ATF resurrecting proposed regulation of SBR's and braces

[RCL-09]

Regardless of all the technical aspects of this, NFA SBR arguments and such, there SHOULD BE AND IS only one criterion on the matter.

That is, does it reduce crime?

From a rational and lucid analysis the very simple and truthful answer is NO.

Thus this is nothing more but a scheme to limit/punish law abiding citizens and nothing other than "feel good" legislation for the uninformed.

 

[TX-Dennis]

If they get this through (and I suspect they will) then I'll have to pony up to register my two as SBRs. If that happens I may as well pull the braces off and put real stocks on them too.

 

[Sistema1927]

Regardless of all the technical aspects of this, NFA SBR arguments and such, there SHOULD BE AND IS only one criterion on the matter.

That is, does it reduce crime?

From a rational and lucid analysis the very simple and truthful answer is NO.

Thus this is nothing more but a scheme to limit/punish law abiding citizens and nothing other than "feel good" legislation for the uninformed.

While I agree with you that it will do nothing to reduce crime, I would challenge your logic as to the validity of the argument.

What if somebody posted a study that eliminating all firearm ownership greatly reduced crime? (We know this has never been the truth, but lying liars are pretty good at cooking the books.) Would this then be a valid reason to abolish firearm ownership?

No.

Because we we dealing with rights in a free society. Freedom is often messy, but a darned sight better than the alternative.

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

 

[RCL-09]

While I agree with you that it will do nothing to reduce crime, I would challenge your logic as to the validity of the argument.

What if somebody posted a study that eliminating all firearm ownership greatly reduced crime? (We know this has never been the truth, but lying liars are pretty good at cooking the books.) Would this then be a valid reason to abolish firearm ownership?

No.

Because we we dealing with rights in a free society. Freedom is often messy, but a darned sight better than the alternative.

Fair point.

While I understand what you are saying, the issue with your example is that any study that stipulates that would be, just like the brace ban, pure feel good idiocy. As such it would not be a valid reason for banning firearms.

Now I know trying to apply logic to this, as it relates to gun control/ban advocates, is most often a complete waste of time.

Any law that reduces crime must be balanced with preservation of our rights as enumerated in the Constitution and BOR. Thus I will reference Franklin "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[ladder13]

If they get this through (and I suspect they will) then I'll have to pony up to register my two as SBRs. If that happens I may as well pull the braces off and put real stocks on them too.

I did one receiver about two years ago in anticipation. I have an AR pistol and will likely put the tube back on, or make it a rifle.

 

[luvsmiths]

I do not know what the rule does or does not entail. But my dad taught me that if something is wrong you can’t get away with doing it by calling it something else.
.

Yeah, but I'll just assume that your dad wasn't a politician.

 

[shell627]

I am wrong often
But I don’t know what I got wrong here

1) SBR’s do get special treatment under the law
2) In my opinion, if a stabilized firearm is usable like an SBR it should be treated the same under the law.

Just remember the rest of the country doesn’t look at guns and gun laws through New Jersey tinted glasses.

 

[RCL-09]

I do not know what the rule does or does not entail. But my dad taught me that if something is wrong you can’t get away with doing it by calling it something else.

So if these stabilized guns are in fact useable as short barreled rifles, and the law says that short barreled rifles need special treatment, these stabilized firearms should be treated the same way.

The error in that logic is that (soon) most everything will fall under such logic, SBR/SBS, AOW, DD, machineguns, assault weapons, pocket rockets, plastic pistols, non-sporting firearms, "cop killer/armor piercing bullets, and on and on.

So if the law says a "pocket rocket" is as dangerous as a machinegun then it should be treated like a machinegun...

Just because they ascribe a frightening term to it and classify it as "bad" does not make it so, or demand it be treated as something it isn't.

 

[CZU]

These new rules are nothing more than an attempt to ban these weapons. Got a red-dot on your braced pistol? That's worth 2 points. Got flip sights on your AR pistol? Another 2 points.

Military Arms Channel talked with GOA about these proposed rules. Link below if any interest.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUW4mwuN58Y[/ame]

 

[sigp220.45]

I’m surprised it took this long. I’ve never seen anyone use the “arm brace” strapped onto the arm. Its a shoulder stock and that’s how people used them.

 

[shocker]

On a side note, if I read the rule correctly, a Mossberg Shockwave and the like, can't be braced either.

 

[Bullet Bob]

I remember being very surprised in 2014 that the ATF ruled in their favor, under the Administration in office at that time.

There is no actual difference between them and SBR's, except in the minds of those who want what they want. If one has to be registered, so should the other.

I'm not making the argument that both types either should or shouldn't require the tax stamp; just that for practical purposes, they are the same.

I can feel my popularity sinking as I type.

 

[mattallamerican]

how will this law effect a ar pistol with just the tube no brace

 

[TX-Dennis]

how will this law effect a ar pistol with just the tube no brace

It shouldn't unless all "assault" weapons are outlawed.

 

[Echo40]

Sadly, I think I have to sit this one out... I don't want to write a comment that's filled with sarcasm and snark, because obviously it's not constructive and will only go ignored, but unfortunately I just keep getting mad every time that I think about it.

You see, when the Bump Stock Ban was first proposed a couple years back, I took the time to write out a miniature dissertation on the subject detailing why it was a flawed, ineffectual, and entirely detrimental proposition which would only amount to a waste of time, resources, and funds to pursue. I really took my time with it, writing it as carefully, professionally as possible so as to represent Second Amendment supporting citizens in a positive light rather than being a ranting, raving lunatic which I'm sure that they received a lot of unhelpful feedback from. Alas, it was a complete waste of time, because the Bump Stock Ban was approved. Yeah, it was recently overturned, but still, my feedback fell of def ears and did nothing to prevent it from being approved, so I just can't see writing yet another such comment just to have it ignored because these bureaucrats don't actually give a hoot what citizens think and just do whatever benefits them anyway.

That doesn't mean that I'm absolutely not going to comment on it, merely that if I do, then it's going to be short, to the point, and no more polite than it needs to be.

That being said, if this does pass, then I really hope that for once, folks will actually back up their repeated sentiments of noncompliance with action, because this is absolutely ridiculous and frankly shouldn't be abided by if it is signed into law in spite of the monumental opposition that it will almost assuredly receive.

 

[Sistema1927]

On a side note, if I read the rule correctly, a Mossberg Shockwave and the like, can't be braced either.

I noticed that as well. At one time I had a brace on my Shockwave, but found that with the pistol grip it was impossible to manipulate the safety. I put the Raptor grip back on, and ditched the pistol grip/extension tube/brace some time ago.

 

[Sistema1927]

Not that it will help any, but I will comment on this, but take a different tack than others might. I intend to quote from Judge Benitez's recent Miller v. Bonta decision that since braces make these weapons more accurate, this is a benefit in insuring that only the right people get shot and not innocent bystanders:

The mechanical design features that identify a rifle as a California “assault weapon,” it is argued, tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure. The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful uses, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone. After all, responsible gun-owners worry about the ending point of every round fired. If shooting in self-defense, a home defender wants every round to hit only attackers.

In contrast, the Attorney General argues that better accuracy makes it a more dangerous weapon. According to the Attorney General, “assault weapons enable a shooter to fire more rounds rapidly in a given period with greater accuracy, increasing the likelihood that more individuals will be shot and suffer more numerous injuries.”

The implied context is a mass shooting. In the terrible mass shooting context, which fortunately is a rare event, reducing the number of innocent victims is the State’s goal, although it is not at all clear that a less accurate rifle would reduce the number of victims. A less accurate rifle in the hands of a mass shooter may very well result in different victims, but not necessarily less victims. On the other hand, in the self-defense context, which seems to be more common, taking accurate shots at attackers is vitally important for the innocent victim. While the state ought to protect its residents against victimization by a mass shooter, it ought also to protect its residents against victimization by home-invading criminals. But little is found in the Attorney General’s court filings reflecting a goal of preventing violence perpetrated against law-abiding citizens in their homes. Instead, the State’s litigation stance is more like the view recently expressed by a police chief in Oakland, California: we do not want victims to arm themselves; we want them to be good witnesses. Of course, a dead victim is a lousy witness.

 

[Racer X]

His pick defines this deer rifle as an assault weapon...it has a detachable magazine. So yea, even if you don't own one now, doesn't mean you don't own whats next.

Washington State considers a Ruger 10/22 an assault rifle. Detachable mag auto loader.

I don't oppose "gun control" as a concept, just when written by, authorized by, and acted upon, by idiots.

 

[BC38]

Sadly, I think I have to sit this one out... I don't want to write a comment that's filled with sarcasm and snark, because obviously it's not constructive and will only go ignored, but unfortunately I just keep getting mad every time that I think about it.

You see, when the Bump Stock Ban was first proposed a couple years back, I took the time to write out a miniature dissertation on the subject detailing why it was a flawed, ineffectual, and entirely detrimental proposition which would only amount to a waste of time, resources, and funds to pursue. I really took my time with it, writing it as carefully, professionally as possible so as to represent Second Amendment supporting citizens in a positive light rather than being a ranting, raving lunatic which I'm sure that they received a lot of unhelpful feedback from. Alas, it was a complete waste of time, because the Bump Stock Ban was approved. Yeah, it was recently overturned, but still, my feedback fell of def ears and did nothing to prevent it from being approved, so I just can't see writing yet another such comment just to have it ignored because these bureaucrats don't actually give a hoot what citizens think and just do whatever benefits them anyway.

That doesn't mean that I'm absolutely not going to comment on it, merely that if I do, then it's going to be short, to the point, and no more polite than it needs to be.

That being said, if this does pass, then I really hope that for once, folks will actually back up their repeated sentiments of noncompliance with action, because this is absolutely ridiculous and frankly shouldn't be abided by if it is signed into law in spite of the monumental opposition that it will almost assuredly receive.

So make a comment that ISN'T filled with sarcasm and snark. You're a good writer. You can bite your tongue and do it. IMO EVERYBODY who cares about the 2nd Amendment should be commenting against this garbage. No exceptions, no excuses. Stand up and be counted.

 

[Sub sailor]

I think that a good question to ask is why is an SBR considered so much more dangerous than a full size rifle or a handgun that it requires approval from the federal government to own?