Go look at their website - not a single armbrace equipped pistol for sale there now. What do you suppose that suggests they are thinking right now on the topic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 1:28:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Figured I would add the latest info since this is the "main" thread. Limited injunction granted! It doesn't cover everyone yet, only those listed in the lawsuit. There is hinting that the rest of us will be covered very shortly. Whether through enjoined suits or otherwise, something national should be coming very soon.
 HUGE NEWS!! Injunction Granted in Pistol Brace Case...BUT... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 1:39:25 PM EDT
[#23]
I hope the injunction applies to everyone nationwide!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 1:41:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hope the injunction applies to everyone nationwide! Guy from guns and gadgets says he does not believe so, only named plaintiffs. Now FPC is a named plaintiff, so does it apply to their members? If it does, does it apply to their members in the 5th Circuit only or all members? Too many unanswered questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 1:44:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guy from guns and gadgets says he does not believe so, only named plaintiffs. Now FPC is a named plaintiff, so does it apply to their members? If it does, does it apply to their members in the 5th Circuit only or all members? Too many unanswered questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 1:46:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably FPC members who reside in the 5th circuit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Guy from guns and gadgets says he does not believe so, only named plaintiffs. Now FPC is a named plaintiff, so does it apply to their members? If it does, does it apply to their members in the 5th Circuit only or all members? Too many unanswered questions. Fortunately I identify as a resident of Galveston... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 2:55:05 PM EDT
[#27]
This is all so tiresome...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 3:05:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guy from guns and gadgets says he does not believe so, only named plaintiffs. Now FPC is a named plaintiff, so does it apply to their members? If it does, does it apply to their members in the 5th Circuit only or all members? Too many unanswered questions. Who this applies to seems a moot point. It goes away in a few weeks. If we win the appeal ,who THAT new injunction applies to might be significant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 5:09:10 PM EDT
[#29]
For 70,000, a simple explanation of why ATF will win at the 5th Circuit:
 Attached FileClick To View Spoiler Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 5:19:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For 70,000, a simple explanation of why ATF will win at the 5th Circuit: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/FuLZElkWABIDSqx_jpg-2826631.JPG Click To View Spoiler Kharn ATF new rule proposal All AR/AK pistols must have a brace 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 5:23:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF new rule proposal All AR/AK pistols must have a brace Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: For 70,000, a simple explanation of why ATF will win at the 5th Circuit: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/FuLZElkWABIDSqx_jpg-2826631.JPG Click To View Spoiler Kharn ATF new rule proposal All AR/AK pistols must have a brace Since braces are stocks according to the ATF....stocks will also be allowed.....maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 5:52:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Has anyone read the injunction as requested by FPC?
It was granted by the court. So if they requested nationwide injunction, that was granted. If they only requested for plaintiffs, then it would apply to plaintiffs. FPC is a nationwide organization, as is the ATF rule, and this is a federal appeals court. I don't see how it would only apply to the 5th circuit. Whoever the injunction applies to, I seriously doubt that is limited by State lines. I'm sending $50 more to FPC today, and every month henceforth. They are clearly a very effective organization, doing the lords work for us. HUGE win and great job by FPC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 7:00:30 PM EDT
[#33]
So I looked up and read FPC's request for an injunction.
It very clear articulates that a limited scope injunction is no good, because there are manufacturer complaintants. They need to be allowed to sell their goods to ffls, who need to be allowed to sell them to legal firearm owners. The order says it granted the injunction relief. Sure looks to me as if braces are back in the menu boys! It must not be completely clear, because FPC posted to their instagram, that they are filing a motion for clarification. So even the Lawyers that filed the injunction are somehow confused about the court order. Strange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 7:23:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I looked up and read FPC's request for an injunction. It very clear articulates that a limited scope injunction is no good, because there are manufacturer complaintants. They need to be allowed to sell their goods to ffls, who need to be allowed to sell them to legal firearm owners. The order says it granted the injunction relief. Sure looks to me as if braces are back in the menu boys! It must not be completely clear, because FPC posted to their instagram, that they are filing a motion for clarification. So even the Lawyers that filed the injunction are somehow confused about the court order. Strange. Clarification is good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 7:43:12 PM EDT
[#35]
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act
They got 100 bucks from me. Now go get them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 9:40:42 PM EDT
[#36]
So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:14:57 AM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:29:01 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm… In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:33:06 AM EDT
[#39]
 STATUS REPORT: Huge Updates Regarding ATF Pistol Brace Rule! Share This! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 9:08:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. Do you show the Walmart greeter your tax documents too to get into Walmart? If they are not IRS or ATF they have no authority to ask for your tax documents and I'm not going to show them either. If it's a range that wants to see them they can pound sand, I'll shoot elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 9:14:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm… In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. ??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 9:41:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm… In the real world anyone that wants to see them can request them as a condition of entry. And in the real world there are sometimes serious repercussions for statist “policies.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:38:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm… Perhaps it crashes by design and the whole idea is to create more clearly articulable criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 5:28:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Another Texas Judge but only for name parties.
 BREAKING NEWS!!! Another Injunction Against ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 5:37:40 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryFuckin' A way to go SAF! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 5:39:07 PM EDT
[#46]
The other case he referenced in the video was likely GOA’s, NOLO has a status conference this afternoon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 5:40:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The other case he referenced in the video was likely GOA's, NOLO has a status conference this afternoon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 10:43:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perhaps it crashes by design and the whole idea is to create more clearly articulable criminals. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So many people applying for the faux amnesty. That helps. So when I go to the range who gets to see my non-tax stamp application, acceptance documents? Hmm… Perhaps it crashes by design and the whole idea is to create more clearly articulable criminals. Absolutely a potential goal. If it was about saving lives, they would be going hellbent after Glock switches. But it’s not about saving Iives, they want numbers. But why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2023 10:58:30 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think Nolo's judge is going to pussy out and not give the injunction Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The other case he referenced in the video was likely GOA's, NOLO has a status conference this afternoon. Trump appointee to boot. Big Don gave us the bump stock ban, and his judge may give us the brace ban. So tired of winning on the Second! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2023 5:19:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Thread update:
The injunction covers ALL Firearms Policy Coalition members. That includes new members. Even if you don't care about joining to be protected, please remember these guys are fighting for us in the courts and winning. Just remember, the injunction is considered temporary until the issue is resolved in the case. Just an fyi. $30 isn't too bad to help them out going forward. |
|
|
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