Not at all shocking. If anything the recent supreme court rulings (that many are still ignoring) have emboldened them and other legislators. They figure they have nothing to lose. Throw it against the wall, if it sticks it sticks, if not oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
If anything the recent supreme court rulings (that many are still ignoring) have emboldened them and other legislators.

Have also had the same thought. I wonder how it will work itself out with everyone thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court. It's not supposed to be that way and I imagine some of the justices are going to get sick of it.

I see this as all part of the drive to ban everything, everywhere. These leftists are afraid of us. They certainly don’t care that statistics show areas that have increased rights such as constitutional carry have experienced a drop in violent crime; it certainly killed the “blood in the streets” narrative in WV.

Nor do they care that there are far more than the reported 20 million AR platform firearms in the US alone; now imagine all the other semiautomatic rifles from other platforms. All not being used in criminal activity. In the end, it’s about gaining control over a disarmed population.

As to braces- it will be challenged, but in the meantime I’ll get cheap slip on foam buffer tube covers. As an aside, try shooting one with nothing but a cheek weld and a single point sling. It’s fairly intuitive and plenty accurate, especially with an RDS. And more or less shoulderable. Some padding on the shoulder itself (they can’t ban that) and not much has changed.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
If anything the recent supreme court rulings (that many are still ignoring) have emboldened them and other legislators.

Have also had the same thought. I wonder how it will work itself out with everyone thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court. It's not supposed to be that way and I imagine some of the justices are going to get sick of it.

I posted this video last week in the Bump Stock thread, but it addresses your point. SCOTUS just released their annual End-of-the-Year Federal Judiciary Summary for 2022...only, this time, Chief Justice Roberts included this little nugget. At least some of the Justices appear to be growing tired of having their rulings challenged or ignored.

@ 8 minute analysis


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6j6zSysZ6i4

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

I care because every time some 'good' guy thinks they are cute or clever and comes up with a loophole, they end up drawing negative attention from the liberals, and they have more ammunition to use against us. Reading some of the language in proposed weapons bans in the last year, and I can see the lessons they are learning about braces is making it into those bills. Even if not named per se, the MPX, Skorpion EXO and SP5 and their clones could be banned even if in pistol form w/o a brace. And all because people wants to gain some anti-government coolguy points by not paying 200$ for the stamp, thinking they are off-grid to the government, and have a poor excuse for a stock.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
I care because every time some 'good' guy thinks they are cute or clever and comes up with a loophole...

You know what's rich? The people you're talking about are following the letter of the law, the ATF is trying to enforce the spirit of the law. But it's us, not them who are wrong?

No, sir, they want to ban guns. Period. They're going to name features and classifications and such that they've decided they don't like until all you can own is a single shot shotgun, and then they'll take those. They want to do what Canada just did. This isn't about people exploiting a "loophole" and fucking it up for the rest of us and you couldn't be more wrong about that. This is about gun grabbers doing gun grabber shit. I'm going to go ahead and do the NFA thing because I've been wanting to anyways and the timing for that is now, but I'm not going to look down my nose at those in this community who want to flip the bird to a bullshit agency that's been given far too much leash.


Thanks for that video, MDS.

I don't think there is a definition of a stock in the NFA. There is a definition of a rifle and a short barreled rifle. The key points of those is that they're intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Show a judge a picture of a "real" AR based SBR, then show him a picture of a AR "pistol" with a SB tactical brace. Or better yet, bring one of each to court. See if they can tell the difference. If they can't, I bet the new ATF rules get upheld. The judge will figure out that the assisting handicapped shooters line was an excuse, not a reason (which was always the case in actual use.)

The only thing that might prevent the new rules from being upheld is that the ATF has changed its mind about this after letting them get in very wide circulation. But I don't know if there is an actual legal issue with that.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, that's the thing. If the only government entity that says bump stocks are prohibited is the ATF, then by changing a ruling from an "OK" to a prohibition the ATF is actually creating a law. That they cannot do - Congress has to do it and the Congress has to make the law clearly mean what the ATF wants to rule or fuhgedaboudit.

Fingers crossed that we hear the 5th Circuit's language in other cases to come.

With the bump stock rule, the ATF ruling contradicted the definition of a machine gun in the NFA. With the proposed pistol brace rule, that isn't the case. An AR withe a pistol brace does fit the definition of an SBR.

It only fits the definition of an SBR if you CHANGE the definition of a Stock, and ignore the design intent of the Brace, as well as it's previously accepted compliance with the law!

Apparently this is a 'rule' now...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...ssories-used-convert

quote:

On June 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 237,000 comments.

After which the ATF concludeded they didn't give a shit about your Constitutional Rights anyway, and forged ahead, targeting MILLIONS of law abiding gun owners!

Here's the actual 'rule' --> https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...d-stabilizing-braces

The 293 pages of 'factoring criteria' for the actual rule can be downloaded here --> https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...ngbracespdf/download

'Brace' for a lawsuit challenging the ATF's latest opinion on Pistol Braces in 3,2,1...

Nice they waited for late Friday to drop this ruling. They know they suck.

There are between 10 and 40 million of these "braces" in use. If 25% of folks go for the free tax stamp SBR thats 2.5 - 10 million new applications for the ATF to process. Last year there were less than a half million SBR's that had ever been registered. It will take the ATF 20 years to process the influx of applications. What fun!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

I bought pistols braces, above board, in good faith, completely legal, paid sales taxes. Millions did. If I decided to stir my coffee with one, or drive nails, I will.
So now, with items I have legally purchased in the USA, I now am required to report to the government, or turn in any pistol modified by a stabilizing brace to the government.

Screw them.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

I care because every time some 'good' guy thinks they are cute or clever and comes up with a loophole ....

And all because people wants to gain some anti-government coolguy points by not paying 200$ for the stamp, thinking they are off-grid to the government, and have a poor excuse for a stock.

> is right, but loophole my ass.

Why can't they just uphold the our second amendment?
It's not a fucking "loophole".
And why the fuck do we have to pay extortion money of $200 per for something the government is explicitly prohibited from infringing on?

So for argument’s sake, say I have a 7.5” barreled AR pistol with a brace. I provide the info and get the “free” stamp and now for all intents and purposes, it is now an SBR?

At that point can I dump the brace and put a proper stock on it? I mean, really what’s is being registered is the receiver no? Braces aren’t serialized so how else would it be recorded on the fed form?

What about state laws regarding SBR’s? If a state doesn’t allow SBR but is ok with pistols what then? Does following fed law make you a state criminal?

the ruling is 293 pages long. Those fuckers gonna put out a cliff notes version?

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
So for argument’s sake, say I have a 7.5” barreled AR pistol with a brace. I provide the info and get the “free” stamp and now for all intents and purposes, it is now an SBR?

Free?

Armed Scholar video on the ruling

https://youtu.be/XZOJ-_W_E7U

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
the ruling is 293 pages long. Those fuckers gonna put out a cliff notes version?

NOT Likely...It's not written to be easily understood by you. It's designed to trip you up and potentially make you a felon because you (and MILLIONS of law abiding gun owners) are being targeted buy an out-of-control, tyrannical and over-reaching .gov!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:


Free?

Wasn’t that the deal? A one time window to register your brace, avoid becoming a felon overnight, and there is no charge?

Or did I misunderstand?

Ludicrous. Totally out of control.