User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:05:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryThese pistol "brace" patents are fantastic. In addition to braced pistols, stocked pistols (and other items) have been around long enough to have been in common use, and under Bruen and this outrageous "Final Rule," the NFA regulation of "short barreled rifles" is likely unconstitutional and on the chopping block, if the right cases are brought in the right U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Consider that the original NFA sought to include handguns within its $200 tax and regulatory scheme. Had NFA done so, would Heller have called handguns "the quintessential self-defense weapon?" Probably not. In the context of the Roosevelt Administration trying to make handguns unavailable under its outrageous taxing scheme, the "short barreled rifle" prohibition makes sense. The Democrats were trying to disarm the American people of all but "sporting" weapons in 1934; but they didn't get the handguns. Since NFA froze "SBR" development in 1934, they did not attain further widespread use than they had already attained by that time. (Recall that Miller barely was upheld under highly unusual circumstances, and only because of the absence of evidence showing the "short barreled shotgun" had militia or military usefulness.) Now, ten+ years of the ATF determination on "braced" pistols have caused similar "short[er]" barreled firearms - whether in traditional "pistol" calibers, or "rifle" calibers - to explode in popularity once more with peaceable citizens who are otherwise law-abiding. The "pistol brace" phenomenon was a renaissance of firearms filling a specific niche in the firearms market that has existed since time immemorial. The NYSRPA v. Bruen analysis requires modern gun control efforts - such as the 1934 National Firearms Act - to be consistent with the history and tradition of firearms regulation in this country. The relevant time periods considered by Justice Thomas in Bruen included "(1) medieval to early modern England; (2) the American Colonies and the early Republic; (3) antebellum America; (4) Reconstruction; and (5) the late-19th and early-20th centuries." Based on the following firearms examples of "stocked pistols," or "carbines" with barrels shorter 16", NFA's regulation of such - including "braced" pistols - is a historical anomaly. This is true whether the firearms fire "pistol" ammunition and look more like pistols; or whether they fire "rifle" ammunition, and look more like carbines or "short[er] barreled rifles." (Apologies, I could not get all images to work with the board code). Circa 1720 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-stock-frenchflemish-circa-1720-31498114.html] Circa 1750 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/small-arms-pistols-flintlock-pistol-with-shoulder-stock-calibre-15-mm-n-duponceau-liege-belgium-circa-1750-additional-rights-clearance-info-not-available-image243247172.html Circa 1750 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-very-fine-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-stockfriedrich-jakob-51532402.html Circa 1760 Flintlock Grenade Launcher - https://www.ambroseantiques.com/flongarms.htm  Circa 1780 Flintlock pistol with stock - https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-butt-stock-johann-jakob-kuchenreuter-31495360.html Circa 1760-1820 Flintlock Pistol Carbine with detachable stock - National Museum Of American History Collection https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_418742 1790 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistols – w detachable stocks (and bayonets) https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/products/168509-beautiful-pair-of-stocked-flintlock-blunderbuss-pistols-w-spring-bayonets-ah8088.html 1795 Flintlock Blunderbuss – 15” barrel  1800 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistol with stock https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-19th-century-ottoman-silver-inlaid-flintlock-blunderbuss-pistol-with-rifle-style-stock-circa-1800?variant=15606806675525 1790s/1840s Scheier stocked pistols "A VERY FINE & RARE CASED PAIR OF SILVER MOUNTED PERCUSSION DUELLING/TAREGET PISTOLS W/ SHOULDER-STOCK, BY SCHEIER, ca. 1790s/1840s"   Ca. 1860s-1880s Howdah Pistol – with detachable stock http://www.hallowellco.com/T+L-with-stock-profile-cropped.jpg 1852 Austrian Flintlock Cavalry Carbine - 13 1/4 inch barrel - https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/73/3132/austrian-flintlock-cavalry-carbine Dated "852" (1852) on the lock and marked with various proof and inspection markings. The barrel is marked "CARL HESIER" on top ahead of the breech plug. Thousands of these rifled carbines were converted to percussion, and many were imported (reportedly 10,000) and used during the American Civil War. https://www.joesalter.com/category/products/Rare-Original-Austrian-Flintlock-Cavalry-Carbine  https://www.horsesoldier.com/products/firearms/carbines/24085  U.S. Model 1855 Pistol-Carbine – Smithsonian Collection The.58 caliber U.S. Model 1855 rifled pistol-carbine is a pistol with a detachable shoulder stock and was created by the Springfield Armory. It retains the Springfield 1855 Maynard primer. It has a swivel type steel ramrod and an assembly number of 16.This pistol carbine has three stamps on the lockplate. “1865” is stamped on the rear. The second stamp is an eagle under the hammer and “U.S./SPRINGFIELD” is stamped towards the front. History: The Springfield Model 1855 Pistol-Carbine was the last single shot pistol to be produced for the U.S. military. More than 4,000 were made. At the time, it was the smallest.58 caliber pistol used in the army. It was lighter because this pistol-carbine was built to use the newly designed Minie bullet. It also was useful because normal rifle musket caps could be used on this firearm. American Rifleman article on the 1855 Pistol Carbine  https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/71137886_1855-pistol-carbine-and-shoulder-stock  U.S. 1855 Springfield Pistol-Carbine with the original detachable shoulder stock. Only 4,021 of these interesting arms were produced at Springfield Arsenal between 1855 and 1857. This small production run in addition to normal attrition makes them quite scarce. Dated 1856 on the lock. It is a .58 caliber, percussion, single-shot pistol with a rifled bore. Overall length of pistol 17.5”; overall length with shoulder-stock attached 28.25". 1860 Colt Army Revolver - Stocked Pistol  Colt 1860 fluted .44 caliber Army percussion revolver with detachable shoulder stock. Gustave Young-style engraving. Cased with accessories. https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/78/1103/colt-model-1860-army-revolver-matching-shoulder-stock 1881 Colt Single Action Army - Stocked Pistol https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/62/3221/colt-single-action-army-revolver-45-colt 1848 Colt Dragoon Third Model - Stocked Pistol https://www.antiq.com/bolk-antiques-142/a-scarce-antique-american-goverment-issue-colt-third-model-shoulder-stocked-6-shot-44-caliber-dragoon-percussion-revolver-a-k-a-pistol-carbine-75-inch-barrel-with-new-york-address-length-695-cm-in-very-good-condition-price-on-request-2458927  1892 Winchester 12” Carbine – made 1903 https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/82/1089/documented-12-inch-barrel-winchester-model-1892-trapper-carbine Winchester 1892 12” Carbine with ATF Exemption Letter – made 1912 https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/74/1003/atf-exempted-winchester-model-1892-trapper-carbine-with-letters Winchester 1892 14" .44-40 TRAPPER - ATF Exemption Letter – Made 1919 https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-471144.aspx 1896 Broomhandle Mauser - stocked pistol - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414866 1914 DWM Artillery Luger - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414837 1941 Inglis/FN Hi Power - stocked pistol - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1434452 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:09:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn They are saying that all those brace manufacturers tricked them into believing that the INTENT of the brace was to not be shouldered. ALL of them. The ATF was so gullible and easily fooled by their shenanigans! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:14:04 PM EDT
[#3]
If this isn’t stopped by litigation, just imagine how many Average Joe’s will be in possession of illegal SBRs that they purchased legally as a pistols. There are millions of gun owners out there who don’t spend any time on forums or message boards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:14:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. Lying is what Communists do. It's the key skill associated with implementing their philosophy. Lying is the only way the ATF can do the mental gymnastics required to implement team Biden's decrees. The entire document is full of backtracking and contradictions. Regardless, I fully agree with your assertions, that the entire purpose of the new rule is to change the definition to achieve an endstate. In doing so, they are entrapping anyone they prosecute for this... In addition to violating separation of powers and 2A Constitutional rights. I am pretty confident this will not stand. The question is, how fast can we get it to fall? Bumpstocks took 5 years and counting, but I'm guessing this will move more quickly, because it effects more people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:15:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… O.K., friend, the ‘68 “bill” had amnesty clearly written in/applied. Where is that in the most recent “rules?” In a document written/overseen by attorneys. Do you think that was an oversight? Fuck them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:16:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the more likely scenario? 1. BATFE coalesces a task force comprised of U.S. Marshals, FBI, and BATFE to go to a man's property, kill his son's friend, and kill his wife over a warrant that was never actually served to him over a shotgun barrel that was allegedly cut less than an inch too short-but that the U.S. Attorney's office said was not an NFA item at the time it came into their custody? 2. They arrest him while he's out in town running errands, or maybe even send him a notification via certified mail if that takes too long. Which one happened? Alternatively: 1. BATFE coalesces another task force to go after a cult leader because he owns .50 BMG rifles and allegedly is engaged in sexual activity with underage girls, goes to his compound, and frees the alleged victims by burning them alive. 2. BATFE arrests him while he's out in town conducting his routine errands. I'm not saying you can't trust BATFE; BATFE has told you that you cant trust them.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:18:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they consider a true pistol lower (smooth buffer tube) with a 14.5" upper an SBR anyway because of length and weight. "That's too heavy and unwieldy to shoot with one hand!" "No shit, that's what the brace was for." Those arbitrary guidelines are ridiculous too, there are plenty of pistols that are large heavy and unwieldy, some that require benching to shoot at all, and it's very that way for a long ass time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:19:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY because that's your argument Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. https://i.ibb.co/kgKQxMK/Believe-Women-1.jpg FIFY because that's your argument I don't even know what your point is. If you think I believe any of the crap ATF says, you'd be mistaken and obviously haven't been reading my other posts in this thread. I quoted the rule, because there was a question and some pontification about what's in it. I'm guessing there's only a few of us nerds who have actually read it. I read it for the same reason I sometimes listen to NPR. To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:19:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My AP5 was 922r compliant before I added the brace. See how easy that was? I'm sure they will ask for proof. Not sure how this whole import thing is tasked anyway. I wanted an AP5 and a Polish AK but now it's not worth fucking with to get it, 922 it then SBR it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:20:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you only fight for 2A rights or all others don’t matter because I don’t see many people actually doing anything about their rights outside of being online stating “I will not comply”…but in the end…you’ve already caved on many freedoms outside the 2A spectrum and even within it without a single “fight”…it’s cool to be brave online though… That's a good question. I actually fight for everything that aligns with my morals, beliefs, principles, values, ethics, etc. I have ran a small online Conservative group since 2011. We fight and do what we can to make America better in various ways. But me personally, I vote solely based on the candidates 2A record. In my thinking, if you are 2A friendly and truly believe what the Constitution says and means about the 2A, then the rest usually falls in place. I can disagree with you on 99 things, but if you are a true firm believer in the 2A, you will get my vote and I will stand behind you. I do this with people in real life too. So to answer you question. the 2A isn't the only thing I fight for but it is on the top of my list. That is how important I see it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:22:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Says the guy trying to get as many people jammed up with a shitty legal situation as he possibly can. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/155072/bropleaseatf_jpg-2682057.JPG Says the glowie trying to jam as many people up as they possible can. It's the only reason you are here. Oh good grief man...GROW UP! You are the one trying to convince people that is not a horrible idea. Anyone who does this process is admitting they are a felon and puts their entire life at risk. You are a bad person and you should feel bad. I’m a bad person for providing clarity on the rules posted…wow…we have really gone down hill here… Says the guy trying to get as many people jammed up with a shitty legal situation as he possibly can. BY PROVIDING CLARITY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN..FML...some of you are just too dim...you do exactly what the far left does when they are faced with someone that might disagree with you or do not say what you want them to say...you are no different..not one bit...but act tough and mighty online...you are the true warrior for freedom... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:26:17 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a good question. I actually fight for everything that aligns with my morals, beliefs, principles, values, ethics, etc. I have ran a small online Conservative group since 2011. We fight and do what we can to make America better in various ways. But me personally, I vote solely based on the candidates 2A record. In my thinking, if you are 2A friendly and truly believe what the Constitution says and means about the 2A, then the rest usually falls in place. I can disagree with you on 99 things, but if you are a true firm believer in the 2A, you will get my vote and I will stand behind you. I do this with people in real life too. So to answer you question. the 2A isn't the only thing I fight for but it is on the top of my list. That is how important I see it. I am glad you do...same here...I base my life and votes not just on 2A but many others...I know some very leftist people that are very 2A but don't bother with any other freedoms or lack thereof.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:28:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Just talked to my attorney. Even though I don’t have any braces, he suggested I add everything I own that I feel may eventually end up on the NFA list to my trust. Has to do with the comments made by the ATF whore at SHOT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:30:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those arbitrary guidelines are ridiculous too, there are plenty of pistols that are large heavy and unwieldy, some that require benching to shoot at all, and it's very that way for a long ass time. "Your optic doesn't have enough eye relief!" Which was never a problem for the Remington XP-100 produced from 1963-1998 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:33:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These pistol "brace" patents are fantastic. In addition to braced pistols, stocked pistols (and other items) have been around long enough to have been in common use, and under Bruen and this outrageous "Final Rule," the NFA regulation of "short barreled rifles" is likely unconstitutional and on the chopping block, if the right cases are brought in the right U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Consider that the original NFA sought to include handguns within its $200 tax and regulatory scheme. Had NFA done so, would Heller have called handguns "the quintessential self-defense weapon?" Probably not. In the context of the Roosevelt Administration trying to make handguns unavailable under its outrageous taxing scheme, the "short barreled rifle" prohibition makes sense. The Democrats were trying to disarm the American people of all but "sporting" weapons in 1934; but they didn't get the handguns. Since NFA froze "SBR" development in 1934, they did not attain further widespread use than they had already attained by that time. (Recall that Miller barely was upheld under highly unusual circumstances, and only because of the absence of evidence showing the "short barreled shotgun" had militia or military usefulness.) Now, ten+ years of the ATF determination on "braced" pistols have caused similar "short[er]" barreled firearms - whether in traditional "pistol" calibers, or "rifle" calibers - to explode in popularity once more with peaceable citizens who are otherwise law-abiding. The "pistol brace" phenomenon was a renaissance of firearms filling a specific niche in the firearms market that has existed since time immemorial. The NYSRPA v. Bruen analysis requires modern gun control efforts - such as the 1934 National Firearms Act - to be consistent with the history and tradition of firearms regulation in this country. The relevant time periods considered by Justice Thomas in Bruen included "(1) medieval to early modern England; (2) the American Colonies and the early Republic; (3) antebellum America; (4) Reconstruction; and (5) the late-19th and early-20th centuries." Based on the following firearms examples of "stocked pistols," or "carbines" with barrels shorter 16", NFA's regulation of such - including "braced" pistols - is a historical anomaly. This is true whether the firearms fire "pistol" ammunition and look more like pistols; or whether they fire "rifle" ammunition, and look more like carbines or "short[er] barreled rifles." (Apologies, I could not get all images to work with the board code). Circa 1720 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-stock-frenchflemish-circa-1720-31498114.html] Circa 1750 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/small-arms-pistols-flintlock-pistol-with-shoulder-stock-calibre-15-mm-n-duponceau-liege-belgium-circa-1750-additional-rights-clearance-info-not-available-image243247172.html Circa 1750 Flintlock pistol with stock https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-very-fine-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-stockfriedrich-jakob-51532402.html Circa 1760 Flintlock Grenade Launcher - https://www.ambroseantiques.com/flongarms.htm https://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/flongarms/gren1.jpg Circa 1780 Flintlock pistol with stock - https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-flintlock-pistol-with-detachable-butt-stock-johann-jakob-kuchenreuter-31495360.html Circa 1760-1820 Flintlock Pistol Carbine with detachable stock - National Museum Of American History Collection https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_418742 https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-AHB2015q019827&max=1000 1790 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistols – w detachable stocks (and bayonets) https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/products/168509-beautiful-pair-of-stocked-flintlock-blunderbuss-pistols-w-spring-bayonets-ah8088.html 1795 Flintlock Blunderbuss – 15” barrel https://seek-unique-co.s3.amazonaws.com/hansord-8ii6g-JFg3jf/stock/637220f84fc5b_image_url_DSC_0003.JPG 1800 Flintlock Blunderbuss Pistol with stock https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-19th-century-ottoman-silver-inlaid-flintlock-blunderbuss-pistol-with-rifle-style-stock-circa-1800?variant=15606806675525 1790s/1840s Scheier stocked pistols "A VERY FINE & RARE CASED PAIR OF SILVER MOUNTED PERCUSSION DUELLING/TAREGET PISTOLS W/ SHOULDER-STOCK, BY SCHEIER, ca. 1790s/1840s" https://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/ppistols/full6.jpg https://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/ppistols/full7.jpg Ca. 1860s-1880s Howdah Pistol – with detachable stock http://www.hallowellco.com/T+L-with-stock-profile-cropped.jpg 1852 Austrian Flintlock Cavalry Carbine - 13 1/4 inch barrel - https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/73/3132/austrian-flintlock-cavalry-carbine https://www.joesalter.com/category/products/Rare-Original-Austrian-Flintlock-Cavalry-Carbine https://giga.joesalter.com/41662/41662-02.jpg https://www.horsesoldier.com/products/firearms/carbines/24085 https://www.horsesoldier.com/images/product/24/86898.jpg U.S. Model 1855 Pistol-Carbine – Smithsonian Collection https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-ET2010-32183-000003&max=1000 American Rifleman article on the 1855 Pistol Carbine https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/t03lxcag/dragpistcarb.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=987&height=551&rnd=132665840350530000&quality=70 https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/71137886_1855-pistol-carbine-and-shoulder-stock https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/6568/140300/71137886_1_x.jpg?quality=80&version=1559612606 1860 Colt Army Revolver - Stocked Pistol https://www.artfixdaily.com/images/c/21/08/1222900x521.jpg https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/78/1103/colt-model-1860-army-revolver-matching-shoulder-stock 1881 Colt Single Action Army - Stocked Pistol https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/62/3221/colt-single-action-army-revolver-45-colt 1848 Colt Dragoon Third Model - Stocked Pistol https://www.antiq.com/bolk-antiques-142/a-scarce-antique-american-goverment-issue-colt-third-model-shoulder-stocked-6-shot-44-caliber-dragoon-percussion-revolver-a-k-a-pistol-carbine-75-inch-barrel-with-new-york-address-length-695-cm-in-very-good-condition-price-on-request-2458927 https://www.bolk-antiques.nl/galleries/a-scarce-antique-american-goverment-issue-colt-third-model-shoulder-stocked-6-shot-44-caliber-dragoon-percussion-revolver-a-k-a-pistol-carbine-75-inch-barrel-with-new-york-address-length-695-cm-in-very-good-condition-price-on-request-7223712-en-max.JPG 1892 Winchester 12” Carbine – made 1903 https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/82/1089/documented-12-inch-barrel-winchester-model-1892-trapper-carbine Winchester 1892 12” Carbine with ATF Exemption Letter – made 1912 https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/74/1003/atf-exempted-winchester-model-1892-trapper-carbine-with-letters Winchester 1892 14" .44-40 TRAPPER - ATF Exemption Letter – Made 1919 https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-471144.aspx 1896 Broomhandle Mauser - stocked pistol - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414866 https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-JN2016-01252&max=1000 1914 DWM Artillery Luger - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_414837 https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-JN2016-01254&max=1000 1941 Inglis/FN Hi Power - stocked pistol - National Museum of American History - Smithsonian https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1434452 https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-AHB2015q110104&max=1000 That was a lot of work you did putting all that together. This is one of the paths I think they will take when it hits the courts. This isn't like the bump stocks, or solvent cans. This was a BIG thing that affected millions and went on for a decade. This will affect big money. This one can for sure be argued common use. They are going to fight this one hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:40:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just talked to my attorney. Even though I don’t have any braces, he suggested I add everything I own that I feel may eventually end up on the NFA list to my trust. Has to do with the comments made by the ATF whore at SHOT. Honestly, It's a smart move, just not the only move (for anyone else reading and not in the same position). I have no trusts, aside from trusting myself to keep my mouth shut and telling others to do the same while legal beagles do their thing. Anyone reading this that's not lawyer'd/trusted up should donate to Gun Owners of America and keep their mouths shut as to what they may or may not have. (This is niether an attack, dig or callout against TriggerGSP nor meant to claim that that's all TriggerGSP's done) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:44:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't even know what your point is. If you think I believe any of the crap ATF says, you'd be mistaken and obviously haven't been reading my other posts in this thread. I quoted the rule, because there was a question and some pontification about what's in it. I'm guessing there's only a few of us nerds who have actually read it. I read it for the same reason I sometimes listen to NPR. To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy. Sorry, I got carried away trolling 99's secret account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:44:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly, It's a smart move, just not the only move (for anyone else reading and not in the same position). I have no trusts, aside from trusting myself to keep my mouth shut and telling others to do the same while legal beagles do their thing. Anyone reading this that's not lawyer'd/trusted up should donate to Gun Owners of America and keep their mouths shut as to what they may or may not have. (This is niether an attack, dig or callout against TriggerOSP nor meant to claim that that's all TriggerOSP's done) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just talked to my attorney. Even though I don’t have any braces, he suggested I add everything I own that I feel may eventually end up on the NFA list to my trust. Has to do with the comments made by the ATF whore at SHOT. Honestly, It's a smart move, just not the only move (for anyone else reading and not in the same position). I have no trusts, aside from trusting myself to keep my mouth shut and telling others to do the same while legal beagles do their thing. Anyone reading this that's not lawyer'd/trusted up should donate to Gun Owners of America and keep their mouths shut as to what they may or may not have. (This is niether an attack, dig or callout against TriggerOSP nor meant to claim that that's all TriggerOSP's done) Having items on a trust just opens up more options in the future. Especially when she mentioned notarized/dates on amended articles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:45:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn I noticed that there is very little mention of assembled other or 80%. IIRC mostly what they say is something like "There probably aren't very many of them, so they aren't really worth worrying about." I suspect this is deliberate. To really admit to declaring those firearms an SBR; is to admit they are overturning the core definitions in the statute. If I am the maker, how are you going to declare and prove that my design and intent was to build an SBR? By adding criteria not in the statute, such as manufacter literature? (there is none) and Community use? (also none). That just leaves them the firearm characteristics from the old worksheet, which they admit 87X is too flawed to make a valid determination. They don't ever want to deal with an 80% or self assembled pistol, in a court, I assure you. It's probably the clearest demonstration that they are rewriting Congressional legislation and violating separation of powers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 9:51:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I noticed that there is very little mention of assembled other or 80%. IIRC mostly what they say is something like "There probably aren't very many of them, so they aren't really worth worrying about." I suspect this is deliberate. To really admit to declaring those firearms an SBR; is to admit they are overturning the core definitions in the statute. If I am the maker, how are you going to declare and prove that my design and intent was to build an SBR? By adding criteria not in the statute, such as manufacter literature? (there is none) and Community use? (also none). That just leaves them the firearm characteristics from the old worksheet, which they admit 87X is too flawed to make a valid determination. They don't ever want to deal with an 80% or self assembled pistol, in a court, I assure you. It's probably the clearest demonstration that they are rewriting Congressional legislation and violating separation of powers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were “made in error”? It doesn’t say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported “stabilizing braces” in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer’s assertions that a “stabilizing brace” was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters’ concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that “a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing.” Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of “rifle.” Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a “stabilizing brace” that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a “stabilizing brace” may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn I noticed that there is very little mention of assembled other or 80%. IIRC mostly what they say is something like "There probably aren't very many of them, so they aren't really worth worrying about." I suspect this is deliberate. To really admit to declaring those firearms an SBR; is to admit they are overturning the core definitions in the statute. If I am the maker, how are you going to declare and prove that my design and intent was to build an SBR? By adding criteria not in the statute, such as manufacter literature? (there is none) and Community use? (also none). That just leaves them the firearm characteristics from the old worksheet, which they admit 87X is too flawed to make a valid determination. They don't ever want to deal with an 80% or self assembled pistol, in a court, I assure you. It's probably the clearest demonstration that they are rewriting Congressional legislation and violating separation of powers. They do state that to participate in the offered tax forbearance, a privately manufactured firearm must be marked "in accordance with section 479.102 for NFA registration," the only firearms required to comply with engraving vs being waived. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:05:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They do state that to participate in the offered tax forbearance, a privately manufactured firearm must be marked "in accordance with section 479.102 for NFA registration," the only firearms required to comply with engraving vs being waived. Kharn So, if someone bought a complete lower with brace from a manufacturer, then bought a complete upper with a barrel under 16”, would they fall under this “amnesty” program and not need engraving, other than the engraving on the complete, braced lower? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:07:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are saying that all those brace manufacturers tricked them into believing that the INTENT of the brace was to not be shouldered. ALL of them. The ATF was so gullible and easily fooled by their shenanigans! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where does it say that they were "made in error"? It doesn't say that. It simply states that they are overruling the letters. My interpretation is they admit that braced pistols were in reality short barrel rifles all along, but they mistakenly classified them as title 1 firearms. And they are overruling those previous classifications. It doesn't mean that all those manufacturers, importers, dealers, and retail customers that made, sold or bought brace pistols are all guilty of NFA violations prior to the ruling. Your interpretation? Nothing in their statements suggest it was an error or a mistake. They are changing the definition to achieve a desired end-state. Ok. I guess we disagree. Can you provide a quote from the issuance that mentions errors or mistakes made by ATF? See below. In other words, ATF now concludes that it incorrectly reviewed and classified the weapons with purported "stabilizing braces" in those classifications, with an inappropriate reliance on the manufacturer's assertions that a "stabilizing brace" was intended to assist with single-handed firing without regard to whether the objective features of the firearm indicate that it is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. 85 This resulted in inconsistencies in ATF classifications and an incorrect public perception that a firearm equipped with a "stabilizing brace" never falls within the purview of the NFA, regardless of the objective design features of the firearm. The Department accordingly clarifies for the public and the firearms industry that the term "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a "stabilizing brace") that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the final regulatory text, also indicate that the weapon with such surface area is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The Department also acknowledges the commenters' concerns that ATF changed its interpretation when it indicated in the NPRM that "a stabilizing brace can be used only to support single-handed firing." Indeed, the Department agrees that the ability to fire with a single hand is not in part of the GCA or NFA definition of "rifle." Hence, in prior classifications, ATF erroneously concluded that the incorporation of a "stabilizing brace" that allowed single-handed firing, as stated by the manufacturer, precludes the firearm from being designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This interpretation by ATF incorrectly read into the GCA and NFA a requirement that, for a firearm to be a rifle, it must exclusively be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; in other words, ATF did not recognize that a firearm equipped with an accessory or rearward attachment like a "stabilizing brace" may be a rifle, regardless of whether the firearm includes a feature that might permit an alternate use of one-handed firing. pp 73-75 of the "final rule" Wow. They are telling bald faced lies. It reeks of bullshit. They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn They are saying that all those brace manufacturers tricked them into believing that the INTENT of the brace was to not be shouldered. ALL of them. The ATF was so gullible and easily fooled by their shenanigans! In my letter to them I basically said "you did this, now deal with it" but in a much lengthier explanation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:07:58 PM EDT
[#23]
“the people downplaying this rule change and encouraging you to comply are the definition of evil.”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:10:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Having items on a trust just opens up more options in the future. Especially when she mentioned notarized/dates on amended articles. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just talked to my attorney. Even though I don’t have any braces, he suggested I add everything I own that I feel may eventually end up on the NFA list to my trust. Has to do with the comments made by the ATF whore at SHOT. Honestly, It's a smart move, just not the only move (for anyone else reading and not in the same position). I have no trusts, aside from trusting myself to keep my mouth shut and telling others to do the same while legal beagles do their thing. Anyone reading this that's not lawyer'd/trusted up should donate to Gun Owners of America and keep their mouths shut as to what they may or may not have. (This is niether an attack, dig or callout against TriggerOSP nor meant to claim that that's all TriggerOSP's done) Having items on a trust just opens up more options in the future. Especially when she mentioned notarized/dates on amended articles. Agreed, and apologies if my quote offended in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:11:33 PM EDT
[#25]
Just fill out the forms for your free SBR stamp. What could go wrong?
The government loves to cut taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:13:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure they will ask for proof. Not sure how this whole import thing is tasked anyway. I wanted an AP5 and a Polish AK but now it's not worth fucking with to get it, 922 it then SBR it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My AP5 was 922r compliant before I added the brace. See how easy that was? I'm sure they will ask for proof. Not sure how this whole import thing is tasked anyway. I wanted an AP5 and a Polish AK but now it's not worth fucking with to get it, 922 it then SBR it? Have they ever asked anyone for proof? Let alone prosecuted someone for a stand alone 922r violation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:13:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, if someone bought a complete lower with brace from a manufacturer, then bought a complete upper with a barrel under 16”, would they fall under this “amnesty” program and not need engraving, other than the engraving on the complete, braced lower?  Attached FileJUST STOP |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:13:44 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, if someone bought a complete lower with brace from a manufacturer, then bought a complete upper with a barrel under 16”, would they fall under this “amnesty” program and not need engraving, other than the engraving on the complete, braced lower? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They do state that to participate in the offered tax forbearance, a privately manufactured firearm must be marked "in accordance with section 479.102 for NFA registration," the only firearms required to comply with engraving vs being waived. Kharn So, if someone bought a complete lower with brace from a manufacturer, then bought a complete upper with a barrel under 16”, would they fall under this “amnesty” program and not need engraving, other than the engraving on the complete, braced lower? Anything you bought as a legal firearm receives an exemption from the normal requirement to mark the firearm with your information during the Form 1 during this special forbearance, and the original manufacturer's markings may be substituted. Only 80% (and similar) firearms require you mark them with your information. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:14:38 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:17:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything you bought as a legal firearm receives an exemption from the normal requirement to mark the firearm with your information during the Form 1 during this special forbearance, and the original manufacturer's markings may be substituted. Only 80% (and similar) firearms require you mark them with your information. Kharn Thank you. I’m not doing anything any time soon. Just trying to figure out all options to make an informed decision at some point. I don’t think there’s a need to do anything until at least 2-3 months after this is published. A lot can happen in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:24:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Could be off-topic but that shooting in CA was done with a quote, "assault pistol" by a 72 year old that took his own life. Seems suspect and now the media is analyzing them assault Pistols. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:25:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, if someone bought a complete lower with brace from a manufacturer, then bought a complete upper with a barrel under 16”, would they fall under this “amnesty” program and not need engraving, other than the engraving on the complete, braced lower? From my understanding yes. Like if you bought a complete lower from PSA and a complete upper from Bear Creek. You just put PSA's name and address and the caliber from the barrel on the form. Take a close up picture to the receiver markings. Also you have 120 days to do this from the day its published in the Federal Register (not been published yet). Most think there are a good chance this won't make it through the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:30:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From my understanding yes. Like if you bought a complete lower from PSA and a complete upper from Bear Creek. You just put PSA's name and address and the caliber from the barrel on the form. Take a close up picture to the receiver markings. Also you have 120 days to do this from the day its published in the Federal Register (not been published yet). Most think there are a good chance this won't make it through the courts. Thanks. I’m not doing anything for at least 2-3 months after it’s published. Need to see how this starts to play itself out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:32:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring that "other" is a valid firearm design. Kharn Yes, and the fact that "other" is a thing, and can be transferred on. 4473 same day, should be a strong argument that SBRs don't need to be regulated under the NFA in the first place. I really hope the legal teams gearing up to fight this are planning to attack the NFA just as hard as this newest flip flop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:34:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What happens when we line up like cattle in compliance to their arbitrary rule change. What happens 6 months from now when they decided semis are autos in disguise? 'Fear not we will open the auto registry just register them please.' What then? Why should we let it get to that point? Everyone knows that is where this is leading. The days of academically discussing reaction to a future out of control government are over. It is here now. That present government has already repeatedly and publicly stated who it sees as the enemy. That enemy is us. In addition, it has mocked the citizenry's power (ARs vs F15s) while publicly declaring they will be disarmed. We have right, heritage and the Constitution on our side. In addition, MANY of us have taken oaths meaning duty is involved. Do not allow them to coerce you into slavery. Hear, hear! Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:36:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That helps… Sorry, but there is nothing good that can come from this As you mentioned, just wait and see what happens. But this "free candy" option should be avoided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:37:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed, and apologies if my quote offended in any way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just talked to my attorney. Even though I don’t have any braces, he suggested I add everything I own that I feel may eventually end up on the NFA list to my trust. Has to do with the comments made by the ATF whore at SHOT. Honestly, It's a smart move, just not the only move (for anyone else reading and not in the same position). I have no trusts, aside from trusting myself to keep my mouth shut and telling others to do the same while legal beagles do their thing. Anyone reading this that's not lawyer'd/trusted up should donate to Gun Owners of America and keep their mouths shut as to what they may or may not have. (This is niether an attack, dig or callout against TriggerOSP nor meant to claim that that's all TriggerOSP's done) Having items on a trust just opens up more options in the future. Especially when she mentioned notarized/dates on amended articles. Agreed, and apologies if my quote offended in any way. Not at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:42:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really hope the legal teams gearing up to fight this are planning to attack the NFA just as hard as this newest flip flop. I actually have had a web page monitor checking the Federal Registry every 15 minutes since 1/13. I can't wait for it to get published. I think the ATF went way too far this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:47:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a good question. I actually fight for everything that aligns with my morals, beliefs, principles, values, ethics, etc. I have ran a small online Conservative group since 2011. We fight and do what we can to make America better in various ways. But me personally, I vote solely based on the candidates 2A record. In my thinking, if you are 2A friendly and truly believe what the Constitution says and means about the 2A, then the rest usually falls in place. I can disagree with you on 99 things, but if you are a true firm believer in the 2A, you will get my vote and I will stand behind you. I do this with people in real life too. So to answer you question. the 2A isn't the only thing I fight for but it is on the top of my list. That is how important I see it. I am a single issue voter for similar reasons. If a politician doesn't want to trust citizens with the power of a gun, why should we trust them with the power of an army? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:47:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just for clarification, I believe the correct term is "constructive possession", not "constructive intent". Iirc, as long as you have at least one legal use for a short barreled upper, it is okay to possess multiple spare uppers. If you have one registered SBR or MG in your possession, you can have as many different uppers for it as you want. It's possessing a short-barreled upper with no legal use for it, along with a rifle it can be installed on, that might get you in trouble. Hopefully someone more well-versed in the law can either confirm or correct this. What about those with SBR form 1's sitting in the que waiting on approval already? Would possession of a under 16" still be an issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:50:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Interesting take from Meplat Group owner. Don’t take the free list…pay for it instead.
 Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 10:55:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Interesting take from Meplat Group owner. Don’t take the free list…pay for it instead. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/311137/1C3A4CDB-7F23-4B56-81D2-676A40E4B028_jpe-2682219.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/311137/A8964B9C-18A6-4FC8-A03B-A7D659590C2E_jpe-2682220.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/311137/F23699DF-55BF-4B30-8439-D01423BE8039_jpe-2682221.JPG Seems like solid advice if a guy wants to comply. Disassemble, and pay the $200. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:01:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, but there is nothing good that can come from this As you mentioned, just wait and see what happens. But this "free candy" option should be avoided. I don’t care about the $200. Not sure about all the engraving stuff. Might not want to do all that. I have a lot of time to consider it though. I’m not completely opposed to going the regular SBR route if this brace thing winds up standing 3 months from now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:05:28 PM EDT
[#45]
For those who haven't seen the UK-legal pistols, it's an interesting contrast to our SBR laws.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/02/17/more-uk-legal-pistols/amp/ Across the pond, they make you put an extension on the back of handguns to make them long enough to be difficult to conceal. I am not aware of any laws over there against shouldering said extension if you so desired. It just goes to show you that all gun laws are just bullshit that have no real purpose beyond adding to a list of things you can be charged with, and have no effect on real crime that has real victims whatsoever. It doesn't matter what country you live in, the gun laws are not rooted in logic. They are just there to make people feel like they are somehow safer, despite reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:06:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My wife changes her mind about what color we should paint the kitchen without EVER admitting that her previous color choice was a mistake.  Ironically, or coincidentally, or perhaps causally...I've been watching time travel movies all weekend... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:12:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For those who haven't seen the UK-legal pistols, it's an interesting contrast to our SBR laws. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/02/17/more-uk-legal-pistols/amp/ Across the pond, they make you put an extension on the back of handguns to make them long enough to be difficult to conceal. I am not aware of any laws over there against shouldering said extension if you so desired. It just goes to show you that all gun laws are just bullshit that have no real purpose beyond adding to a list of things you can be charged with, and have no effect on real crime that has real victims whatsoever. It doesn't matter what country you live in, the gun laws are not rooted in logic. They are just there to make people feel like they are somehow safer, despite reality. Wait wait wait, so you mean if someone wants to drive a motorized vehicle through a crowd of people to kill as many as possible, as an example, that any laws against that don't mean shit to someone intent on commiting a crime to begin with? (Just trying to emphasize how fucking stupid collective punishment is) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:19:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait wait wait, so you mean if someone wants to drive a motorized vehicle through a crowd of people to kill as many as possible, as an example, that any laws against that don't mean shit to someone intent on commiting a crime to begin with? (Just trying to emphasize how fucking stupid collective punishment is) I just wish people would realize that the death sentence or life in prison are simply not going to deter some people from murdering. And since pretty much anything can be used as a weapon, banning a few categories of weapons like guns and knives won't stop the killings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:20:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think that's correct. Thompson Center case. Someone posted a video of a lawyer in this thread a few pages back. He goes into constructive intent in pretty good detail. Basically if you can configure your property legally, you are good. Just because you own all the parts that could be configured illegally, does not make a crime. Proximity does matter. So don't keep all the stuff that could be made into an illegal sbr, right next to eachother, so it looks like that's what you intend to do. A clear case of constructive intent would be if you have a rifle lower and a pistol upper in your house sitting next to eachother, and you don't own any other possible configuration. You may now be convicted of a victimless thought crime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Speaking of constructive intent: if someone had a braced pistol and had no desire to register it as an SBR, so they simply put a 16 inch upper on it, wouldn’t they have to dispose of the shorter upper so as not to be caught in the constructive intent trap? That is my understanding. That upper would need to not be in your immediate possession and control. That means, in the same house. Not, in another closet. I don't think that's correct. Thompson Center case. Someone posted a video of a lawyer in this thread a few pages back. He goes into constructive intent in pretty good detail. Basically if you can configure your property legally, you are good. Just because you own all the parts that could be configured illegally, does not make a crime. Proximity does matter. So don't keep all the stuff that could be made into an illegal sbr, right next to eachother, so it looks like that's what you intend to do. A clear case of constructive intent would be if you have a rifle lower and a pistol upper in your house sitting next to eachother, and you don't own any other possible configuration. You may now be convicted of a victimless thought crime. That was me and I was wondering if I was going to have to re-post it. Thanks for bringing it back to the collective attention. It was the best video that I've seen explaining constructive intent and constructive possession. If I had a brace and didn't have a non-AR family member/close friend to store it, at most I would put it in a box buried someone in the stuff in the basement, attic, etc away from my armory. Realistically, I'm lazy and generally DGAF so it would be in a box of parts in another room and call it a day. ETA: I guess I should put a link to the video again.   Constructive Possession + Intent: Parts are Guns |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2023 11:22:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the AFT, you're aunt has balls and therefore has been your uncle the whole time... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're only clicking that if you're in the process of registering it, so you are complying with their rule change in order to AVOID committing a felony. You know, to STAY OUT OF TROUBLE. If you're registering it it has not yet been registered. You are relying on their pinky promise to not prosecute you for what they are saying, and you are acknowledging, is a crime. If this were any other time-outside of this 120 day window-and you attempted to register an SBR that was already in your possession, BATFE would possibly kill you and your family members, bankrupt you, and send you to PMITA prison. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. According to the AFT, you're aunt has balls and therefore has been your uncle the whole time...  Attached File |
|
|
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.
