quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Why did you remove not from my post when you quoted it? The guidance letter stated they would not prosecute. Just as WCB mentioned.

It wasn't there when I quoted it or I made a typo, Either way I can admit when I have made an error.

Or maybe posts have been edited since quoted........arbitrary and capricious.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Since they have let millions of them into circulation,why not reverse themselves again and say absolutely no shouldering.

Because we keep asking questions to specific “if we do it this way, on Tuesday, during a leap year, is it legal?”.

We should have just kept doing our thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigolicious:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Why did you remove not from my post when you quoted it? The guidance letter stated they would not prosecute. Just as WCB mentioned.

It wasn't there when I quoted it or I made a typo, Either way I can admit when I have made an error.

Fair enough.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Since they have let millions of them into circulation,why not reverse themselves again and say absolutely no shouldering.

Because we keep asking questions to specific “if we do it this way, on Tuesday, during a leap year, is it legal?”.

We should have just kept doing our thing.

So if citizens ask legitimate questions to a government agency they will just fuck over everybody and this is ok with you?

Jones, I think you are repeating a fairy tale. After reports of the ATF meeting or contacting the Biden team, they suddenly throw down on 80% and pistol braces? Not buying it.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Since they have let millions of them into circulation,why not reverse themselves again and say absolutely no shouldering.

Because we keep asking questions to specific “if we do it this way, on Tuesday, during a leap year, is it legal?”.

We should have just kept doing our thing.

So if citizens ask legitimate questions to a government employee they will just fuck over everybody and this is ok with you?

It’s not about ok, it’s about how we got here. I’ve said it early on, my opinion is that SBRs ( and cans) shouldn’t be on the NFA to begin with. That’s my opinions.

It’s just the way it is, the government seems to not be our friend

This is completely true. The ATF, just looking at the original SIG brace, had to know these things would be used as stocks, and could have declared them stocks, and that any AR pistol that had one of these things added would be considered and NFA item. They didn't do that. They gave SIG and SB tactical an opinion letter saying that even with this device, an AR piston would still be considered a pistol, and by doing so, created an entire market for "braced" pistols, which by any functional definition, were SBRs. And they let this run for several years now.

All of a sudden, someone senior at the ATF got a bug up there ass about this, and wants to slam the door. I Hope they know this is going to get ugly. They got lucky in that Biden won the election. He'll give them some cover to do this at the political level. Hopefully this will get slammed in court, but I'm skeptical it will.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

<Snip previous posts>

No one is bypassing a law. The ATF opened the door to braces, continued to approve new braces and designs, and now that they have become commonplace they want to eliminate them. Make no mistake about it, the ATF created this entire fiasco.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Jones, I think you are repeating a fairy tale. After reports of the ATF meeting or contacting the Biden team, they suddenly throw down on 80% and pistol braces? Not buying it.

The fairy tale is believing a that anything in the federal government could move that fast.

None of this is “all of a sudden”. Nor is the flurry of “what if” letters made up. Do you think that during a soft gun market (think last year) that Glock and SIG weren’t complaining about Polymer 80 skirting FET? And they didn’t have lobbyists complaining to anyone in government that would listen?

Edited- I will go as far as betting you that when someone gets a FOIA through after this is over that the Polymer80 deal started last year. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize directly to you. But, I obviously don’t think I am, especially given COVID has had the fed at max telework since March.

This seems to be more than about just the brace. the BATFE probably doesn't want us to have AR Pistols either even if it's back to the paracord wrapped buffer tube held to the cheek. Of course, you can only fire a pistol with one hand so that's the other issue

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
.... I Hope they know this is going to get ugly. They got lucky in that Biden won the election. He'll give them some cover to do ......

Biden didn’t win, the dems cheated.

Imagine the number of firearm related posts there will be once BUYden gets in office.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Edited- I will go as far as betting you that when someone gets a FOIA through after this is over that the Polymer80 deal started last year. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize directly to you. But, I obviously don’t think I am, especially given COVID has had the fed at max telework since March.

I have no doubt they have been chomping at the bit to go after braces and 80% for a while. But to think that the sudden movement, and super short comment period, isn’t politically motivated, I think is giving the swamp the benefit of doubt.

Whether or not it helps, I posted the following

The main basis of government, is stability. Arbitrarily outlawing billions of dollars worth of goods, bought in good faith, by millions of people, by bureaucratic action, endangers the rule of law.

It is an irresponsible action, which harms the Republic, at a time when the populace has little enough faith in DC, as it is.

IMO, it may be better to for protecting the legitimacy of the ATF, and DC, than calling for the entire agency to be disbanded.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I posted the following

The main basis of government, is stability.

Your necessarily-brief discussion of that was an excellent point. I haven’t commented yet because I’ve been mulling over what I’d like to say, but I believe I’ll include something along those lines. I believe another point to be made is that bureaucratic agencies should not be able to usurp Congress’ and the Executive’s power and authority to enact laws arbitrarily on their own without recourse by those whom they affect.
Thank you.

As for whether our comments will make any difference, assuage your conscience if you must by saying, “It won’t matter,” but please do not try to influence the rest of us to keep silent. In my 50+ years of being eligible to vote in political elections my vote has never once determined the outcome.
I still vote.

I made my comments, for whatever good it’ll do. At least I said my piece.

I see it kind of like of voting — if you didn’t vote, you don’t get to bitch. Likewise, if you don’t comment, you don’t get to bitch. You are free to disagree with me on that.

I may be naive, but perhaps if enough of us comment, it will get someone’s attention. If not that, it will at least build a statistic for later reference in a future action, such as a suit against the ATF or DOJ.

quote:

jljones

We surely run around with a different class of shooter. Because apparently EVERYONE I know is a scumbag, because everyone that I know buys arm brace pistols to get around SBR rules

There will be some gun owners who don't have a problem with the ATF on this issue.

NFA made short barrel shotguns and rifles regulated for these primary reasons:

- Thompson Submachine Guns had 10" barrels and could be hidden under a long coat.
- St. Valentine's Day Massacre used Thompsons.
- Clyde Barrow used a cut down M1918 BAR that he could hide under a long coat. The movies always show a Thompson but the suppressing firepower of a BAR - basically the SAW of its day - meant police with revolvers and shotguns could not even get close.
- John Dillinger carried two cut down Browning A5 Semi-Auto shotguns under a long coat - one under each arm.

I am not aware of the use of short barrel rifles that were not also machine guns, so regulating machine guns would have taken care of the need for the government to "do something" about depression area crime. And considering you could buy a Thompson by US mail or in a hardware store, and a BAR 1918 or other military machine gun in a surplus store, the argument for some type of regulation was strong.

The only NFA challenge was by Miller in 1939, a bank robber charged for transporting a short barrel double barrel 12 gauge over state lines.

SCOTUS held that:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

READ THIS.

The only legal precedent upholding NFA states that only arms unsuitable for militia use can be regulated! At the time SBS's and SBR's were not in common militia or military use with 20" or longer barrels being the standard. Now, the 14.5" M4 SBR is the standard issue military rifle, and 10.3" is common for special ops teams. I am not sure about SBS's used by the military, but police certainly use them. And it basically says that "weapons of war" ARE protected by the 2nd amendment, which is also of use against using NFA to regulate semi-auto rifles.

THIS is the challenge that needs to be made so SCOTUS can strike down SBR regulation. Then the issue of arm braces is moot. Then there is the fact that braced pistols have not seen any significant use in crime, nor have "assault weapons" or rifles in general. If a large number of braces are made illegal, perhaps a class action suit can be filed, which will generally compel the courts to hear it, but it will take a long time. Courts usually deny standing to anyone not being prosecuted under NFA, but in this case, making legally possessed non-NFA firearms into NFA firearms, and requiring registration, confiscation, or destruction should be enough for standing.

This being said, if this guidance letter passes, then braces previously approved by BATFE or those substantively similar in design should be OK. Braces that do not have sufficient functionality to be used as an actual brace will not.

The original SB rubber cuff style brace (and similar), MPX/MCX telescoping brace (and similar), Tailhook (I think), and some others were approved by BATFE. My MPX/MCX came with copies of the clarification letter.

In any case, length of pull over 13" is problematic, re-use of standard rifle stock parts is problematic (could affect braces based on standard carbine buffer tubes), inability to properly aim and fire one-handed is problematic.

I've said this before, but I believe to stop ATF's shenanigans they will have to be sued. We all have heard of DC vs Heller, but what I would like to see and be a part of is a class action suit brought against the ATF where in every American that wants to could sign on as plaintiffs.

Is this even possible? I don't know. But I think it would get the point across if a couple million or more American citizens sued the ATF.

I'm guessing the easier way would be for the NRA(where are they?) or the GOA to bring the lawsuit as a representative of the firearms community. But I think by having them as the plaintiff it makes it easy for the left be dismissive of the cause.

“ This being said, if this guidance letter passes, then braces previously approved by BATFE or those substantively similar in design should be OK. Braces that do not have sufficient functionality to be used as an actual brace will not.”

Based on what they published, I don’t believe that to be true at all. How effective the brace design is as a brace is only one thing they look at. They also look at the gun it’s mounted on. If the ATF decides that a gun is too long, or too heavy, or too much recoil, etc. that it’s only practical to shoot from the shoulder, it won’t matter it has one of the originally approved braces on it, or not.