AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.

[Heinz]

Yes, I know. Just seems like a moderator would be more likely to actually take the necessary corrective action.

AlwaysArmed doesn't even seem willing to make the effort to provide supporting info for his very adamantly stated points about the topic under discussion.

I do not believe the OP is a moderator.

 

[smoothshooter]

This may be a blessing in disguise. Millions of AR pistols are out there. It can't be legal (or tolerated) to make millions of Americans felons overnight.
As far as the 5th Circuits ruling, that only applies within the boundaries of the 5th Circuit.
Hopefully we will see an end to the NFA and GCA within our lifetime. Better hurry up. I'm 65 and retiring next week.
Support GOA, FPC and others that support us. If we all gave just $5, it would go a long way toward getting our 2A back.
AA

Not happenin’.
NFA is permanent. Will become even more restrictive in the future.

 

[smoothshooter]

I personally don’t know why anyone would want a brace, or even an AR pistol for that matter. I think most people who like them are more into burning up lots of ammo and making a lot of noise than actually hitting the target.
But they should not be outlawed.

 

[hkcavalier]

Ex post facto doesn't prevent the government from making something illegal and imposing punishment. It just prevents the government from retroactively making you a criminal for that once-legal possession/activity.

I explained it better on another forum: The government has and still can state that something that was once legal to possess, is no longer legal to possess. What they cannot do is say you broke the (new) law in the past, therefore you're a criminal even though that item/activity was legal at the time. Retroactive enforcement.

For example, MDMA was not restricted until 1985. The garbage sack full of molly you made the day before the drug became Schedule I isn't legal to own, sell, or distribute...but the government can't put you in jail for making it before that date.

And sure, I am well aware that these 2A-related restrictions are all unconstitutional. But waving ex post facto around like it will make the ATF's rule change go away is a waste of time and effort. Go after the meat of the change, not the process.

 

[BB57]

Late to the thread, but something I haven't really seen mentioned is by registering your braced handgun as a SBR, you are giving up your weapons status as a handgun.

Depending on how you use your weapon, and the laws in your state, that may or may not make a difference to you.

It does for me. I own two handguns that are in question. I own plenty of rifles, I bought these to be handguns, in good faith based on a decade of ATF approval.

For example, in many states, including my own, it is illegal to have a loaded rifle in a motor vehicle (most states that includes an ATV, boat, snowmobile, ect.). Not so a handgun if you have a permit. In these states, if you are carrying your newly minted, ATF approved SBR in your vehicle, you better plan on unloading it and putting it in a secure case, separate from its ammo feeding device.

It is also going to make the re-selling of these weapons problematic. And, I believe the rule still stands that you need ATF written permission to travel out of state with a SBR?

Larry

Exactly. All of the SBR rules apply including having to file a form (most people do it annually) annually indicating what states you intend travel to with the SBR, which must of course be states that allow SBRs.

Similar to your situation, in NC I can carry a braced pistol loaded in my vehicle under my concealed carry permit. Not so with an SBR.

Once registered my braced MP5, for example, would legally become an SBR. It’s less clear how it would be viewed if configured as a pistol for carry loaded in the truck purposes.

It’s much more accurate with the brace installed (about 2 MOA at 200 yards off a rest with the brace), and with the 8.9” barrel giving me roughly 1450 fps and .357 Mag performance it’s nice to have the range capability. But for close range purposes (50 yards or less) it’s still fairly accurate with a properly configured and adjusted sling, pushing against the sling for stability.

When configured at a pistol but technically an SBR, is it considered a pistol for concealed carry purposes? There the standard “you can make a pistol into a rifle but you can’t make a rifle into a pistol” guidance, but that’s base on the greater restrictions to pistol purchase and possession. However a registered SBR it is more difficult to obtain and has a greater level of vetting than a pistol, so that logic fails.

But the ATF doesn’t use actual logic.

 

[BB57]

Ex post facto doesn't prevent the government from making something illegal and imposing punishment. It just prevents the government from retroactively making you a criminal for that once-legal possession/activity.

I explained it better on another forum: The government has and still can state that something that was once legal to possess, is no longer legal to possess. What they cannot do is say you broke the (new) law in the past, therefore you're a criminal even though that item/activity was legal at the time. Retroactive enforcement.

For example, MDMA was not restricted until 1985. The garbage sack full of molly you made the day before the drug became Schedule I isn't legal to own, sell, or distribute...but the government can't put you in jail for making it before that date.

And sure, I am well aware that these 2A-related restrictions are all unconstitutional. But waving ex post facto around like it will make the ATF's rule change go away is a waste of time and effort. Go after the meat of the change, not the process.

You are using “government” a bit loosely here.

The issue isn’t making something illegal going forward when it was legal in the past.

The issue is that it’s *congress*, not an executive branch agency, (like the ATF) that has the power to pass laws.

Since ATF lacks that authority, the agency (and the court) must apply the rule of lenity prior to using Chevron deference.

Chevron Deference works fine when both a) the statute is silent on the issue *and* b) the agency uses a reasonable construction of statute to make its interpretation. ATF appropriately used Chevron deference to determine bump stocks, braced pistols and forced reset triggers were legal.

Even though many of us felt they were missing the larger intent of the statute in all three interpretations, ATF was within its rights under administrative law and Chevron deference to do so because:
- they were issues the original law had not directly considered and was thus silent on; and
- (under a narrow read of the law) the ATF could argue their interpretations were a reasonable construction of the statute.

However, when criminal penalties are involved and would be imposed, the agency and the court must use an available valid interpretation most favorable to the defendant.

Given that ATF said for years that bump stocks, pistol braces and forced reset triggers were all legal, it can’t now argue there is *not* a valid interpretation under which those items are legal under existing law.

In short, Congress could in fact pass a law saying they are illegal to make or possess going forward - but the ATF cannot.

 

[BB57]

I personally don’t know why anyone would want a brace, or even an AR pistol for that matter. I think most people who like them are more into burning up lots of ammo and making a lot of noise than actually hitting the target.
But they should not be outlawed.

A pistol brace has nothing to do with burning up ammo.

In fact, if the goal is to hit a plate at 200 yards, I burn a lot less ammo with a brace. For example I have an AR-15 in 9mm with an 8.9” Ballistic Advantage barrel that is 1 MOA accurate out to 200 yards. I cannot reach that firearm’s accuracy potential without a brace.

 

[BB57]

Not happenin’.
NFA is permanent. Will become even more restrictive in the future.

There was a certain Supreme Court ruling that stood since 1973 and was claimed to be “settled case law” by no less than three recently appointed Supreme Court judges - all three of whom voted for it to be over turned.

In that kind of logic and precedent mean nothing legal environment, nothing is permanent, and the “rule of law” means nothing.

 

[zeke]

Imo this "rule" is easily challenged and will be hard to defend. However would comply with it till/if it is overruled.

Ime, every goobermental decision/ruling/law is challengeable. This means everything in the rule is challengeable, including the extensive documentation of how they handled the comments on the previous proposal and the comments themselves, which should have been in a separate summary. Imo, this was novice rule writing for that and the following reasons.

1-They changed the definition of rifle, which practically changes previous law. They didn't change an interpretation of the definition, they changed the actual wording. Changing definitions is changing laws, not applying an interpretation of them.
2- It is ridiculously long and filled with all kinds of challengeable statements.
3-They never provided a specific example of what would comply with the ruling, while providing numerous specific examples of what wouldn't comply.
4-They waived the $200 fee and engraving requirements of an existing law.
5-With the exemption of the specific examples noted, there are no clear requirements for compliance that could be applied consistently or clearly.
6-They give an option to send your firearm in for determination if you can't figure it out. They appear to say they will send it back if they determine it doesn't comply. Am no lawyer, but this would seem highly illegal to send back an illegal sbr to the owner.

Time will tell, and the above is only an opinion.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Missouri has the same law. The feds get around it by issuing subpoenas for records to the locals, which they have to honor. Not saying it’s right, just saying it happens

Montana state law will prevent this from being enforced by state and local law enforcement. Don't think I'll see feds at my door for 1 or 2 pistol braces, so eh.

There's no way this stands up anyway. There will be an injunction or stay put on it soon.

 

[BB57]

Imo this "rule" is easily challenged and will be hard to defend. However would comply with it till/if it is overruled.

Ime, every goobermental decision/ruling/law is challengeable. This means everything in the rule is challengeable, including the extensive documentation of how they handled the comments on the previous proposal and the comments themselves, which should have been in a separate summary. Imo, this was novice rule writing for that and the following reasons.

1-They changed the definition of rifle, which practically changes previous law. They didn't change an interpretation of the definition, they changed the actual wording. Changing definitions is changing laws, not applying an interpretation of them.
2- It is ridiculously long and filled with all kinds of challengeable statements.
3-They never provided a specific example of what would comply with the ruling, while providing numerous specific examples of what wouldn't comply.
4-They waived the $200 fee and engraving requirements of an existing law.
5-With the exemption of the specific examples noted, there are no clear requirements for compliance that could be applied consistently or clearly.
6-They give an option to send your firearm in for determination if you can't figure it out. They appear to say they will send it back if they determine it doesn't comply. Am no lawyer, but this would seem highly illegal to send back an illegal sbr to the owner.

Time will tell, and the above is only an opinion.

Based on prior recent rulings I am confident it will be struck down. The problem is that when an appeals court or the Supreme Court make a ruling that over turns a law, they stop as soon as they have sufficient grounds to over turn it.

In the case of pistol braces they over turned the ban based on the ATFs failure to properly address the actual definition in the law and using a different definition to ban bump stocks.

The court stated that had it gone farther it would have e also over turned it on the additional points plaintiffs made and strongly hinted that the ATF is way off the reservation with its interpretations masquerading as lawmaking and that it’s about to get slapped silly over the issue but it wasn’t a formal court ruling.

However, I was hopefully ATF would have taken the hint and pulled back. As an agency it would have been the smart move as it would have taken away the opportunity for the court to use the Pistol brace rule change as the stick to beat the ATF with and make a formal ruling that pares back its authority - as well as that of many other executive branch agencies.

It’s a *huge* mistake to keep pushing a bad position with this court. The smart move is to lay low for the next decade or so.


I was hoping they’d just let the proposed rule drop. But I was both disappointed, and not all that surprised the final rule was published. It’s disheartening, given the political implications that the agency would in fact press forward, and the lack of concern for the law and the separation of powers.

The questions now are:
- how long it will take to get a stay of the implementation of this rule, to allow the Supreme Court to hear the case (and most likely have it thrown out);
- will that happen in time to avoid having to register braced pistols; and
- if the law is over turned will the court require the ATF to unregistered them and or will the owners have that option?

 

[Rodan]

I was hoping they’d just let the proposed rule drop. But I was both disappointed, and not all that surprised the final rule was published. It’s disheartening, given the political implications that the agency would in fact press forward, and the lack of concern for the law and the separation of powers.

Several states are now pushing full speed ahead with anti-2A laws that are clearly unconstitutional given Heller and Bruen... and they don't seem to care at all.

We are at a very precarious point...

 

[hkcavalier]

You are using “government” a bit loosely here.

The issue isn’t making something illegal going forward when it was legal in the past.

The issue is that it’s *congress*, not an executive branch agency, (like the ATF) that has the power to pass laws.

Since ATF lacks that authority, the agency (and the court) must apply the rule of lenity prior to using Chevron deference.

Chevron Deference works fine when both a) the statute is silent on the issue *and* b) the agency uses a reasonable construction of statute to make its interpretation. ATF appropriately used Chevron deference to determine bump stocks, braced pistols and forced reset triggers were legal.

Even though many of us felt they were missing the larger intent of the statute in all three interpretations, ATF was within its rights under administrative law and Chevron deference to do so because:
- they were issues the original law had not directly considered and was thus silent on; and
- (under a narrow read of the law) the ATF could argue their interpretations were a reasonable construction of the statute.

However, when criminal penalties are involved and would be imposed, the agency and the court must use an available valid interpretation most favorable to the defendant.

Given that ATF said for years that bump stocks, pistol braces and forced reset triggers were all legal, it can’t now argue there is *not* a valid interpretation under which those items are legal under existing law.

In short, Congress could in fact pass a law saying they are illegal to make or possess going forward - but the ATF cannot.

Thank you. I believe we're both correct here. Congress has too long unlawfully delegated their authority.

 

[Racer X]

Yeah, if they applied the same principle to plumbing - but of course they don't.

Plumbing isn't something they can easily sensationalize to scare the ignorant urban proles.

Though they are trying to do it with natural gas cook stoves...

Any farm and feed store with a diesel delivery truck is guilty of constructive intent anfo bombs too.

 

[Racer X]

maybe the federal government needs to start witholding federal funds from states violating federal law. Happened in the 70s with the national speed limit.

 

[Muss Muggins]

That was a law the federal gov’t enacted. Call your first witness . . .

maybe the federal government needs to start witholding federal funds from states violating federal law. Happened in the 70s with the national speed limit.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Both your Senators are hard core conservatives . . .

My rep’s a dem. I can see the reply now…
“We’re all concerned about making the streets of America safer…”.

 

[Racer X]

That was a law the federal gov’t enacted. Call your first witness . . .

and that means what?

 

[Bozz10mm]

At the moment, all I’m gonna do is make lemonade. I’ve intended to SBR my Springfield Saint ever since I bought it, and now I can do it free. My Senators and Representative are solidly against this ruling, but I sent them a note anyway. Everyone should do the same, regardless of whatever their reps established position may be . . .

You can register it and have the tax deferred within the next 120 days, but only if you currently have a pistol brace attached. If you put a regular stock on it, you will have to pay the $200. I suppose you could register it now for free with the brace and then swap a stock on it later. Don't know if that's allowed.

But they will want proof that your firearm has a brace on it now, probably will require photos submitted with form 1.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Am I the only one who pointed out the ATF does not have the autjhority to waive Tax Stamp tax collection? Only Congress can with a law change. That would require revisiting the NFA.

They are not actually waiving the tax, they are deferring it. So I guess they could come back at a later date and say you owe it.