I'm Grand Fathered in

If I owned some sort of establishment, a tavern, or restaurant, lasertag titty bar, whatever, I'd have inserts for the urinals with pictures of fallen ATF agents, so you can piss in their faces.

Anyway, fuck the whole lot of them, fuck them until the Sun burns out, and then fuck them for fifteen minutes more.

ATF agents are worse than pedophiles, at least they were born that way, you choose to join the ATF.

wait...so what about those who already (hypothetically) have braces? Are they supposed to self-ID and submit this form? or should pets be considered "at-risk"?

quote:

ATF agents are worse than pedophiles, at least they were born that way, you choose to join the ATF.

IMO That's solid logic, difficult to argue with.

I'm done giving ground, and now am working on ways to take out the robot when they send it through the door at 2 am.

Fuck 'em

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSgrouse:
How would this effect NFA items with braces

If it's an NFA SBR than it doesn't matter what you do with it, just use a stock. The only effect is on firearms classified/sold as handguns.[/QUOTE

I have an approved Form 1 for what it presently a pistol with a pistol brace. I have never affixed an actual stock, so I have not yet "made" a SBR, even though I have permission to.

The advantage of having a legal pistol vs a legal SBR, to me, has been the ability to travel with it without asking "Mother, May I?" This formula throws it into a different place.

I may be wrong on this, but once you have the stamp, it is a sbr, regardless of the stock you have on it.
case in point and why I asked. My GHM45 SBR

<snip>

Just because you have an SBR stamp doesn't make a gun an SBR. Generally speaking it has to actually be configured as an SBR to be an SBR.

From the ATF NFA handbook at https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...atf-p-53208/download :

"Firearms, except machineguns and silencers, that are subject to the NFA fall within the various definitions due to specific features. If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon."

From what I have read, you can switch a gun back and forth between rifle and SBR (as long as you do something legal with the short barrel). As I recall, however, swapping back and forth between pistol and rifle is in general legally problematic. I'm not sure about switching between pistol and SBR.

These limitations are beyond silly.

No criminal is ever going to give a rip about that mess.

I would love to see .gov put down the crack pipe and begin to punish the actual criminals instead of everyone else. This crap even seems to seek to create new criminals rather than actually deal with any real problems.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
This crap even seems to seek to create new criminals rather than actually deal with any real problems.

Yep, that's me, the new 50+ year old criminal. Think I'm gonna buy myself a naked sport bike and start ignoring vehicular and road laws too. Might as well go for broke.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:
wait...so what about those who already (hypothetically) have braces? Are they supposed to self-ID and submit this form? or should pets be considered "at-risk"?

Any braced pistol that does not conform to the rule after it goes into effect will either need to have the brace removed or a barrel 16" or greater installed, or it will be considered to be an un-registered SBR.

That means virtually all short barrel AR pistols with SBA3 or SBA4 braces sold in the past several years will become NFA regulated SBR's even if left in the factory configuration in which they were purchased. It also includes almost all short barrel PCC's sold with braces, because the standard folding and telescoping SB braces used on Scorpions, B&T APC's, and Stribogs will fail the rule, along with all short barrel Sig MPX's and MCX's that I have already shown fail the rule.

Then add all the people that purchased PCC's and installed the braces themselves.

How may guns is that? I would guess more than a million, and a lot of people will have no idea about any of this. They just bought a gun at a store and didn't modify it, why would they think it would suddenly become an NFA SBR?

I don't think the ATF is going to take civilian submissions. The form will be used to certify that pistols that come with braces installed by the manufacturer adhere to the rule and are not NFA items. Not sure if BATFE approval will be required or if gun manufacturers will be able "self certify", but I think most will come up with new braces and configurations that meet the rule and submit a few for approval to establish how the ATF scores them. Then they will have a precedent to follow.

Comments about sights:

BATFE is basically saying that typical AR aperture sights are not useful at arms length when shooting a handgun. So the assumption is that notch sights will be needed. HK has always sold SP5 and SP5K pistols with notched drums, not apertures. To my aging eyes, the large AR aperture is perfectly useful at arms length, but the small aperture is not. Selling the pistol without sights earns a point because it is just a way for the manufacturer to dodge the issue, and selling a pistol without sights that cannot be properly aimed is kind of a bad thing in the first place.

The simple solution to this is an A2 flip aperture with two notches instead of two apertures - one small for daylight and one large for low light. That or a big aperture similar to the ghost ring sights you can buy for handguns (forget who makes them but I've seen ads for them).

The hard part is going to be ordinary people adding accessories to their braced pistol. You can add a red dot but not a magnified optic unless it has long eye relief - basically a pistol scope. You can changes sights but should use "pistol" sights and not "rifle" sights. People are going to get this stuff wrong because the rules are too complicated.

Grandfather clauses:

There was talk of a grace period or "free" tax stamps for people with pistols that will otherwise become NFA items unless they are modified. I haven't seen anything lately about that. I doubt the Biden administration will do anything "nice" for owners of existing guns.

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
I'm Grand Fathered in

Is there a grandfather clause? Source?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
I'm Grand Fathered in

Is there a grandfather clause? Source?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:

Is there a grandfather clause?

Yes, BATFE says your grandfather is fucked too.

And are subject to the five years in PYITAP plus $250,000 fine penalty because their braced pistol scored five points instead of four.

More checks:

HK SP5 with SB folding brace:

Rear surface useful for shouldering firearm - 2 points
Split stock not designed to wrap around arm - 3 points

Fails Section II with 5 points.

LOP longer than 13.5 inches - 4 points
Elastic strap - 2 points

Fails Section III with 6 points

Scorpion with factory folder and Tailhook adapter:

Based on a known shoulder stock design - 2 points
Minimized rear surface for shouldering - 1 point
Counterbalance design that folds - 1 point

First item could arguably be a 1 because of features (arm) but not the stock.

Borderline for Section II with 3 or 4 points

LOP 11.5 to 12.5" - 2 points
Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by stabilizing brace - 3 points

Fails Section III with 5 points, unless the factory folding arm is not considered a "stock" or part of one.

CMMG Banshee 300 MK17 with Ripbrace

Minimized rear surface to discourage shouldering - 1 point
Adjustable/telescoping - 2 points
Cuff type that partially wraps around arm - 1 point

Fails Section II with 4 points

LOP 11.5-12.5 - 2 points
AR type pistol buffer tube with adjustment notches - 1 point
Cuff type with elastic strap - 2 points
Rifle Sights or No sights - 1 point

Fails Section III with 6 points, but could drop to 4 points with non-elastic strap and pistol sights.

NOTE:

It just occurred to me that a red dot sight with no iron sights may not earn a point because it has sights (RDS) and does not have rifle backup or flip up sights.

Apparently elastic makes guns DANGEROUS while non-elastic fabric is SAFE. Still can't figure out why.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
I'm Grand Fathered in

Is there a grandfather clause? Source?

Nice...but unhelpful, The Biden Admin has pretty much shit on the Constitution.

So...at what point do we say "No thanks"?

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
I'm Grand Fathered in

[IMG snipped[/IMG]

Is there a grandfather clause? Source?

[IMG snipped[/IMG]

Nice...but unhelpful, The Biden Admin has pretty much shit on the Constitution.

So...at what point do we say "No thanks"?

We're past that point.
If you don't think you're covered by the constitution, you may as well move to Canada now.

The only solution to the ATF at this point is to refuse to comply. Refuse to recognized their idiocy. Refuse to play any of their games. Simply refuse. You keep bending over and complying, and they know it. They are never conceding ground, only taking it. It's beyond time to refuse. Just say no.

I expect this rule will be challenged in court, stating simply that braces have been in use for almost 10 years, the ATF did very little to restrict them, approved some that will now be unapproved, and even refused to review braces for approval for many years.

They are in common use now, and there has been no evidence presented that they are being used in crime in any significant numbers. Adding that arbitrarily making law abiding citizens into felons overnight serves no compelling purpose, and that people cannot be expected to change the configuration of a legally purchased factory built pistol that was not regulated under NFA at the time of purchase.

Could be tied up for a long time if an injunction is granted by the court.

A bigger deal is a challenge to NFA and this rule can lead to MANY. Force the government to prove why short barreled rifles need to be regulated, and why 16" barrels are the limit. The Miller decision stated that arms in common use by the military are protected under the 2nd amendment - and the standard issue US military rifle is the 14.5" M4 carbine. The 10.3" MK18 is also used by the military.

In the 1930's military rifles and shotguns all had 20" or longer barrels so that was a fair statement at the time, but not any more.

I don't think the intent of this new ruling is to prosecute anyone. They want to intimidate people, whom they know are almost entirely law abiding and therefore likely to follow the law, into capitulating under threat of prosecution, but without going to a courtroom, where they know they'll lose.

It's the same with the FRT thing that's going on: they can't actually win in court, so they'll threaten and confiscate property, but ain't nobody going to jail because that was never the point.

^^^ But FRT could go bankrupt due to lack of product, no cashflow, and legal fees while it works its way though court. Even if they win, they will lose.

The purpose is constantly pushing the needle in the anti's direction. Like the Terminator, they will never stop, ever, until guns are illegal. The other purpose is catching gun manufacturers and dealers in violation of NFA with the absurd and subjective language in the 4999, then suspending or revoking their FFL's, confiscating inventory, and tying them up with legal fees until they go out of business. After enough time, people get out of the business, retire and close their shops, and fewer shops open up. It's a war of attrition.

But let's say you have an "illegal" brace and you get caught. They'll take that one, search your house, take ALL of your firearms for "investigation" and then maybe you can spend a ton on lawyer fees to get your property back, if you ever get it back. Maybe you won't go to jail, maybe they won't even charge you, but you're going to pay a lot of money to get through it. If you get charged, you will take a deal, unless you have a lot to pay on a lawyer or a 2nd amendment advocate group provides one. Oh, and if you get charged you will probably lose your job if you work for any kind of corporation.

Trust me, a single charge for a misdemeanor will result in thousands of dollars out of your pocket and a lot of time. Even for a deal that results in a dismissal. Poor people get public defenders and spend a little time in jail or on probation. People with a decent job and income/savings get bled for money by every part of the "system".

OP is doing a good job working within the confines of the point system to see where the pitfalls lie, and it's appreciated.

The root cause of this is the 1934 NFA and our efforts should be directed to dismantling it completely. If we need to put action behind our rants some support of the Hearing Protection Act would go far in removing silencers from the NFA. Chipping away at the problem works, it's how the anti gunners try to undermine our rights, and it's how we restored them state by state with CCW. We are much closer to national reciprocity on that than ever, its down to a few rogue state governments - not necessarily their citizens.

When the ATF releases their final formula in August, THEN we have grounds for actionable responses.

In my case, the brace is coming off, it's a real stretch to say my pistol has to comply when the 4999 as currently written does not include UNBRACED pistols. Problem solved. The one I bought - like many - wont stay secure with just a set screw. I'm better off without the "screw the ATF" badge on it anyway. Others who have proprietary braces integrated into the pistol are now knowledgeable about how they will waffle with determinations and make things difficult. We can't trust them and it would go a lot further removing their statuatory control by rescinding the law that creates the problem in the first place. That is where our efforts should go. Had we done that all along, we wouldn't be here discussing it. There is a reason why some work so hard to break us up and keep us divided - be careful giving them any heed at all.

Might as well look in a crystal ball rather than trying to determine this stuff. So if you stick a rusty pointy nail in the back of the brace it is zero points?

This leaves too much discretion in the ATF's hands.



REAR SURFACE AREA

Device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device 0

Minimized Rear Surface lacking features to discourage shouldering 1

Rear Surface useful for shouldering the firearm 2

Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering 3

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,