New bill introduced in Congress to stop ATF ruling on pistol braces

gdogs said:
I think that is being pretty optimistic. The bumpstock ban went into effect in 2017, 5+ years later, a court has finally concluded that the ATF went beyond its authority. On this issue specifically it couldn't be more clear, the ATF quite obviously redefined a legal term - yet it still hasn't 100% been put to bed. There will be at least one more challenge to the matter... check back in another year.

Yes, today's SCOTUS is a lot more friendly to 2A issues, but time and again they have declined to take valid gun cases, refused to wade into the murky grey areas, and limited the scope of their decisions. I'm not holding out any hope that they overturn the NFA.

Sure, wait 60 days - makes perfect sense and I will likely do the same (got to get my trust set up anyways). But at 120 days, my advise is that you take one of the options outlined. My only concern is that the legal challenges and republicans are going to screw up the best option available... free tax stamps.
Click to expand...

Federal courts and the Supreme Court operate under a doctrine of Constitutional avoidance. In other words when an issue can be properly settled without interpreting the Constitution, they settle it on administrative law or procedural issues and don’t wade into interpretation of the Constitution. You’re calling that “limiting the scope of their decisions, but it’s how the Supreme Court has always been run. It provides for greater stability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over the long term and insulates against radical changes by a far right or far left supreme court.


In the case of pistol braces, there are several administrative law issues that can be used to throw it out. And the second amendment issue, and Constitutional avoidance is the carrot to throw it out on those grounds rather than wading into the larger 2A issues.
 
gdogs said:
While I can't say that I'm 100% aware of all of the ins and outs of the solvent trap fiasco you are referencing, I will say that if you bought one of these "traps", then you did so with the intent of having a suppressor without doing any of the requirements set forth in codified law. Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation. If you bought them with the intent of filling out a Form 1 and making a legal suppressor, then you got caught in the middle of the ATF and the "suppressor" part MFG. Unfortunate for you, sure, but that isn't the ATF acting unethically. I'm not aware of the ATF offering any purchasers of solvent traps free tax stamps, so I'm not sure exactly how you are making the comparison.
Click to expand...


The ATF denied and returned all Form 1 applications, regardless of whether it involved some one drilling the holes in the baffles and nd caps to convert a solvent trap into a suppressor (something the ATF had been fine with for years as long as it was properly registered) or, as in my case, planning to construct one on the lathe in my garage.


1) They treated us all the same; and

2) Those folks who had purchased solvent traps received zero advanced notice of the change in ATF policy and were left with no way to legally move forward with registration. At the very least it’s a “taking” of property. It’s also the ATF making a major revision of a regulation without following the required NPRM process.

—-

As for the ATF selling solvent traps, have you noticed there are still vendors on GB and on face book who are still selling solvent traps and “fuel filters”. No one in their right mind would continue to sell them, except the ATF for the purpose of entrapment.
 
gdogs said:
While I can't say that I'm 100% aware of all of the ins and outs of the solvent trap fiasco you are referencing
Click to expand...

The ATF denied over a thousand Form 1 applications, using the reasoning that the "kits"/"solvent traps", whatever, were always intended to become suppressors, and therefore were suppressors. You can't Form 1 something that is already an NFA item, therefore their logic was that these items were never sold legally and could not be registered on a Form 1 and were never transferred on Form 4 and therefore illegal.

The ATF had never before questioned Form 1s based on solvent traps or kits, but once they changed their mind, they even revoked some past Form 1 registrations that had already been approved and forced people to surrender or destroy property the ATF had already declared to be legal.

Now, they are saying the exact same thing: braced pistols were always SBRs. The ATF's prior position has been that you cannot Form 1 (manufacture) something that is already an NFA item.

All I'm saying is don't be surprised if they take this same route after you have provided them with proof that you are in possession of an unregistered SBR.

Folks keep expecting the ATF to act logically and ethically when they have proven over and over that they won't.
 
Instead of trying to make a stock not a stock, I'd love to see this energy applied to making a stock on a short barreled rifle not be an issue at all. All the "pro gun" politicians had the ability to pass laws reforming the NFA, yet like the hearing protection act, that all magically gets shelved until the makeup of congress means the bill will get nowhere. Virtue signaling to their base just like doomed AWBs from the other side.
 
gdogs said:
Great, Republicans are finally going to care enough about a gun issue to try to do something... of course it is no surprise that they pick the one issue that the gun industry is on the wrong side of. They'll no doubt screw up the free tax stamp offer for those of us that actually want to use it.

I'm sorry but I've just got 3 questions for all of you complaining about this rule soooo much.

1. Do you have a pistol with a stabilizing brace?
2. Do you fire it shouldered?
3. What makes you think that it isn't a stock then?
Click to expand...

1. Yes

2. No

3. Because the ATF told people for a decade they were not rifle stocks, and that they were not a violation of the NFA. And, who am I to argue with the ATF?
 
This issue illustrates how absurd the NFA is in general. A lot of money is spent to regulate NFA items and it really doesn't make anyone safer.
 
Rodan said:
Anyone who thinks "free tax stamps" is really how this is all going to pan out is putting way too much faith in the ATF to act ethically.

Just refer to the 'solvent trap' Form 1 fiasco a year ago if you want to see what they did under very similar circumstances.
Click to expand...

if even 5 million people apply for the brace waiver, the ATF is throwing away a billion in tax stamp revenue. Let that sink in. If only half a million, thats 100 million "waived" That's not really going to play out well if the general public finds out the ATF bargain with us evil gun owners.

if it is 40 million, that's 8 BILLION in tax revenue.
 
Last edited:
gdogs said:
Great, Republicans are finally going to care enough about a gun issue to try to do something... of course it is no surprise that they pick the one issue that the gun industry is on the wrong side of. They'll no doubt screw up the free tax stamp offer for those of us that actually want to use it.

I'm sorry but I've just got 3 questions for all of you complaining about this rule soooo much.

1. Do you have a pistol with a stabilizing brace?
2. Do you fire it shouldered?
3. What makes you think that it isn't a stock then?
Click to expand...

None of your questions have anything to do with it any more.
We're LONG past the point of "reasonable, common sense gun laws" in this country.
EVERY new law must be challenged. EVERY new "interpretation of law" must be challenged. Why? Because that's what we learned from the gun GRABBERS - or should have learned.

I might not think pistol braces are even worth owning, but I support to the fullest every effort to keep them legal for whomEVER wants to have one! Without compliance with some "tax stamp" garbage!

The reason the gun grabbers have made such headway is gun owners who didn't realize the moment it became necessary to be a SINGLE ISSURE VOTER! If they're antigun - WE DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!

Doesn't matter how "reasonable" the entire short-barreled rifle, pistol brace, bump-stock, WHATEVER might seem to be....it's yet another notch on the gun grabber agenda and so must be opposed - opposed, opposed, OPPOSED!

The worst thing about gun owners is their "snobbery" towards gun owners of a different kind. The Trap shooter ONLY cares about his O/U double and so cares not that some lying politician wants to ban ARs, or pistol braces - what does HE care? he should care, because when the buzzards finish off the carcasses of the ARs, pistol braces, semi-autos, "assault weapons" etc., they'll come for HIS gun choice!

I don't own anything with an arm brace, but I'm eager to see the fight get started! The best thing that we could have ever hoped for arrived in the form of Clarence Thomas' majority opinion in Bruen and it's time for ALL gun owners to stop the ankle biting about his gun or that while steadily electing gun-grabber after gun-grabber! It's time to support and encourage ALL resistance to ALL anti-gun laws.

You think there's a difference between a handgun and an SBR? WHAT might that be? It's all government overreach. A rifle with an 11" barrel and stock is certainly NOT as concealable as a handgun, so what POSSIBLE rationalization justifies it being a special item versus a longer rifle or a fully concealable handgun? That you don't already "care" about this is reflective of how well the gun grabbers have done their job.
 
Last edited:
Cartwright Jones said:
You think there's a difference between a handgun and an SBR? WHAT might that be? It's all government overreach. A rifle with an 11" barrel and stock is certainly NOT as concealable as a handgun, so what POSSIBLE rationalization justifies it being a special item versus a longer rifle or a fully concealable handgun? That you don't already "care" about this is reflective of how well the gun grabbers have done their job.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think there is a difference... and it is outlined in the NFA of 1934. I don't know anyone that is more pro-gun than me. I contact my reps on a regular basis, and anytime there is a hint of government overreach on gun issues. I will not under any circumstances vote for an anti gun candidate. BUT, on this issue, we're wrong. We got away with it for a while - I personally have 9 braced pistols, but "got away with it" is the correct phrase. Do whatever you want, fight the tyranny, refuse to comply, blah blah blah. I'm going to stay on the right side of a 90 year old law and get my free stamps - and then continue to vote pro gun and contact my reps when needed and justified. Seems to me like some of y'all are going to FAAFO - good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
gdogs, you missed his point: that 'SBR's should never have been created as a specially restricted category in the first place.

Nobody "got away" with anything. The ATF repeatedly, in writing, said that 'braces' were legal, and also said that you could shoulder them. The market for braces would never have expanded to the extent it did without that approval.
 
Rodan said:
gdogs, you missed his point: that 'SBR's should never have been created as a specially restricted category in the first place.

Nobody "got away" with anything. The ATF repeatedly, in writing, said that 'braces' were legal, and also said that you could shoulder them. The market for braces would never have expanded to the extent it did without that approval.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, I just don't think trying to overturn a 90 year old law is going to be successful. Doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, it is the law and has been for nearly a century.

The ATF repeatedly said... so? When they repeated said that bumpstocks were machineguns were they right (no they weren't)? You all want to have it both ways - happy to go along with whatever they say as long as they agree with you.

Yes, the ATF is indirectly responsible for many, many, many people buying braced pistols, and now they are trying to make it right by giving you options with how to deal with your illegal SBR's. Every single person I know that bought one of these did so simply because it was an SBR without the paperwork... well guess what - here comes the paperwork. I think a lot of us knew this day was coming.

Read all of the comments and responses in the rule - you'll see exactly how the justice department is going to pick your defense apart if you refuse to comply.
 
Last edited:
Rodan said:
This is all I see in your responses, and all I can say is... wow. :confused:
Click to expand...

I suppose beating my head against the wall while screaming it isn't right isn't how I want to spend my days. By all means try and get it overturned, but I won't waste a second of my time on something that isn't going to happen. Maybe I'm just old enough to know when something is a losing proposition, and fighting the Constitutionality of the NFA is exactly that. Like I said, good luck, you're going to need it.
 
gdogs said:
I suppose beating my head against the wall while screaming it isn't right isn't how I want to spend my days. By all means try and get it overturned, but I won't waste a second of my time on something that isn't going to happen. Maybe I'm just old enough to know when something is a losing proposition, and fighting the Constitutionality of the NFA is exactly that. Like I said, good luck, you're going to need it.
Click to expand...


For your enlightenment.

U.S. appeals court strikes down ban on bump stocks | Reuters
 
Y
es, the ATF is indirectly responsible for many, many, many people buying braced pistols, and now they are trying to make it right by giving you options with how to deal with your illegal SBR's. Every single person I know that bought one of these did so simply because it was an SBR without the paperwork... well guess what - here comes the paperwork. I think a lot of us knew this day was coming.
Click to expand...

It's that way with a lot of things related to firearms, not just what the ATF decides to do this week. Stevie Wonder could have seen this one coming.

I saw mag restrictions coming in this state about 5 years ago and limited my pistol purchases to single stack pistols that used <10 rd magazines. The restrictions went into effect last summer.

The next thing that will happen here is semi-auto rifle restrictions. Maybe this year but for sure in two years. Am I going out and buy one just so I dispose of it in a year or two like a bump stock or pistol with a brace. Probably not. Swimming upstream maybe?
 
Last edited:
gdogs said:
Don't remember ever saying that the bumpstock ban was right, legal, or incapable of being overturned. Braces and bumpstocks are two completely different issues. You can compare them if you want, but one has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...




Thank God the us appeals court disagrees with you and says the ATF and president can not create new gun laws. Congress does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bwade
NRA, GOA, AGs sue the ATF today over the braces!
Replies
16
Views
2K
Rodan
Rodan
R
Another important discovery with the ATF ruling on pistol braces
Replies
3
Views
448
Fishinfool
Fishinfool
W
New ATF proposals
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
delcrossv
delcrossv
R
IMPORTANT, MUST WATCH VIDEO on new ATF rules on pistol braces
Replies
15
Views
709
BC38
BC38
DWalt
Gun Control to the Forefront in new Budget Bill
Replies
11
Views
1K
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD

Latest posts

Back
Top