AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.

[tmd17]

...I anxiously await my rubber stamped apologetic rejection slips.

I have never gotten anything more from any of mine either.

 

[BSA1]

The Greatest Generation was raised to believe in Socialism. I have relatives that lived in tents during The Great Depression and were not sure where their next meal was coming from. FDR heavily pushed social welfare programs that actually delayed economic recovery. We could well be a socialist society had World War II hadn’t came along.

After W.W.II people still mostly trusted the Government. Remember the sitcom “All in the Family”?

Anyway the Baby Boomer Generation lacked a moral compass and a “what’s in it for me” philosophy. They failed to address 2A issues.

Now another generation is left fighting for our 2A and other rights.

 

[BC38]

The ship left the dock and you stood there with your eyes closed until it was out of sight. With all due respect you're an example of what's wrong with ALL of the over 40 crowd of gun owners. After all they're the ones who laid down for this stuff 55 years ago so why expect them to be part of the solution today!
The baby boomer generations are also known as the "slave generation." Raised in the post-WW2 world to do exactly as directed by "the man." Grow up, get a job, do as you're told, put your head down and collect your pension. The slave generation sat by and said nothing as the 1968 GCA was enacted. They stood silent for the original AWB and mag ban. The SG has basically let the politicians steal 90% of the 2A all because that retirement check meant more than their 2A freedom! Oh, they didn't just give up 2A rights, no they gave up plenty of 1A, 4A, 5A, 8A, and 14A rights being good little citizens and now presume to be PROUD of having handed over the keys to the ever-encroaching government!

When I see American CITIZENS, both men and women, standing PROUD with an AR draped over their shoulder and a tac-vest with magazines I'm ENCOURAGED that perhaps, the country WE sold down the river by NOT standing up in 1968, or 1984, or as each of these draconian anti-2A laws was passed, has risen up and will not "go gently into that goodnight!"
It was the gun grabber's overreach that targeted the AR15 to the point where every social miscreant knows exactly what rifle to obtain before going on a shooting spree! The media and the gun grabbers - with the WILLING and EAGER support of citizens who "didn't care" about ARs have spent decades vilifying the rifle to such exclusion that NO spree shootings today are carried out with any other form of rifle! Thank you Baby Boomers!
And now, the baby boomer is "insulted" to see young men and women on the street, openingly showing support for gun rights...not just gun rights, but AR15 rights!
Perhaps had the government spent the last 50 years insuring everyone had a nice, cushy pension and guaranteed, well-paying job, the "slave generation" would have continued, but instead, the military industrial complex got GREEDY, and the politicians focused more on funneling CASH into their own hidden accounts than worrying about a sleeping populace, so now we have the generations left to make it any way they can...and the first thing they're NOT going to do is become wage-slaves for the man - which baby boomers just hate, and the second thing they're GOING to do is turn out in the street and express their opinion on a country that spends over a trillion dollars a year on military contracts, while the roads, bridges, dams, and power transfer stations crumble, and they'll leave the schools UNHARDENED to make it easy to play politics with spree killers...all while demanding law-abiding citizens just line up like the SHEEPLE of 1945-1970 and hand over the guns! Only, those people aren't running things any more! And thank God for it!

WOW, way to introduce yourself.
"New guy here, let me see how many of the longtime members (mostly boomers) I can insult, and how much more division I can create among gun owners with one post."
Nice job man. Which side are you on again?

 

[smithra_66]

Cannot swing a dead cat these days without a bunch of Fudds chiming in.
They will eventually get to the thing you care about, and you will wonder where the rest of us are to help you out.

While I get the reference and generally agree with it, "Fudd" is the lamest, most over-used term in internet gun culture. Maybe in history.

"Boomer" is a close second.

We should all stop using them.

 

[squidsix]

You tell me then what term to use, to describe a person who is of the opinion that “gun rights” are important but only for certain guns. A person who believes the NFA should not be circumvented by responsible gun owners, when such circumvention was declared legal just weeks ago.

 

[smithra_66]

You tell me then what term to use, to describe a person who is of the opinion that “gun rights” are important but only for certain guns. A person who believes the NFA should not be circumvented by responsible gun owners, when such circumvention was declared legal just weeks ago.

"misguided individual?" "dummy?"

"Fudd" has been co-opted by lame brain millenials and gen z's and used to make fun of any type of gun that is not black and made out of plastic.

It's waaaaaaaaay too overused.

 

[Bozz10mm]

"misguided individual?" "dummy?"

"Fudd" has been co-opted by lame brain millenials and gen z's and used to make fun of any type of gun that is not black and made out of plastic.

Fudd is more of a mindset than the type of firearms a person prefers. To me, a Fudd is the guy that thinks you don't need any type of firearm that he/she doesn't own. For example: "No one needs an AR 15". Fudd is a guy that doesn't care if anything gets banned as long as it's not something he owns.

 

[ExRanger714]

Just asking for a friend but could someone explain to me like I'm a sixth grader just how banning a firearm accessory (through legal means, like the thousand and one other things that are already legally banned, of course) somehow infringes on anybody's right to keep and bear the arm to which it is intended to be attached?

 

[squidsix]

You have to get in there and read it. They arent just changing the rule on the brace (the accessory) but on virtually all AR pistols, which were legally sold all along. So, one cannot just remove their “accessory” to make their gun legal.

 

[BC38]

Just asking for a friend but could someone explain to me like I'm a sixth grader just how banning a firearm accessory (through legal means, like the thousand and one other things that are already legally banned, of course) somehow infringes on anybody's right to keep and bear the arm to which it is intended to be attached?

Good question. However, it isn't pertinent to this situation.
They aren't banning just the accessory, they aren't doing it through legal means (no new law has been passed by Congress), and they are trying to criminalize a legal item retro-actively.
All of that goes against the Constitution.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

We should all stop using them.

We should all stop being them.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I asked this question in the other thread as well:
Could I use this ruling to register a bunch of lowers as SBR's even if I don't own a brace? Alternatively, could I buy a cheap brace, take a pic of each lower wearing it, register them, then throw the brace away?

Short answer...no. Well, I guess you could, but it would be giving false information to the ATF and you would lose any protection from prosecution under 26 U.S.C. 5848.

 

[tmd17]

And maybe really really thick over coats.

 

[Rodan]

Stolen from another forum...

 

[Paul in Nevada]

Short answer...no. Well, I guess you could, but it would be giving false information to the ATF and you would lose any protection from prosecution under 26 U.S.C. 5848.

Exactly what would be false? Couldn't you build a gun and register it right up to the last day of the 120 day deadline?? Once you have the SBR stamp, surely you can install whichever stock you like?

 

[pawngal]

I just wish the Feds would get the final ruling posted so people knew exactly what to do. I know I don't have any in the pawnshop currently but have had in the past.

 

[BB57]

^ this one hundred percent. I totally agree that walking around in public with a rifle across your back, or open carrying your mac-ten at Walmart is idiotic.
But to assume that the folks following the law AND the previous interpretation by the ATF are “getting around the rules” is nonsense. Those rules should never have existed, and more draconian rules will not enrich our society nor make it “safe”

It’s exactly the opposite.

The ATF could indeed have just said “No” in 2013 and defended its decision by pointing out a pistol brace that looks a lot like a stock and can be used as a stock is functionally speaking a stock and thus makes a handgun an SBR. They could have told the proposed manufacturer to redesign it so it could not be shouldered and or just agreed to waive the tax stamp fee for individuals with specified and documented disabilities.

But they chose instead to use a very narrow read of the law to permit the sale and possession of brace equipped pistols and exclude them from any NFA SBR related restrictions.

Here’s where it’s really important to understand what happened next and why it now also becomes both an administrative law issue and a constitutional 2A issue.

Since that interpretation of the regs by the NFA an estimated 3 million (by the ATF) to 20 million (by the industry) pistol braces were sold before the ATF changed its mind.

The basis for this is ATFs claim that braced pistols are “dangerous and unusual”. However there is very little data to show they show any significantly greater degree of danger than rifles or handguns (and the same by the way applies to short barreled rifles and suppressors, which could eventually see both of those items delisted from the NFA on constitutional grounds).

More importantly the NFA of 1934 was explicitly prohibited from being applied to weapons “in common use” for traditional law abiding purposes such as self defense, hunting, target shooting, etc.

That was the basis for exemption of existing Winchester trapper carbines with 14” and 15” barrels from the NFA restrictions and tax stamp requirements. The ATF will still specifically list your trapper carbine as exempt if you send them pictures of the firearm, serial number, details of the muzzle/front sight area and relevant markings. A factory letter showing it was made with a barrel shorter than 16” prior to the NFA is a slam dunk.

The ATF is trying to claim that the Supreme Court in the Heller decision stated that only weapons that were in common use “at the time” (of the drafting of the second amendment) are protected. However the Supreme Court has never in Heller or elsewhere included the “at the time” language.

The Supreme Court clearly stated the opposite in Caitano v. Massachusetts when it determined that while stun guns were (obviously) not in common use at the enactment of the second amendment, they are none the less protected under the second amendment as they are in common use now for lawful purposes. Similarly Caitano established that improved arms that come on the market and are not yet in common use are none the less protected under the second amendment as weapons and “common use for lawful purposes” evolve over time.

Given that on top of the Supreme Court decisions in the past considering 200,000 or so as qualifying as “common use”, the ATF cannot consider 3 million to 20 million previously approved pistol braces to be “unusual” and “not in common use”.

In short, no one “got away with” anything, as the ATF (not necessarily incorrectly and operating under the scope of its authority under administrative law) viewed braced pistols, under a narrow read of the law, as not being in conflict with the NFA of 1934. That was also consistent with the Supreme Court rulings on common use and the evolution of common use.

As such the ATF decision allowed their sale, consistent with the concept of common use and in fact allowed them to become extremely common even by its own low estimates.

The ATF cannot now stuff that genie back in the bottle under both administrative law (as criminal penalties and thus the Rule of Lenity must have priority in any reinterpretation, and under the common use doctrine as it pertains to the second amendment which nullifies any claim by the ATF that braced pistols are “dangerous *and* unusual”. The former is debatable while the latter is clearly not a constitutionally valid claim.

 

[BSA1]

Short answer...no. Well, I guess you could, but it would be giving false information to the ATF and you would lose any protection from prosecution under 26 U.S.C. 5848.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can not assemble/build a SBR until AFTER I get the approved stamp right?

So how is registering several Lower Receivers in anticipation of building SBR’s (the pistol is a SBR) giving false information? I must own the Lowers in order to submit their serial number.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Correct me if I am wrong but I can not assemble/build a SBR until AFTER I get the approved stamp right?

So how is registering several Lower Receivers in anticipation of building SBR’s (the pistol is a SBR) giving false information? I must own the Lowers in order to submit their serial number.

You will need to send them a photo of the complete SBR with brace to prove that you currently have one in order to qualify for the "free" tax stamp. They are not declaring an amnesty to allow everyone that just wants to register an sbr now because it's free.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

You will need to send them a photo of the complete SBR with brace to prove that you currently have one in order to qualify for the "free" tax stamp. They are not declaring an amnesty to allow everyone that just wants to register an sbr now because it's free.

"Currently have one" as of when? When the ruling was first announced? Day one of the 120 day grace period? Day 119 of the grace period? If you have specific information please cite it.