quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Can the House defund the ATF? That would be interesting.

Not on its own. This would also require passage by the Senate and being signed by the President, just like a bill abolishing the ATF.

https://good.house.gov/media/p...ough-our-laws-pistol

Something new besides what Gaetz has going.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
https://good.house.gov/media/p...ough-our-laws-pistol

Something new besides what Gaetz has going.

Not new. That bill was introduced in June 2021. (Note the date on that press release.)

It has been languishing in committee/subcommittee limbo for over 1.5 years:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/...ress/house-bill/3823

^^^Well, at least it's moving forward then. That's not a bad thing...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^I edited my previous post w/ some add'l info, but just to add, in the event of your death, individually owned NFA items, just like everything else, would become part of your Estate, distributed per the expressed terms of your Will, and would be subject to Probate, plus the Form 5 Transfer. A Trust avoids all of that!

Thank you for the reply and additional info.

I hope statements like this are brought up in the suit. I guess ATF can change it's mind but it can't change the law.

NPR of course
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08...-dayton-shooters-gun

In general, the ATF says, "an AR pistol is not a short-barreled 'rifle' under the statutory definition in the National Firearms Act ... because it does not have a shoulder stock, and is not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder."

In a statement sent to NPR, the ATF said such a gun is commonly defined as a pistol "because it is made with a pistol grip and designed to be gripped and fired when held in one hand."

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
One thing that needs to be cleared up here - the BATF is not proposing to ban or restrict pistol braces. The thread title incorrectly says that and it's leading to some confusion here.

You may notice that this thread and its title were created over two years ago (December 2020), at which time nobody knew exactly what the ATF's final proposal was going to be, other than that they were considering implementing some flavor of ban or restriction.

I did notice, and I'm not faulting the OP or the forum policy against multiple threads on the same topic. I'm just making sure people weighing in on the current issue aren't confused by the thread title, because some seem to be.

^^^Well, 'technically' they're not banning Pistol Braces, they're basically banning Pistols WITH Braces by declaring them as SBR's, except for 'some' rare exceptions. Sure, you can keep your Pistol Brace, but you'll be using it on an SBR!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
I did notice, and I'm not faulting the OP or the forum policy against multiple threads on the same topic. I'm just making sure people weighing in on the current issue aren't confused by the thread title, because some seem to be.

Man, I swear, folks nitpicking on word choices it's ridiculous. But, let's play your game. They are fucking making up new rules as they please, ruling the brace on an AR being NFA item requiring registration. If that's not restricting the brace, then what is it they're doing? No one on here is confused by what the FATF is doing.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Well, at least it's moving forward then. That's not a bad thing...

I think that any bills not passed during a Congress expire. Since this is a new Congress, a bill from 2021 would have to be refiled as a new bill under the current Congress. Unless that happens, the 2021 bill is dead and there is nothing to move forward. At least that’s how I understand it.

^^^Whatever...

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Can the House defund the ATF? That would be interesting.

Not on its own. This would also require passage by the Senate and being signed by the President, just like a bill abolishing the ATF.

I’d rather the NFA go away than the ATF. There’s still all that evil tobaccy and alkyhol around

So are they going to send a letter to every single person who has ever bought an AR pistol to inform them that their $$$ purchase is now illegal?
How do they expect people to just know this shit? Not many follow what goes on with these laws.

Nope. Same as they don't mail everyone in your state a letter when a new state law is enacted, or an existing state law is modified.

The original idea was that it's incumbent upon all citizens to make themselves aware of the laws they're expected to follow, provided the laws are properly published and therefore accessible. Hence the legal concept that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

However, laws have becomes increasingly complex and convoluted over the years, and frequently change. We've honestly reached the point where nobody is able to know 100% of the exact details of all the city/county/state/federal laws on every single matter at any given time.

Hell, I deal with the law all day long as part of my profession, and I have to look stuff up pretty often to check wording on laws that I don't frequently deal with.

So "Mr Normal Dude" buys a cool looking AR pistol with a brace legally and as a normal person he does not follow all the silly shit the political critters do. How is it reasonable for him to be made aware of any changes to the law? After all, he did his background check and bought it legally. I would not have known without this thread. I don't watch the news or follow any political shit.
Totally unreasonable in my opinion for us to keep up with their bullshit shenanigans.

The problem w/ the ATF is that often, the 'laws' that they expect you to follow aren't in a book or written down anywhere the law abiding public can look them up!

The definition of a rifle is contained in the NFA statute itself. I'm wondering if the ATF can administratively modify it without a legislative change. If not, this could be a point of attack in a court challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
One of the criteria from the ATF's amended definition of a Rifle in 08F Pistol Brace Rule:

quote:

whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations

Of course the ATF never actually defines ANYTHING, but this line seems problematic for our logical definition of ANY current AR Pistol going forward.

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. He'd be on the hook.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So "Mr Normal Dude" buys a cool looking AR pistol with a brace legally and as a normal person he does not follow all the silly shit the political critters do. How is it reasonable for him to be made aware of any changes to the law? After all, he did his background check and bought it legally. I would not have known without this thread. I don't watch the news or follow any political shit.
Totally unreasonable in my opinion for us to keep up with their bullshit shenanigans.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The definition of a rifle is contained in the NFA statute itself. I'm wondering if the ATF can administratively modify it without a legislative change. If not, this could be a point of attack in a court challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
One of the criteria from the ATF's amended definition of a Rifle in 08F Pistol Brace Rule:

quote:

whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations

Of course the ATF never actually defines ANYTHING, but this line seems problematic for our logical definition of ANY current AR Pistol going forward.

Certainly...And how about 'Surface Area'? They made that up, and don't define it anywhere!