quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
NFA 1934 has not really been through a real constitutionality case. The Miller decision affirmed the 2nd amendment's applicability to arms suitable for militia use, and at that time short barreled shotguns were not in common military use so they were subject to regulation. Neither were short barreled rifles, but now SBR's are standard issue (M4 14.5") along with all the shorter entry guns (MK18) and SMG's (HK, B&T, etc.).

I'm surprised the $200 tax wasn't challenged and overturned as being excessive and an undue burden, since it was equivalent to over $3K in today's dollars. I do not think efforts to increase the tax to make regulated guns unaffordable to normal citizens would not fly today.

Miller is the prime example of a case where those seeking to use it as a precedent don't want to look too closely at the decision:

1. No one representing Miller at the time. No attorney for Miller argued in favor of the, at the time, position by the Court of Appeals that the 1934 law was unconsitutional. This was for two reasons: no one believed the S.Ct. would rule against the COA and Miller was dead. As in deceased and beyond caring. So no attorney argued that side.

2. The facts used in Miller pertained only to short barreled shotguns, and was while kind true (that SBS were not in standard military use) it was totally untrue because the troops SBS'd the shotguns all the time in the field. And because of reason #1, no one was there to challenge the record.

3. The S.Ct. were trying to signal to FDR that they weren't going to nuke all of the 1930's New Deal legislation, thus negating the need for FDR to "stack" the Supreme Court.

So lot's of things weren't addressed by the court in Miller and the Supreme Court has worked hard to not address the Second Amendment at all until Heller, and the ramifications of Heller still have to play out, but in terms of how many judges would support the Miller precedent now? For sure 3 would not and probably 2-3 more depending on the how the decision was written. So I'd be happy for the ATF to do some stupid, jack booted thing. It's a good time for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Creeping_Death:

quote:

Originally posted by Houndog:

Another thing that might be worth worrying about - the $200 you are required to pay for normal SBR's, suppressors, etc hasn't gone up since 1934. Can easily see Biden deciding $2000 seems like a more reasonable tax in today's dollars.

As I recall in past discussions about why the tax stamp cost has remained at $200 for 87ish years, it is because that figure is specified in US Code. Increasing it would require the entire NFA being open for editing or (gasp) removal altogether. Grabbers would rather keep it and settle for $200 transfers over potentially losing it all.

It is the foundation for the 68 GCA and 86 Hughes amendment, and I’m not a lawyer by any means, but should the 34 NFA be revoked the rest of the house of cards crumbles too.

The dems have introduced a bill to raise the fee to $300, and then to raise it annually after that.

https://www.guns.com/news/2021...X154fwI97SsKqSj6MqHw

I have a dozen NFA items. I have always tried to follow the law in regards to my firearms to include 922 regs. It has been an expensive endeavor trying to keep up with the regs.

I have had enough. I have several pistols inbound to the U.S. and had planned to SBR them but not anymore.

I shoot in the middle of fucking nowhere. Braces all the way around and if they make me register them down the road I will not spend a dime on a tax stamp to comply. I am not sitting on a pallet of cocaine and they will never know my braces are unregistered. Even if they figure it out a nice turn at some federal prison might be the exact change I need. The old saying is "Free men don't ask permission." I am done asking permission.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
[QUOTE]So I'd be happy for the ATF to do some stupid, jack booted thing. It's a good time for that.

I've made this point to friends; let them go full retard. I want BS so egregious that the average citizen finally says "hey, wait a minute!" and we get the middle to move off the X.

quote:

I am not sitting on a pallet of cocaine and they will never know my braces are unregistered.

Well you know.....except for this post. Just saying.

I am of the mind that I am AMAZED braces or even just the original SB brace passed ATF muster in the first place. I mean it’s fairly obvious where that train was going to go.

Now I think all the SBS/SBR regs are nonsense at their core and that is not coming from somebody who thinks EVERY gun law is an infringement but man SBS/SBR/Supressor regs are a waste of time and resources full stop.

quote:

I am of the mind that I am AMAZED braces or even just the original SB brace passed ATF muster in the first place. I mean it’s fairly obvious where that train was going to go.

Yeah. Me too. That's one thing that Biden and the new ATF leadership can *probably* do. I have one AR pistol, a really sweet CMMG Banshee in 10mm. I suppose I'll have to pay for it to be SBR'd and keep it in the safe until it clears.

I personally feel that the statement regarding exploration of expanding the court is a direct threat to the court about firearm challenges. Straight out of the FDR playbook. You better play my version of ball or I’ll keeping adding players until I get my way. It scared the court when FDR did it, and this particular court sans a few players is either not reliable or not tested. I do not know how these things will shake out and until we know exactly what we are dealing with it does not make any sense to lose sleep over it. If they had the support they would be passing legislation, which they are not. The theater around the Capital building with razor wire and a standing army may be the best example of just how afraid our supposed representatives are of the people they supposedly represent.

Am I worried about braced pistols... nope.

Being in CT I am on pins and needles.

We can only sbr registered assaults weapons in ct and only pre 94 receivers are transferable, and only those not named on a ban by name list. Many of us have transfered in ar15 lowers post ban as Others.

So we have others, not pistols, ar15 pistols are banned, others are basically a pistol but min 12 in barrel and mandatory VFG, we likely won't be able to sbr them because they are not preban lowers or registered assaults rifles. ATF has an additional requirement from ct gunowners that they will only approve sbr if you provide a ct registered assualt weapon certificate.

Some one like me with Multiple braced others is in tough spot. I cant register them as assualt rifles as they are not preban lowers.

quote:

Originally posted by PGT:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
[QUOTE]So I'd be happy for the ATF to do some stupid, jack booted thing. It's a good time for that.

I've made this point to friends; let them go full retard. I want BS so egregious that the average citizen finally says "hey, wait a minute!" and we get the middle to move off the X.

this!!!

Just submitted a Form 1 for an SBR last night so I can have something to swap around on the other 6 AR pistols while the sible ATF ponders the concept of the brace yet again.

^^^^

Finally

The crazy madness surrounding the brace.

Someone walked in and traded there OEM braced pistol AR for an AR rifle. All because of the back and forth with them in the last few years. Got less than half what he paid and was happy to be rid of the brace.

I stood there and couldn't believe he just basically gave away a nice AR pistol.

quote:

So are you worried about your braced pistols?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
^^^^

Finally

Yeah, took me long enough, eh!?! LoL

What is accomplished by the act of worrying?

I bought my DDM4 V7P to serve as a niche weapon. Storage niches, and legal/rules niches. The best thing about it, to me, is the LAW folder. I have a nice Eberlestock backpack, with an internal weapon sleeve, that will accommodate a LAW-folded AR15, with up to a 16” barrel.

If its brace becomes a legal problem, I can simply lose the brace. If I am offered the opportunity to paper the weapon as an NFA item, as part of an amnesty, well, that may be an opportunity I can embrace, no pun intended. If AR15-based pistols become a specific legal problem, well, it can be readily reassembled into a different configuration. I’ll not worry.

quote:

Originally posted by Rexster:
I have a nice Eberlestock backpack, with an internal weapon sleeve, that will accommodate a LAW-folded AR15, with up to a 16” barrel.

Interested....Which one?

Not making any suggestions as to what anyone should do with their legally owned property, but an AR pistol will still be a pistol without the brace won't it? will owning both be considered constructive intent or whatever it is called?

again, I am not making any suggestions, or implying compliance or non-compliance. I just want to know.

the buffer tube for many are mil-spec so it could be a rifle stock potentially, if one owned one.

then you can always convert a pistol to a rifle, and if that is the case, what would that do about constructive intent?

I hate the idea of restrictions for this. it is silly. likewise with bump stocks. I don't won one, never did, but why should anyone who likes one be stopped from owning one?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Boston:
Not making any suggestions as to what anyone should do with their legally owned property, but an AR pistol will still be a pistol without the brace won't it? will owning both be considered constructive intent or whatever it is called?

again, I am not making any suggestions, or implying compliance or non-compliance. I just want to know.

the buffer tube for many are mil-spec so it could be a rifle stock potentially, if one owned one.

then you can always convert a pistol to a rifle, and if that is the case, what would that do about constructive intent?

I hate the idea of restrictions for this. it is silly. likewise with bump stocks. I don't won one, never did, but why should anyone who likes one be stopped from owning one?

Absent any other restrictions on what’s considered a pistol, an AR pistol would still be a pistol with a brace. As for still having a brace, it would likely be the same as having a stock laying around not installed. OK if you have another gun that it could go on without restrictions (like a SBR or 16” barrel rifle), but potential legal issue if the only gun you own that it could be installed on is an AR pistol with a short barrel.

Not worried at all, I want them to go full stupid and start something they aren't ready for and maybe then folks will stand up to them.

quote:

Originally posted by Rexster:
What is accomplished by the act of worrying?

The loss of money, as in my previous post the guy lost 500+ when he sold his braced pistol AR.