SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.
Page 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 40
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved. Login/Join 
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 911Boss:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
So... In english for us slow folks .... My Ruger AR pistol, which is registered as a pistol, and has a brace, now must be registered as an SBR or turned in?


Or:
Remove the brace
Destroy it
NFA is an actual law passed by Congress so I don't see how BATFE has the administrative authority to allow disposing of the brace and reconfiguring into pistol which is the 3rd option below from ATF's publication.







Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
 
Posts: 23522 | Location: Northern Suburbs of Houston | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
So as I read it I can remove and dispose of the brace. OR, I can leave brace in place but put a 16 inch upper on it. Sounds like what you can’t do is remove the brace and put it in a shoe box in your attic. That seems nonsensical. Which of course this whole mental masturbation exercise is nonsensical.
 
Posts: 7540 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Savor the limelight
posted Hide Post
The whole thing reads like Abbott & Costello’s “Who’s on First”.
 
Posts: 11346 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
I'll take option 6.

Wait and see if the GOA gets a TRO which I'm sure they will, then wait a couple of years until SCOTUS gets the lawsuit, then after SCOTUS decides, celebrate the win.
 
Posts: 10626 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get Off My Lawn
Picture of oddball
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Strambo:
I’m no lawyer but what is the real-world legal risk?

The ATF is just a bureaucratic LE agency. On the one hand, they do not make law. The laws passed by Congress are what they are and say what they say.

On the other hand, the ATF can’t prosecute anyone either, can’t even make that decision.


Exactly, the recent 5th Circuit Court on bumpstocks and the overreach of the ATF, along with the SCOTUS decision last summer on the overreach of the EPA making rules and laws without Congress- I would think that they would have an impact on this whole brace situation.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
 
Posts: 16969 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Leatherneck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
So as I read it I can remove and dispose of the brace. OR, I can leave brace in place but put a 16 inch upper on it. Sounds like what you can’t do is remove the brace and put it in a shoe box in your attic. That seems nonsensical. Which of course this whole mental masturbation exercise is nonsensical.


Yeah. And what if I have an SBR and a pistol? Can I keep my brace in case I want to use it on my SBR? That would be legal. Or, since I have a pistol that the brace could go on would it still be illegal to own the brace?

Fuck the ATF. It’s either an illegal item or it isn’t. If it’s legal to own pistol braces in any capacity, which even after this it is, then you can’t tell me that a pistol brace not attached to anything is illegal for me to own. An SBR has a legal definition and a pistol brace alone doesn’t meet that definition.




“Everybody wants a Sig in the sheets but a Glock on the streets.” -bionic218 04-02-2014
 
Posts: 15268 | Location: Florida | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Strambo:
I’m no lawyer but what is the real-world legal risk?


Take your thought process a step further. How many FRT and bump stock prosecutions have their been since we last did the “will turn millions into felons” routine?

There’s a reason for that, and your thought process is solid.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37143 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pale Horse... agreed.

I already have lowers registered as SBR's. Even if I didn't, I refuse to comply.

They have no case, but it is going to take a while for that to be settled. In the meantime, I am keeping my lawfully purchased property.


The "Boz"
 
Posts: 1550 | Location: Central Ohio, USA | Registered: May 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ignored facts
still exist
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by Strambo:
I’m no lawyer but what is the real-world legal risk?


Take your thought process a step further. How many FRT and bump stock prosecutions have their been since we last did the “will turn millions into felons” routine?

There’s a reason for that, and your thought process is solid.


Almost. Dealers simply won't sell some of the items discussed since the supply has dried up or for legal issues, so if you just turned 18 and are buying your first gun, or if you just want to buy one for the first time, you are out of luck.


----------------------
Let's Go Brandon!
 
Posts: 11023 | Location: 45 miles from the Pacific Ocean | Registered: February 28, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
So as I read it I can remove and dispose of the brace. OR, I can leave brace in place but put a 16 inch upper on it. Sounds like what you can’t do is remove the brace and put it in a shoe box in your attic. That seems nonsensical. Which of course this whole mental masturbation exercise is nonsensical.


Well put.


I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I'm not.
 
Posts: 3652 | Location: The armpit of Ohio | Registered: August 18, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
BATFE has the administrative authority to allow disposing of the brace and reconfiguring into pistol

I don't see what you are thinking on this. The ATF has long said (literally back to the origins of the NFA) that the current configuration of the gun determines its legal status under the NFA. If its not in an NFA configuration its not an NFA gun. So technically you can take your SBR and turn it into any other configuration you like that are then not covered by the NFA. Best example I can think of is adding a 16" barrel and its no longer an SBR for the purposes of the NFA. There are a zillion ATF letters on this issue. The position the ATF has put themselves in is it started as a pistol add the brace its an SBR so removing the brace takes it back to a pistol. I don't see any likely problems with them on this. No different than you having a rifle, SBR it with a short barrel, and then put back a 16+ barrel and its legally back to a rifle. I'm not bothering to search but I am 100% sure there are atf letters on this. I have a pistol, I add a stock its and SBR, I remove the stock its back to a pistol.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11089 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
I went to a LGS today and they had a sign on the door that they are no longer selling pistol brace guns.

ATF may be on shaky legal ground, but no one there loses a dime or risks their job by coming after someone they can easily bankrupt and then drop the charges before it goes to court.
 
Posts: 3619 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon:
quote:
NFA is an actual law passed by Congress so I don't see how BATFE has the administrative authority to allow disposing of the brace and reconfiguring into pistol

I don't see what you are thinking on this. The ATF has long said (literally back to the origins of the NFA) that the current configuration of the gun determines its legal status under the NFA. If it’s not in an NFA configuration it’s not an NFA gun. So technically you can take your SBR and turn it into any other configuration you like that are then not covered by the NFA. Best example I can think of is adding a 16" barrel and it’s no longer an SBR for the purposes of the NFA. There are a zillion ATF letters on this issue. The position the ATF has put themselves in is it started as a pistol add the brace it’s an SBR so removing the brace takes it back to a pistol. I don't see any likely problems with them on this. No different than you having a rifle, SBR it with a short barrel, and then put back a 16+ barrel and it’s legally back to a rifle. I'm not bothering to search but I am 100% sure there are atf letters on this. I have a pistol, I add a stock its and SBR, I remove the stock its back to a pistol.
In the last two sentences of #3 says they’re using discretion to allow conversion. It’d be different if BATFE was administratively changing a rule they had originally written but they’re changing an actual law passed by Congress.

On top of that, they spent 200+ pages saying it never was a pistol that it was always an unregistered SBR. They really focused on several braces such as the SB Tactical SBA3 that my buddy has.

What I’m saying rather poorly was that AR15 pistol owners who elect for #3 may get the rug yanked out from under them again. The thread has focused a lot on Pro-2A lawsuits but the Anti-2A people can file lawsuits too and go after stuff like #3. Therefore going the Form 1 route makes more sense for someone like my buddy.



Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
 
Posts: 23522 | Location: Northern Suburbs of Houston | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by radioman:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by Strambo:
I’m no lawyer but what is the real-world legal risk?


Take your thought process a step further. How many FRT and bump stock prosecutions have their been since we last did the “will turn millions into felons” routine?

There’s a reason for that, and your thought process is solid.


Almost. Dealers simply won't sell some of the items discussed since the supply has dried up or for legal issues, so if you just turned 18 and are buying your first gun, or if you just want to buy one for the first time, you are out of luck.


Almost what?

This reply was about legal risk of those in possession, and not about the buying habits of 18 year olds.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37143 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of SigSentry
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I went to a LGS today and they had a sign on the door that they are no longer selling pistol brace guns.

ATF may be on shaky legal ground, but no one there loses a dime or risks their job by coming after someone they can easily bankrupt and then drop the charges before it goes to court.


They should just sell the AR-15 braced pistols with the 16" upper and stock and call it a conversion kit...and include a warning Big Grin
 
Posts: 3572 | Registered: May 30, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ignored facts
still exist
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:


Almost what?

This reply was about legal risk of those in possession, and not about the buying habits of 18 year olds.


I understand that, but In the entire post that you partially quoted,
Strambo also said:
quote:
So…they can write bureaucratic letters and make bureaucratic “rulings” about their internal interpretations of the law, so what?


The "so what" is that (primarily young, 18 as an example) noobs who are first time buyers won't be able to buy. Sure that doesn't affect those of us who were "stocking up when it was quiet" but not being able to freely buy is essentially a ban for these noobs. Therefore it's more than just a bureaucratic letter for them.

That's all. Sorry if I misinterpreted something.


----------------------
Let's Go Brandon!
 
Posts: 11023 | Location: 45 miles from the Pacific Ocean | Registered: February 28, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
Yeah, that’s why I edited my post as in rereading it, it came off a little harsh.

Which wasn’t the intent




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37143 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
They're after my Lucky Charms!
Picture of IrishWind
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by radioman:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
So…they can write bureaucratic letters and make bureaucratic “rulings” about their internal interpretations of the law, so what?


The "so what" is that (primarily young, 18 as an example) noobs who are first time buyers won't be able to buy. Sure that doesn't affect those of us who were "stocking up when it was quiet" but not being able to freely buy is essentially a ban for these noobs. Therefore it's more than just a bureaucratic letter for them.

That's all. Sorry if I misinterpreted something.


Congress passes laws, President signs them. Then it is up to the federal agencies to implement them. The US Code is the law. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is how agencies view the law and enforce it. Does anyone really think Congress cares about the radio magnetic spectrum? They delegate that to the FCC to sort out and assign frequencies. The ATF has been tasked to define what an SBR is and this is where we are. Maybe the courts have shifted to the right enough that the bureaucracies are getting slapped back, and the last few decades of Congress ignoring their job and letting the Agencies do their biding for them is on the wane.


Lord, your ocean is so very large and my divos are so very f****d-up
Dirt Sailors Unite!
 
Posts: 25075 | Location: NoVa | Registered: May 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
In the last two sentences of #3 says they’re using discretion to allow conversion. It’d be different if BATFE was administratively changing a rule they had originally written but they’re changing an actual law passed by Congress

I guess I was a bit too quick in my post. There are two cases involved and they have different legal situations. 1. I had a pistol, purchased it as a pistol, add a brace which makes it an SBR, remove the brace and its back to a pistol. No discretion required.
2. Second case I bought a gun that as delivered to me was with a brace. That is a now illegal SBR (a rifle, even though short barreled). The ATF has always ruled you can't make a pistol from a rifle. So in this case you need the discretion.
But from a practical point of view if you SBR it, it matters not as you can effectively whatever configuration you want after you form one it.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 11089 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Web Clavin Extraordinaire
Picture of Oat_Action_Man
posted Hide Post
So am I misunderstanding this goat rope?

If I have a braced gun (a "pistol") and I decide to register it, tax-free, during their "amnesty", I'm not actually creating a tax-free SBR, but I just get to keep the fucking brace and not actually put a stock on it? And presumably, because it's now an NFA item, I need to beg permission to take it across state lines?

Or do I have that wrong?


----------------------------

Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"

Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
 
Posts: 19837 | Location: SE PA | Registered: January 12, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 40 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.

© SIGforum 2024