So if this nonsense were to be overturned sometime in the next decade, I presume it is safe to say that the ATF will just delete the information/registrations of those that did decide to go the amnesty route??

I realize your question is facetious, but to give it a straight answer, no, the ATF will not destroy/delete those records, just as they are gathering 4473s illegally and will forever retain that information, too, because despite all their posturing, they have no regard for the law and their own rules and they do not adhere to the provisions of the Constitution. They're anti-American totalitarians and they despise private ownership of firearms by Americans.

As long as there are injunctions in place while the process drags out, these SOBs cannot enforce their bullshit unconstitutional rules, can they?

The injunctions are very limited in scope and probably most people are not affected by them. Now I get the ATF probably isn't going to pick today for big enforcement actions since the issue is up in the air legally, but I wouldn't want to get involved in a test case.

Right, whch is why we should go easy on those who chose to comply.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
The injunctions are very limited in scope and probably most people are not affected by them.

2 of the injunctions include members of organizations (i.e. FPC and GOA) which anyone could've joined and the injunction for the 5th circuit also included brace customers of Maxim.

GOA's website had so many people joining it that it became overloaded. FPC had a ton of traffic too.

And the NRA-ILA? The SAF? JPFO? Others? Are they doing anything?

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
The injunctions are very limited in scope and probably most people are not affected by them.

2 of the injunctions include members of organizations (i.e. FPC and GOA) which anyone could've joined and the injunction for the 5th circuit also included brace customers of Maxim.

GOA's website had so many people joining it that it became overloaded. FPC had a ton of traffic too.

I recently joined both. I'm happy to join groups that back up their words with action and not just lip service.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The more you guys comply, the more power you give them.

Yup.

Disappointing.

Don't be too quick to judge. It's not so cut & dry for some of us that 'complied' by your description. Some of us registered our Braced Pistols because we were planning to SBR them anyway, we didn't want to engrave them, and we already had other Registered NFA Firearms. As such, we saw this as an opportunity for a 'free' Tax Stamp with zero downsides, and thus, taking advantage of a free stamp or two, or more depending on the individual situation was a logical decision. We haven't given the ATF any more power over us, or anyone else for that matter.

Clearly this is an Unconstitutional action by the ATF and all of us expect it to be overturned by the courts, but in the meantime taking what's offered if it suits our particular situation doesn't compromise anything.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
The injunctions are very limited in scope and probably most people are not affected by them.

The last Armed Attorneys video I saw seemed to indicate that only people who were members of the affected organizations at the time the ruling went into effect (last January) were covered by the injunction. Some other people were covered as well, but unless that has changed in the past few days, joining one of the subject organizations now, or even after the start date of the ATF rule, doesn’t provide the benefit of the injunction(s?).

Does anyone know anything different?

Does protection extend to new members who join after the ruling?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The more you guys comply, the more power you give them.

Yup.

Disappointing.

No. This was always going to get figured out in the courts afterwards, it wasn't going to be null, void, and unenforceable if just by magic nobody registered. ATF was going to ATF no matter what once May 31st came and went. I was going to paper at least three of the four anyways, which guess what? Means registering them with the ATF because congress was stupid a hundred years ago and passed some dogshit legislation that needs to get challenged. But I've filled out 4473's, and if you think those aren't all on a list somewhere, you're dreaming. The only guns they don't know you have for sure are the ones you didn't fill out paperwork for, and don't keep at home or on your property or any place a paper trail leads to, and then what's the point?

This is one of those times when we need to stick together instead of pointing your finger like the people who got put in the same position and made a different decision are somehow to blame for this. The bootlicker memes and statements like this? You're directing those at the same people who would stand next to you if things got real dire in this country. Just don't forget that.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
And the NRA-ILA? The SAF? JPFO? Others? Are they doing anything?

If you're being serious, I asked myself the same question a few weeks ago. I can't find anything from the NRA-ILA about this later than January, and without digging it back up, it was saber-rattling rhetoric. A cursory search on the JPFO site only shows one article from last month talking about other organizations suing.

Looking just now, I did find this about an "NRA backed" lawsuit, but when I look at the text of the suit, it just says the primary plaintiff is Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, INC.
https://www.americas1stfreedom...istol-brace-lawsuit/

One of the Texas injunctions is SAF.

There's nothing overt that I'm seeing anywhere about the NRA fighting this. Something to think about the next time someone says that the NRA is the 500lb gorilla in the room and we all need to be paying members instead of complaining about Wayne La Pierre because all these other organizations are great, but it's the NRA that actually gets stuff done. Here we are in the biggest overreach in my lifetime and the NRA isn't leading the charge, they aren't even in the charge.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Does protection extend to new members who join after the ruling?

The FPC talks that way.

I have taken the liberty of posting the recent orders related to two of the more prominent cases that have been discussed. I would caution folks not to rely on media reporting to determine whether they may or not be covered by a narrowly construed injunction, with the outcome of the cases still pending. The safest path is to operate under the assumption that aside from those very closely linked to the litigation, and their immediate family members, it will be a hard sell to secure relief or enforcement of these orders.

Since I'm moving to PR and they don't care about SBRs because the ATF rules don't apply, what should I do with my AR pistol with a brace while I'm still here on the mainland? Do I just leave it off until I transfer the firearm? Put an upper with a longer barrel on the receiver and keep the brace? I would prefer to keep it in a condition where I could pick it up and use it if need be.

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
Since I'm moving to PR and they don't care about SBRs because the ATF rules don't apply, what should I do with my AR pistol with a brace while I'm still here on the mainland? Do I just leave it off until I transfer the firearm? Put an upper with a longer barrel on the receiver and keep the brace? I would prefer to keep it in a condition where I could pick it up and use it if need be.

You can just leave it off and cheek weld with a short elastic sling if it becomes needed. Not ideal but surprisingly easy use for short range shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
Since I'm moving to PR and they don't care about SBRs because the ATF rules don't apply, what should I do with my AR pistol with a brace while I'm still here on the mainland? Do I just leave it off until I transfer the firearm? Put an upper with a longer barrel on the receiver and keep the brace? I would prefer to keep it in a condition where I could pick it up and use it if need be.

You can just leave it off and cheek weld with a short elastic sling if it becomes needed. Not ideal but surprisingly easy use for short range shooting.

Thanks for your input. If I left the brace on and put a 20" upper on it would that be acceptable as well? I'd prefer that configuration vs. having a 20" upper with a cheek weld and sling.

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
Thanks for your input. If I left the brace on and put a 20" upper on it would that be acceptable as well? I'd prefer that configuration vs. having a 20" upper with a cheek weld and sling.

Yes. As long as the barrel is 16" or more, you can have a brace on a gun. Under that, and it's an SBR/SBS.

Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by Hildur:
If I left the brace on and put a 20" upper on it would that be acceptable as well?

Yes. As long as the barrel is 16" or more, you can have a brace on a gun. Under that, and it's an SBR/SBS.

Ummm......or so as the ATF has illegally alleged .