What's new
By:
Filters

Pistol brace ruling - ATF at it again

Halffastford yeah and the problem with new interpretations is when they actually create rules changes. It’s amazing to me how much elected officials have fought this. I hope the folks with these elected officials in their state contribute to their reelection with volunteer hours to make calls and knock on doors to keep them around.
 
Halffastford said:
the truly sad part is all the people bowing down to this. The brace is not a regulated firearm part and the ATF can't regulate it. They're just going to create a new interpretation and people will follow it blindly.
Click to expand...
A stock isn't a regulated firearm part either, but put a stock on a pistol and you have a felony.

I don't see it being different than how FA parts themselves are not regulated firearm parts, but drill some holes and fit them to your firearm, you have a felony.
 
posford said:
A stock isn't a regulated firearm part either, but put a stock on a pistol and you have a felony.

I don't see it being different than how FA parts themselves are not regulated firearm parts, but drill some holes and fit them to your firearm, you have a felony.
Click to expand...
Only Congress can pass gun laws and that's iffy in my opinion. There's a rule already against them restricting but most are just happy to go along with it. ATFs job is to interpret laws, not make shit up. They consistently over step their boundaries and are now getting dick slapped for it. FA parts are regulated and you need a license to sell them. Anyone can sell stocks out of their trunks because they aren't regulated. See the difference? This is the very thing I'm talking about when I say that people are happy to bow down because supreme rulers told them to. Fuck that.

Oh, and it has already been determined that a pistol set with a rifle stock included is perfectly legal. The pistol can be converted to a rifle and then back to a pistol legally. ATFs claim that intent is there to create an SBR has been proven bullshit in court.
 
Fa parts are not regulated. You can be prosecuted for constructive intent, but the parts themselves are not regulated unless it's a drop in autosear, or lightning link. Those are "considered a mg all by themselves.

 
unless it's a drop in autosear, or lightning link. Those are "considered a mg all by themselves.


Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself here. So, they aren't regulated, except the parts that make them FA? Those are. Got it.
 
Halffastford said:
unless it's a drop in autosear, or lightning link. Those are "considered a mg all by themselves.


Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself here. So, they aren't regulated, except the parts that make them FA? Those are. Got it.
Click to expand...
Are you being purposely obtuse, or you just not know what you're talking about
 
I'm just going to assume you are ignorant and don't know the difference.
A drop in auto-sear and or a "lightning link", is different from a milspec fire control group. The fire control group "fcg" requires an auto-sear pin hole to be drilled in the receiver, which is a felony if you do not have the proper licensing. A lightning link or drop in auto-sear does not require a hole to be drilled. They have been classed as machine guns in and of themselves. You can buy pre-86 registered sear packs and they are transferred the same as a machine gun, but can be installed legally in multiple firearms.

Just owning an m16 trigger group ar ak trigger group is not illegal.
 
posford said:
Are you being purposely obtuse, or you just not know what you're talking about
Click to expand...
aron82 said:
I'm just going to assume you are ignorant and don't know the difference.
A drop in auto-sear and or a "lightning link", is different from a milspec fire control group. The fire control group "fcg" requires an auto-sear pin hole to be drilled in the receiver, which is a felony if you do not have the proper licensing. A lightning link or drop in auto-sear does not require a hole to be drilled. They have been classed as machine guns in and of themselves. You can buy pre-86 registered sear packs and they are transferred the same as a machine gun, but can be installed legally in multiple firearms.

Just owning an m16 trigger group ar ak trigger group is not illegal.
Click to expand...
M16 trigger groups aren't inherently FA by themselves, so no regulation. I'm not sure why either of you don't understand this. When you drill the third hole, youve created a FA part that is fully regulated. What part of they aren't a MG don't you get? Before you mmisconstrue anything I've said, I specifically stated FA parts. That would include a receiver with a third hole in your case. Given the way you throw around your knowledge, an AR stock is a FA part because they have that too. :shaking:
 
Are you retarded?

By law an m16 fcg is not a machine gun. By law a drop in auto sear or lightning link is.
You can disagree with it all you want, but that is the law. If you don't know or understand the difference between them, then you can either look them up or live in ignorance.
 
Halffastford said:
M16 trigger groups aren't inherently FA by themselves, so no regulation. I'm not sure why either of you don't understand this. When you drill the third hole, youve created a FA part that is fully regulated. What part of they aren't a MG don't you get? Before you mmisconstrue anything I've said, I specifically stated FA parts. That would include a receiver with a third hole in your case. Given the way you throw around your knowledge, an AR stock is a FA part because they have that too. :shaking:
Click to expand...
Shoe strings on your shoes are legal, but a shoe string can also be a registered machine gun, according to use and intent. I understand that a stock on an SBR doesn't carry the tax stamp, but a component of the SBR does have a tax stamp, that allows the use of an part that doesnt have to be registered.
shoestring-machinegun.jpg
 
aron82 said:
Are you retarded?

By law an m16 fcg is not a machine gun. By law a drop in auto sear or lightning link is.
You can disagree with it all you want, but that is the law. If you don't know or understand the difference between them, then you can either look them up or live in ignorance.
Click to expand...
Look back, that's what I've been saying. I think the confusion comes from that people just assume the m16 trigger group is FA. It's not. Hence, you can buy them. Lightning links and "switches" only require installation to convert to FA, so no bueno. those are FA parts.

An intent is overstep. Any of you that have tubing laying around your shop and steel or copper wool in the house could be construed as to have intent to build suppressors, but we know this isn't the case. So, just because I have an M!16 fcg in my possession doesn't make it intent. Lowers with third holes are intent. You don't even need a fcg with it to get yourself into legal trouble. Is that more clear?
 
No audio at work, cliffs? Was the common use explanation opinion shared or actually an interpretation by someone who matters?
 
#497, bro

the decision will get overturned shortly just like the california bans do, because 'shall not' is just far too cryptic and confusing for some people
 
The problem with the ruling is the fact that there is no consensus if a Federal District court is even legally able to rule on a Nationwide Injunction that affects non-parties outside of their district. Justice Thomas has commented on it in the past. So there is a high likely hood the Supreme Court doesn't let it stand on that idea by itself completely outside of the 2nd amendment and APA issues. They also did not stop the frames and receiver rule by the ATF when given a chance, so they might do the same here.
 
[486] said:
#497, bro
Click to expand...
Your wonderfully detailed post doesn't clarify the question, which I'll quote.
posford said:
Was the common use explanation opinion shared or actually an interpretation by someone who matters?
Click to expand...
IDGAF about some youtube vlogger opinion, was hoping to know whether that was actually brought up by a supreme court justice.
 
Relevant info: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Enforcement of Pistol-Brace Ban
The ATF can’t arrest anyone for owning a pistol-brace-equipped gun.

That’s the outcome of a ruling handed down by United States District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Wednesday. He granted a motion to stay enforcement of the agency’s rule banning the possession of effectively all braced guns that weren’t registered earlier this year. He found the ATF exceeded its power when crafting the rule.

“[T]he Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule ’embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society,'” Judge Kacsmaryk wrote in Britto v. ATF. “But public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.”

Unlike previous rulings against the ATF, Kacsmaryk’s order applies to the entire rule. That means it could affect tons of gun owners nationwide, with the number of affected braced guns estimated to be in the millions or even tens of millions.

The order comes shortly after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Kacsmaryk’s district, found the ban “unlawful.” In August, a Fifth Circuit panel found the ATF exceeded its authority in trying to reclassify guns with pistol braces attached to them as short-barrel rifles that are subject to heavy regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It determined the agency moved from regulating to legislating, and the result “must be set aside as unlawful or otherwise remanded for appropriate remediation.”

“The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests,” Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the majority in Mock v. Garland. “Thus, it is legislative in character.”

The panel sent the case back down to Judge Reed O’Connor who issued a preliminary injunction against the rule as applied to the plaintiffs in the case, including members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“[T]he Court finds that the Government Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule substantially threatens to inflict irreparable constitutional harm upon the FPC members,” Judge O’Connor wrote in Mock v. Garland. “Absent injunctive relief, the Final Rule will impair and threaten to deprive them of their fundamental right to keep and bear commonly used arms as a means of achieving the inherently lawful ends of self-defense. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. II (providing that the ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’).”

Judge Kacsmaryk has now taken things a step further in the related Britto case. His ruling stays enforcement of the law as it applies to everyone across the country.

That’s a significant departure from Judge O’Connor’s ruling, where he rejected a request to extend his preliminary injunction to all braced gun owners.

“The Court declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to extend the scope of the injunctive relief ‘nationwide,’” he wrote. “Injunctive relief reflecting that previously afforded by the Fifth Circuit to Plaintiffs is sufficiently limited to ‘not provide relief beyond the parties to the case,’ while also affording sufficient relief to meet each Plaintiff’s present needs.”

The Fifth Circuit panel had also cautioned against issuing a nationwide injunction, a far-reaching type of order the Supreme Court has cast a skeptical eye towards in recent years. However, the panel also noted there were situations where a nationwide effect could be justified.

“Still, in certain
“Still, in certain circumstances, nationwide relief is appropriate and may be necessary for the benefit of all parties,” Judge Smith wrote. “In Feds for Medical Freedom, for example, the en banc court permitted a nationwide injunction because the organization’s membership numbered thousands, and the members were scattered nationwide. In those circumstances, we reasoned that ‘limiting the relief to only those before [the court] would prove unwieldy and would only cause more confusion.’ Moreover, injunctions should be crafted to ‘provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.’”

Judge Kacsmaryk’s opinion draws heavily from Mock v. Garland and other recent gun cases at the appeals court and Supreme Court level.

“As explained in Garland, ‘[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA,'” he wrote.

But Kacsmaryk also identified new harms he considered important to address as the case rolls along. Those included the financial impact on both owners and dealers of the affected firearms.

“Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars,” he wrote. “And because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good.”

The Department of Justice, which oversees the ATF, did not respond to a request for comment.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh