quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Hmm... It appears as if you may be hinting that Gearhounds could be correct. Do I have that right?

Oh so you trust the government then?

(I totally called it on my first post)

I'm reading these last few posts and I'm wondering why you guys seem to be talking sideways at each other, answering questions with questions and stuff like that.

Just what exactly is the point of contention here? And what happened to good old plain speaking?

If I can't follow what you guys are saying, that means some others here can't follow what you are saying, so, what exactly is the point of all this?

No idea. He keeps replying with stuff that has nothing to do with what I said.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Hmm... It appears as if you may be hinting that Gearhounds could be correct. Do I have that right?

Oh so you trust the government then?

(I totally called it on my first post)

The only thing I trust about the ATF is if it looks like it might be NFA item but they say it is legal, they WILL reverse their decision and you, the owner of the device, are placed in the position of having to comply with the ATF's mismanagement.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
He’s still correct.

It’s interesting that people who apparently don’t care what the law is are they same ones complaining that the government don’t care what the law actually is........

Still correct but still in jeopardy.

If I owned the various components under discussion, I would not keep them in the same room even if in different boxes. I would make sure that I went further than the legal minimum.

But hey, if you want to stand there arguing with the Sheriff or ATF agents about parts being in different boxes while on the same shelf, that's fine.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It is the governments responsibility to show culpability.

That is what I am responding to. In the textbooks you are correct. In the real world not so much. My case is but one example. The complaint literally proved me innocent. The citizen may eventually win, but at great cost.

I would not be comforted by your comment. Proving, or failing to prove, culpability happens in the courtroom.

Different law enforcement agencies vow to not enforce the brace rule in Arkansas and Oklahoma, both "2nd Amendment Sanctuary" states. I expect other departments in other sanctuary states to follow suit.

https://www.fox16.com/news/loc...-stabilizing-braces/
https://www.fox23.com/news/mul...AEZFWTJ3GN5LMZ4VDGM/
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-...e-pistol-brace-rule/
https://ktul.com/news/local/ot...force-new-atf-ruling

As a few have stated earlier (Pale Horse for one) the purpose of my buying a rifle caliber pistol was:

1) The ability to carry loaded in a vehicle
2) The ability to carry in a bag concealed
3) The ability to cross state lines unimpeded

I chose an AK pistol because I am extensively familiar with the platform and 7.62x39 because of its outstanding ballistic performance out of a short barrel. Registering it as an SBR is counter to the reason for owning it. If I wanted an SBR, I would have bought one. The ZPap 92 with a lower 1/3 mounted red dot makes for an excellent cheek pistol. Destroying any available method of brace attachment removes the possibility of achieving felon status while this plays out in the courts. It is not an ideal solution, but it is one that maintains the original reason for owning it in the first place without breaking the bank.

OK< I have to ask. Does anyone know where in the hell are the NRA and GOA in all of this? They have both stated they oppose this infringement on our rights { typical boilerplate speech } but nothing further that I have seen.

quote:

Originally posted by kent j:
OK< I have to ask. Does anyone know where in the hell are the NRA and GOA in all of this? They have both stated they oppose this infringement on our rights { typical boilerplate speech } but nothing further that I have seen.

It hasn't been formally enacted by being published in the federal register yet.

They can't sue until the ATF tries to enact it, and so far, they've just said that they plan to enact it.

I guarantee you that there are a number of groups ready to file their preprepared suits the minute it hits the register.

That's also when the 120 day clock starts on the "amnesty".

I have one observation.

There are claims of as many as 40,000,000 braved pistols. In a 120 day period, the BATFE system would need to process 3.85 submissions per second without stopping, for those 120 days.

Good luck with that plan, BATFE.

Do Not Comply!

@Sig 2340:
First off, not all of us are going to go the SBR route due to the restrictions that it puts on the firearm versus being a pistol. And if I have read things correctly you just need to apply during the 120 day amnesty period, not get it approved. If you are going to SBR, it makes sense to do so early. I suspect the 88 day rejection period will possibly be waived if they are inundated with applications. There is also the possibility they may realize what a shitstorm they are opening up for themselves and not publish to the Federal Register. They were all set to do so a couple of years back and chose to postpone.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Different law enforcement agencies vow to not enforce the brace rule in Arkansas and Oklahoma, both "2nd Amendment Sanctuary" states. I expect other departments in other sanctuary states to follow suit.
...[/url]

Except enforcement of violations of 18 USC 922 are handled by the fed.gov, not state.gov or local.gov.

What they mean is these state.gov and local.gov agencies are not going out of their way to find and/or report violators to BATFE.

I'll believe these "Second Amendment Sanctuaries" are serious when state.gov and local.gov agencies begin to use force to prevent BATFE personnel from executing the agency's federal law enforcement mission.

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
@Sig 2340:

... And if I have read things correctly you just need to apply during the 120 day amnesty period, not get it approved. ...

That was my point. Applications must be accepted by the system at a rate of 3.85 per second.

To process 40M applications:

Assumptions:
Examiners on staff = 100
Process rate = one every 10 minutes, assuming zero defects
Working hours per year = 2000

This means these 100 people will take 33.3 years to complete 40M application reviews.

40M

minus

X number of those who are oblivious to these goings-on

Y number of those who are going to remove the brace, extend the barrel, or get rid of the gun

Z number of those who are going to ignore the new rule

=

Much less than 40M SBR applications

Plus, 40M is the upper end of the estimate. The lower end is like 3M. They basically have no idea how many there are out there, other than "a bunch".

I get it won't be a huge number like 40M. But it takes almost no extra volume to break the ATF. When they brought Ef4 online they got a tiny (relative to this) increase due to the promised lead times. Now times are rapidly approaching paper times. EF1 times once were reasonable now as only a few people try to beat what they see as a rush they are up dramatically to the sucks area. This will break the system. BUT the good news for the amnesty folks is that once filed you are GTG and can use your SBR. The people that will suffer are the normal tax paid applications. That 88d hysteria is bs, so let's move past that.

I’ve read pretty much this whole thread but can’t remember or find anything about “undoing” your new, free SBR if a lawsuit is successful.

Say someone has a 7.5” AR with a brace. They comply and file within the grace period. Then after getting approved sometime down the road, a court overturns the ATF and NRA/GOA win the case.

Can they “un-SBR” it and go back to a braced pistol at that point or will it be forever doomed to keep as an SBR with restrictions on freely traveling or transferring it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It is the governments responsibility to show culpability.

That is what I am responding to. In the textbooks you are correct. In the real world not so much. My case is but one example. The complaint literally proved me innocent. The citizen may eventually win, but at great cost.

I would not be comforted by your comment. Proving, or failing to prove, culpability happens in the courtroom.

You are both right. But there is a key component missing.

In order to convict you of a crime it is the governments responsibility to show culpability

jljones is correct, but I understand what you are saying is that a single agent of the government still has the power to destroy your life.

You might not go to jail or have a criminal charge but the simple fact that you got arrested and had to pay for counsel and had to deal with any impacts of pre-trial incarceration or restrictions might take everything from you.

quote:

Can they “un-SBR” it and go back to a braced pistol at that point or will it be forever doomed to keep as an SBR with restrictions on freely traveling or transferring it?

There is a bit of wiggle room in this since we don't know what a court might do in detail. BUT the normal rule about SBR's is that if you put it back in an NON SBR configuration then its not an SBR. So if a court says a brace is not a stock, you don't have an NFA gun and you can go about your business. You are oddly not required to notify the registry about that but most do.