What's new
By:
Filters

Pistol brace ruling - ATF at it again

I predict that a lot of people who are going along with the “free SBR’s!” are going to be pissed when this is shot down, they have thrown their braces in the trash, are told their SBR’s now aren’t actually legal, and they registered them for nought.

Same deal as the student loan forgiveness debacle/vote buying scheme…
 
Chzbrgr said:
Who's hiding their shit?
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not telling a mother fucker what to do. Do what you feel is the best answer for yourself and your family. If you feel it's worth the hassle and don't mind dealing with the hassle that comes with it, go for it. My perspective is, I can buy a stripped lower receiver for less than the cost of Nightforce scope caps. If I have to trash them so what? If I can't take my shit out when and where I want, fuck it. Not worth the hassle. The atf can come to my house at any time. They have my info. I already own nfa items. Why not add more to the list? Big fuckin deal!
 
krttrkllr said:
Look, I'm not telling a mother fucker what to do. Do what you feel is the best answer for yourself and your family. If you feel it's worth the hassle and don't mind dealing with the hassle that comes with it, go for it. My perspective is, I can buy a stripped lower receiver for less than the cost of Nightforce scope caps. If I have to trash them so what? If I can't take my shit out when and where I want, fuck it. Not worth the hassle. The atf can come to my house at any time. They have my info. I already own nfa items. Why not add more to the list? Big fuckin deal!
Click to expand...
until you find out it's a conditional agreement. No stamp, no stock, unless you like going to jail. Oh, and did I mention you already told them you possessed an SBR without the king's approval?
 
krttrkllr said:
Look, I'm not telling a mother fucker what to do. Do what you feel is the best answer for yourself and your family. If you feel it's worth the hassle and don't mind dealing with the hassle that comes with it, go for it. My perspective is, I can buy a stripped lower receiver for less than the cost of Nightforce scope caps. If I have to trash them so what? If I can't take my shit out when and where I want, fuck it. Not worth the hassle. The atf can come to my house at any time. They have my info. I already own nfa items. Why not add more to the list? Big fuckin deal!
Click to expand...
Can't go belly up. The lawsuits will get this right. Not gonna sign up just because the alphabets said so!
 
Halffastford said:
until you find out it's a conditional agreement. No stamp, no stock, unless you like going to jail. Oh, and did I mention you already told them you possessed an SBR without the king's approval?
Click to expand...
Not at the top of my list of things to worry about.
Chzbrgr said:
Can't go belly up. The lawsuits will get this right. Not gonna sign up just because the alphabets said so!
Click to expand...
I believe that the courts will shut it down.
Having a brace on your weapon is like oc'ing your Lorcin 9mm in a Uncle Mike's nylon holster, unimpressive and gay. I have a SB brace, not sure what model. Wouldn't mind having that with a little extra length and a solid butt plate.
 
25 state AGs have filed suit along with SB Tactical, B&T, and a disabled veteran.

Copy pasta of the list from random Google search results:

The state governments of 25 states, including West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming all signed on to the lawsuit, as well as brace manufacturer SB Tactical, another gun accessory manufacturer, B&T USA, and Richard Cicero, a a retired police firearms instructor and “wounded warrior,” as the lawsuit describes, who lost an arm and a leg while serving in Afghanistan.
 
krttrkllr said:
Having a brace on your weapon is like oc'ing your Lorcin 9mm in a Uncle Mike's nylon holster, unimpressive and gay.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have to look beyond an arms' length view and see the erosion that is occurring. It starts with simple (read: "stupid") thing like bump stocks and braces....
Then they erode devices like triggers because they make you shoot quicker or other cool (or stupid, in some opinions) features. People wont care because it does not pertain to them or pique their interest.
You can see where it is going.
 
D_JEEPER said:
Sometimes you have to look beyond an arms' length view and see the erosion that is occurring. It starts with simple (read: "stupid") thing like bump stocks and braces....
Then they erode devices like triggers because they make you shoot quicker or other cool (or stupid, in some opinions) features. People wont care because it does not pertain to them or pique their interest.
You can see where it is going.
Click to expand...
I am with you 100%. But, I figured there was going to be some bullshit when I purchased these things. They had already been going back and forth with whether or not it was legal to shoulder it. There were some guys talking about getting rid of sbr's in the nfa earlier in the thread because of being so common. Well prove it, register so many they can't keep up.
I am thinking more and more about getting my ffl . I don't need this bullshit over me.
 
krttrkllr said:
I am with you 100%. But, I figured there was going to be some bullshit when I purchased these things. They had already been going back and forth with whether or not it was legal to shoulder it. There were some guys talking about getting rid of sbr's in the nfa earlier in the thread because of being so common. Well prove it, register so many they can't keep up.
I am thinking more and more about getting my ffl . I don't need this bullshit over me.
Click to expand...

If SBRs are already regulated, they can't be common. Common use would be something unregulated by the NFA.

Unfortunately, now having a brace means you have an illegally configured firearm.


The argument that the pistol is common is valid, but like I said before, an accessory that once was a brace and now is a stock will not pass as common in the court. One reason being is that the AR functions exactly the same way with or without the brace.

I expect they are going to make an example out of someone soon after the 120 day tattle on yourself period.
 
I still don't see it going well for them, making fellons of 10-40 million otherwise law abiding Americans.
I personally think this is the challenge to the nfa that has been needed for the last 50 years. A lot of state ags (20+) have signed on to the goa lawsuit.
 
aron82 said:
I still don't see it going well for them, making fellons of 10-40 million otherwise law abiding Americans.
I personally think this is the challenge to the nfa that has been needed for the last 50 years. A lot of state ags (20+) have signed on to the goa lawsuit.
Click to expand...

This isn't the only challenge to the NFA there has been and it's held up for almost 90 years.

Maybe I'm not optimistic on this because I see the ATF will say they made a mistake by allowing braces, even though they were trying to accommodate disabled shooters it became an abuse by everyone else etc and so on. They will claim the number of people using them as their intended doesn't get close to those just trying to get through a loophole.

The ATF isn't stupid. This has been the long con for 7-8 years now and I don't think they'd set themselves up to lose a major battle on the NFA but maybe I'm wrong
 
Texas97 said:
If SBRs are already regulated, they can't be common. Common use would be something unregulated by the NFA.

Unfortunately, now having a brace means you have an illegally configured firearm.
Click to expand...
I think the important distinction here is how they are in circulation. I would agree if there were 10 million illegally obtained or illegally built SBRs this would most definitely hold up. But the regulating agency granted express permission in writing on them. Will it prevail? who knows but I think its not a slam dunk case on the governments end as far as common use goes.
 
Texas, the only real challenge to rise to the supreme court that I am aware of was Miller and it wasn't really a fair hearing as the defendant had died.

No matter how you look at it short barreled rifles are in common use. The M4 is a short barrel rifle.
I'm not saying it's not possible their rule will stand, because we really do live in clown world.:clown:
The atf lost on the bump stock ban. With the number of braces out there, I don't see this as enforceable in any way shape or form.

Wouldn't hurt to kick some money to the GOA for their fight.
 
Toreadorranger said:
I think the important distinction here is how they are in circulation. I would agree if there were 10 million illegally obtained or illegally built SBRs this would most definitely hold up. But the regulating agency granted express permission in writing on them. Will it prevail? who knows but I think its not a slam dunk case on the governments end as far as common use goes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We're not talking about millions of owners putting stocks on pistols illegally, we're talking about millions of firearms being manufactured in a "SBR" configuration by large companies, legally, then being transfered by 4473 to owners, legally. Many of these guns had to pass through multiple legal "checkpoints" so to speak, to get to the end user.
 
posford said:
Agreed. We're not talking about millions of owners putting stocks on pistols illegally, we're talking about millions of firearms being manufactured in a "SBR" configuration by large companies, legally, then being transfered by 4473 to owners, legally. Many of these guns had to pass through multiple legal "checkpoints" so to speak, to get to the end user.
Click to expand...
and since they started as rifles can't they not be turned into pistols?
 
[486] said:
and since they started as rifles can't they not be turned into pistols?
Click to expand...
I think since they were marketed and sold as pistols is why they're allowing them to be reconfigured with a featureless "pistol" buffer tube. Otherwise yes, I agree that would be a big gotcha
 
Toreadorranger said:
I think the important distinction here is how they are in circulation. I would agree if there were 10 million illegally obtained or illegally built SBRs this would most definitely hold up. But the regulating agency granted express permission in writing on them. Will it prevail? who knows but I think its not a slam dunk case on the governments end as far as common use goes.
Click to expand...

this has always been a sticking point with many people because ATF technical branch determination letters are not law, or a rule. they are just an opinion letter and are challenged in court. im not sure what precedence they have in actually standing up to judicial review.

i dont know if its a slam dunk case, i guess it depends on how narrowly the courts want to look at it. Is a brace a stock? or.... Is the regulation of aa as-defined SBR unconstitutional?

posford said:
Agreed. We're not talking about millions of owners putting stocks on pistols illegally, we're talking about millions of firearms being manufactured in a "SBR" configuration by large companies, legally, then being transfered by 4473 to owners, legally. Many of these guns had to pass through multiple legal "checkpoints" so to speak, to get to the end user.
Click to expand...

well, to your first sentence, you are talking about both. im not sure what the actual numbers are but id bet 50/50 on home built vs FFL built. i think the volume of these items in the public is something everyone wants to hold onto as justification, but in the end, ATF and Judge will say, sorry.

[486] said:
and since they started as rifles can't they not be turned into pistols?
Click to expand...


they started as pistols and have always been pistols.



at the end of the day, i think its going to come down to this: Is the Government declaring a gun illegal and therefore removing that gun from your possession? since you can keep the gun fully functional as a pistol and get rid of the brace and now you are in compliance with the "regulations", or unlawful edicts, whichever you prefer.

similarly this is what happened with lighting links, akins accelerators and shoe laces. they were legal before they werent. the gun itself is still fine to own and possess.
 
Courtroom should be entertaining when the AFT starts citing the long list of cases where a brace was used in the commission of a crime necessitating the need for this rule change.
 
Chzbrgr said:
Courtroom should be entertaining when the AFT starts citing the long list of cases where a brace was used in the commission of a crime necessitating the need for this rule change.
Click to expand...
I know you're being facetious but the long list just needs to be like 2 and it's going to carry some weight there. It all depends how much of a constitutionalist the judge is
 
Anyone here have experience e filing use digitized or paper fingerprint cards? Looks like you can e file, then you are emailed forms to print out, and mail fingerprint cards.
are digital prints uploaded automatically?
 
My prints are digitized. When I efile a form 1 I get them printed off and mail them in. I use fingerprint express. I believe you can upload them directly to the ATFs website now. Not 100% on that. I haven’t efiled for at least 6 months.
 
Last edited:
Aisin said:
My prints are digitized. When I efile a form 1 I get them printed off and mail them in. I use fingerprint express. I believe you can upload them directly to the ATFs website now. Not 100% on that. I haven’t efiled for at least 6 months.
Click to expand...
Do you print them on the standard fingerprint cards or just cheap printer paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh