Yes, there is another thread on the subject here, but this deserves extra attention, so if you haven’t seen it, please go there for more details.
This is the link to the site where the proposal is posted and to make public comments:
“Cet animal est très méchant, quand on l’attaque il se défend.”
Oh ok. So all of that armor piercing NATO ammo that is illegal because TC chambered it in a pistol will now be ruled ok? According to the ATF, 308 is not a practical pistol cartridge, so why is there an AP ban in place?
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
|Distinguished Pistol Shot|
Hate to say it, But if you thing BATFE will take any comment from the public seriously, you are naive. They have already made their decision, they just have to go through the motions.
Maybe. Maybe not...but I don't want this implemented without a fight.
The attempted ban of M855 was stopped a few years ago when gun owners got involved during the same Federal Registry process and made enough Public Comments to catch the attention of the ATF.
What could it hurt to get involved and join in the fight by taking a few minutes to make some calm reasonable comments? Do your 1st amendment rights mean as little to you as your 2nd amendment rights?
Am I the only one not able to link to the comment page? I know it’s gov bureaucracy but it’s hard to navigate.
“Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown
The links to the proposal page appear to be good, BUT when I attempt to make a public comment I get this pop-up warning:
DIRECT COMMENTING UNAVAILABLE Submitting a formal comment directly via federalregister.gov is not available for this document. However, you can click the button below to view more information on alternate methods of comment submission.
This is bullshit. There is a hyperlink button right there on the proposal page they could enable if they chose to. Also, when the M855 ban proposal was published in the Federal Registry you could hyperlink directly to a separate site to make comments, although it did require creating an account to make comments then.
I found a better link:
or possibly this one:
Yes, that Rules Comment site is hyperlinked from the Federal Registry website link that sigfreund posted.
But, leave it to .gov to disable a Public Comments button only to require viewers to click on a separate website link to actually make Public Comments. They could have easily simply enabled the Public Comments hyperlink button, had a pop-up warning notifying someone that they were being re-directed to a separate site, and take someone directly to it.
As it stands, there is the Federal Registry page with the actual proposal wording and background, and then a separate link to the Rules site to make Public Comments.
I shared my thoughts
"you guys are looking for a solution without a problem. work on prosecuting real gun crimes and stop trying to make the people who obey they laws next years felons"
I think the fact that they had previously give opinion letters on several of these type of braces stating they were legal will make doing this eminently challengeable in court.
|Fighting the good fight|
It would likely only be a slam dunk for those specific brace models on those specific gun models that had received prior approval letters.
But the recent issue all arose because some of the brace and firearm companies have been sending in one brace prototype on one model of pistol, getting it approved, and then modifying the brace design and/or attaching it to other gun models, and yet still marketing and selling it as "ATF approved" in that new configuration.
So the buyers bought it in good faith, because the manufacturer advertised it as ATF approved, and they even had an ATF letter that said the brace was approved, when the only thing approved was the original model brace specifically on the gun model submitted.
Yeah, it's chickenshit, and SBRs/braced pistols are bullshit. But from the legal perspective, this isn't as clear-cut as you may think, since it involved companies trying to broadly apply what was actually narrow ATF approval.
Doing away with SBRs altogether would be an easy solution, but not very likely in the coming years.
So in the meantime, it'd be nice if ATF at least has a set, consistent standard of simple rules they used to make determinations, so companies and consumers could simply look at something and determine if it's legal or not. (Like the 16" barrel length rule, or similar.) Not this "send us each individual model of gun with each individual brace, and we'll consult the Oracle, and the phases of the moon, and shake our Magic 8 ball, and then based on 47 different factors and depending on what we had for breakfast that morning, maybe approve that specific implementation".
|E tan e epi tas|
Done. I think the braces are kind of silly myself, but this isn’t about me it’s about us. Same with bump stocks etc. just remember we don’t all have to agree or be personally affected. It’s not about I, it’s about US.
Take care, shoot safe
"Guns are tools. The only weapon ever created was man."
I'm being repressed!
I added my comment. Pretty much said that the definitions in the firearms acts are the definitions. There is a legislative process to amend those acts if they feel the need, but to interpret the definitions as they see fit is usurping the authority given to them by Congress and the firearms acts and that by doing what they are doing they are circumventing the checks and balances placed upon them as part of the executive branch.
Working somewhat backwards, the SBR definition and rules are directly codified in the NFA. Getting rid of it entirely would take legislation. For the next four years, that's just not happening.
The BATF opened up a loophole to the SBR regulations by allowing arm braces (and previously AR pistols.) The question becomes, at least for the ones they issued opinion letter for, can they legally walk that back. Do they get to say "Oops, we were wrong. These things are really NFA items." after the fact. They might. A court will have to decide that.
For similar items that don't have opinion letters, a lot depends on the result of the prior paragraph. If a court says that the ATF can't wall back the prior opinion letters, and have to allow those braces to stay not-NFA, I would think SB tactical and others could say that the other items are so similar that if the opinion letter are considered valid, they should apply to the items for which letters were not issued also. That's more of a stretch, but not a big one, if the original letters are allowed to stand.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,
I'm being repressed!
I look at it as more of the ATF now infringing on the definition of a pistol rather than they allowed a loophole.
The loophole never existed because these braced pistols do not meet the definition needed to call them rifles per the legislation.
|Shall Not Be Infringed|
If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
I sent in my reply and basically told them that the decision to allow braces was made by the ATF many years ago and now millions of people own them, and they are rarely used in criminal activity.
The only thing a reversal would do is further erode the ATF's credibility with the public, and would not change the crime rate one way or another.
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
|Fool for the City|
I commented that maybe the ATF should be "defunded."
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington.
A pistol that has a device that allows it to braced (and, yes, this word is going to be used a few different ways in this post) into the shoulder of the shooter, is a short barreled rifle. SIG/SB Tactical promoted the "stabilizing brace" as something that would be strapped to an arm, not braced into the shoulder. Of course, we all know for the vast majority "pistols" with stabilizing braces attached, the brace is being used as a stock, and the pistol is being used as an SBR.
The ATF has known this for years (remember their abortive attempt to define and shooter who shouldered their braced pistol as having modified the braced pistol to be an SBR.) Now it sounds like they are admitting reality. The question is, can they now, after several years, and at least several hundred thousand, if not more, of these devices in circulation, with their blessing at least initially, make them illegal.
I commented on their site. I said that to approve something one time then revoke approval is BS.
End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 ... 29|