Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,790
- Reaction score
- 5,046
7 million is what, 7% or less of gun owners? That sounds plausible.
Who else is caught in the pistol arm brace fiasco?
- Thread starter Hawg Rider
- Start date
Rpg
Member
You'll note that the numbers you cite are qualified as "estimates "by the congressional research service and that there are "no actual numbers" available about the numbers in circulation.
Repeating unsupported estimates of 3-40 million adds little clarity to the actual figures. It just perpetuates internet fantasy.
We all like to feel that we're part of a large group, as opposed to being a member of a small group. The problem is that making up numbers doesn't make your group larger: it just makes the argument silly.
I can see wait times increasing exponentially.
Maybe the ATF will add thousands of agents to speed up the process.
rpg said:
You asked for sources, I gave you one. If you have better information, please post it. If you don't, your position is the one based in fantasy.
Just curious, but if you won't accept the ATF's 3-7 million estimate, what exactly would you accept as a correct number? Do we need to actually count them for you?
Obviously the manufacturers estimate of how many braces they have sold is meaningless. The 30-40 million they have sold were probably all sold to a few individuals who are just sitting on warehouses full of them. Surely the majority of them haven't actually been put on real firearms...
Last edited:
Ive got a couple of pistols with factory braces.
Folks, I am not looking to put a damper on lively discussions, but to use a line from above, how many of us really have an effective dog in this fight?
While a number of people may own a firearm with a brace, how many are owners by clinging to the coat tails of the people that the braces were originally authorized for?
In order to mount an effective challenge to this overreach by the ATF, we need physically challenged shooters to mount the challenge. Please excuse the wording, but having a number of one-armed plaintiffs (those who benefit the most from the pistol braces) mount the challenge can illuminate the group that is being wronged by ATF's retraction of their original authorization! Having a score of able-bodied owners challenging this move will do little to gain the empathy and support of the courts! The disabled can use the tact that the new brace rules violate the ADA!
While a number of people may own a firearm with a brace, how many are owners by clinging to the coat tails of the people that the braces were originally authorized for?
In order to mount an effective challenge to this overreach by the ATF, we need physically challenged shooters to mount the challenge. Please excuse the wording, but having a number of one-armed plaintiffs (those who benefit the most from the pistol braces) mount the challenge can illuminate the group that is being wronged by ATF's retraction of their original authorization! Having a score of able-bodied owners challenging this move will do little to gain the empathy and support of the courts! The disabled can use the tact that the new brace rules violate the ADA!
The ATF itself estimates three to seven million of the devices exist. The Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million.
Estimate....an appropriate calculation or judgment. Roughly calculate or judge the value, number or quantity .
Estimate....an appropriate calculation or judgment. Roughly calculate or judge the value, number or quantity .
FWIW, The final rule isn't in the Federal Register yet.
Once it is, then the 120 day clock starts counting down.
Here's a link to my search on the rule using the following terms:
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"
Federal Register
::
Document Search Results for 'Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"'
And if you want to read the rule here's a link to all 293 pages of it.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download
Based on my Psychic Prognosticator (sophisticated wild a***d guess),
this ruling isn't going anywhere but ATF will nick someone who
has one of the firearms configured in this manner to put the skeer
in the flock until it's adjudicated. It's all theatre anyway, just don't be
the patsy in Act Three.
Once it is, then the 120 day clock starts counting down.
Here's a link to my search on the rule using the following terms:
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"
Federal Register
::
Document Search Results for 'Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"'
And if you want to read the rule here's a link to all 293 pages of it.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download
Based on my Psychic Prognosticator (sophisticated wild a***d guess),
this ruling isn't going anywhere but ATF will nick someone who
has one of the firearms configured in this manner to put the skeer
in the flock until it's adjudicated. It's all theatre anyway, just don't be
the patsy in Act Three.
Every one of us. Never forget this admonition about government overreach:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
kwill1911
Member
There are a couple of specious arguments here:
1. There aren't that many in use. Why does that matter? Even the most conservative estimates are in the millions, which is significant.
2. The zombie apocalypse isn't real so no one needs one. There are lots of guns that no one "needs" but so what? It is a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.
3. This is an internet fantasy. What does that even mean?
1. There aren't that many in use. Why does that matter? Even the most conservative estimates are in the millions, which is significant.
2. The zombie apocalypse isn't real so no one needs one. There are lots of guns that no one "needs" but so what? It is a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.
3. This is an internet fantasy. What does that even mean?
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,790
- Reaction score
- 5,046
The ADA applies to places of accommodation, not to consumer products. But an analogy might be making public toilet rooms larger and with grab bars, etc. The disabled benefit from those, but the rest of aus aren't prohibited from using them.
If the ADA applied to guns, all guns as we know them would be in violation, as it's not just about people with one arm. Door locks, for example, can't be designed to require a pinching action with the fingers in public buildings. You do not want that standard applied to guns, believe me.
If the ADA applied to guns, all guns as we know them would be in violation, as it's not just about people with one arm. Door locks, for example, can't be designed to require a pinching action with the fingers in public buildings. You do not want that standard applied to guns, believe me.
STORMINORMAN
Member
The "group that is being wronged" by the ATF is the legal, law-abiding population (estimated at around a third of a billion) of the United States whose Constitutional Rights are, indeed, intentionally and unlawfully being infringed.
They lost BIG on bump stocks & they'll lose on braces: hopefully it will be a preliminary (soon followed by a permanent?) injunction. My personal opinion is the several "Blue" States and the ATF are going to sufficiently piss off the Supremes to the point that a far reaching decision (perhaps something even to the extent of a summary judgement?) might further the NYSRPA v Bruen constraints on the panoply of new anti-2nd Amendment legislations and the typical ATF overreach.
There could be a virtual litany of current, proposed and previously imposed regulations, laws, rules & provisions that should never have been enacted & are doomed to fail: the only ones to benefit will be the public sector (as in Federal, State & even local) attorneys who will be joyously spending untold millions of taxpayers dollars trying to delay and defend them.
P.S. Bet this thread gets moved...
They lost BIG on bump stocks & they'll lose on braces: hopefully it will be a preliminary (soon followed by a permanent?) injunction. My personal opinion is the several "Blue" States and the ATF are going to sufficiently piss off the Supremes to the point that a far reaching decision (perhaps something even to the extent of a summary judgement?) might further the NYSRPA v Bruen constraints on the panoply of new anti-2nd Amendment legislations and the typical ATF overreach.
There could be a virtual litany of current, proposed and previously imposed regulations, laws, rules & provisions that should never have been enacted & are doomed to fail: the only ones to benefit will be the public sector (as in Federal, State & even local) attorneys who will be joyously spending untold millions of taxpayers dollars trying to delay and defend them.
P.S. Bet this thread gets moved...
Last edited:
No surprise there! I figure everyone in our world expects the courts to reject the ATF's new rules on several bases, one being ex post facto as discussed elsewhere on this Forum and maybe even a powerful RKBA argument. With between 10 to 40 million of them out there they might be in the "common use" protected category.
Every one of us has a dog in this fight - you better believe it.
"In the millions", as I said, is anywhere from 10 million to 40 million. That is VERY significant in terms of Second Amendment common usage.
"In the millions", as I said, is anywhere from 10 million to 40 million. That is VERY significant in terms of Second Amendment common usage.
Spurdann
Member
If we don't hang together we shall surely hang apart.
Do not be surprised if I watch what you care about being banned because I have no skin in the game. Where is he point that enough is enough? We must push back every time, they only need to win once for a right to be lost, we must win every time to keep our God given rights under the constitution.
Do not be surprised if I watch what you care about being banned because I have no skin in the game. Where is he point that enough is enough? We must push back every time, they only need to win once for a right to be lost, we must win every time to keep our God given rights under the constitution.
I am one of the group of "physically challenged". I have a folding brace on my 10-22 Charger. Strictly a target shooter and plinker, I have a bipod on it and do most of the shooting from a range bench. I also have a torn rotator cuff and bone chips in my left arm socket (old injury, poorly healed during a time of no health insurance). I can't straighten my left out nor lift it over my head. Thus the few rifles I have have bipods. But, if I want to stand to shoot my Charger, I have to have the brace to hold it steady. I grip in front of the magazine with my left arm tucked in. Do I need it? Not if I just want to shoot it off a bench. Is it handy? Yes. My decision on turning in the brace depends on what will happen in the courts. My odds are on the "rule" being denied.
There is no exemption in this rule for the handicapped that this was originally accepted as designed for?
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
"3rd rate shyster public defender"???
???Where did THAT come from? You do realize thet one cannot become a felon just by standing there with an arm brace. One must be charged, tried and convicted before one can become a felon.What makes you think that a public defender would be "happy" for 10,000,000 more cases to handle???
Your statement is, for lack of a better word that would get me banned' boorish at best and exhibits a remarkable ignorance. I hope that you get charged by the Feds with a felony-any felony- so you can experience first hand the criminal justice system. And when you get acuitted after having spend all of your life savings on attorney fees because you do not qualify for a third rate shyster public defender that pisses outmore about criminal law knowlege after his/her morning coffee than most of the private attpeneys you might hire-rethink yout post.
Sistema1927
US Veteran
It appears so.
I have a couple of braced AR pistols. I am debating filing the eform to SBR them or just remove the braces and put foam covers on the buffer tubes. I have a suppressor in NFA jail right now with Silencer Shop, and it appears the they are opening up their system to accommodate forms for braced pistol registration. If this will allow me to submit without having to get re-fingerprinted, etc. I might just take that course of action.
Edit to add a picture of my two. The one on top wears a 5.56 upper, and I can swap out a 9mm upper using a lower conversion that fits in the mag well.
Last edited:
