Started By
Message

re: ATF brace rule has been published

Posted on 6/5/23 at 6:54 pm to
Posted by turkish
Member since Aug 2016
2245 posts
Posted on 6/5/23 at 6:54 pm to
I know we’re talking about it here and we understand it, but at every turn I’m reminded how impossibly convoluted and complicated this all is. Operative word being “impossibly.”

To my simple mind, if a rule can’t be clearer, it is inherently unnecessary.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
137968 posts
Posted on 6/5/23 at 6:55 pm to
quote:

I know we’re talking about it here and we understand it, but at every turn I’m reminded how impossibly convoluted and complicated this all is. Operative word being “impossibly.”

To my simple mind, if a rule can’t be clearer, it is inherently unnecessary.



These people are generally incompetent and inept, however, they definitely use that to their advantage.
Posted by Squirrelmeister
Member since Nov 2021
3289 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 7:49 am to
quote:

I think the ATF is being purposely ambiguous on this so they can always have an ace in the hole if they want to play it.


They are pieces of excrement. Worthless vile commie scum.

At least right now, in Texas or Louisiana, if you are a member of Firearms Policy Coalition, or a member of Gun Owners of America, the courts have active injunctions against the ATF and DOJ enforcing their “rules” against members of those organizations.
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
22707 posts
Posted on 6/6/23 at 11:39 am to
So, here's where I am standing, at this point in time;

was not a member of FPC or GOA at the moment they filed for injunction. I did not join afterwards, because I think the ruling was pretty clear that you had to be a member on day 1 of the filing. I know FPC was doing some backdating, but that's something that can be revealed way too easily with a simple financial review. I wouldn't want to try to use THAT as a defense, and then be determined to be committing fraud, perjury etc by claiming to be a member at the relevant time.

Months ago, before anything was clarified about this, I picked up some smooth buffer tubes @ $10 apiece. At the time, it seemed like that would be required to be compliant, but since then it seems like any buffer tube is ok, as long as nothing is attached.

So I have pulled the braces off, boxed them up and gave them to my brother. Different house, and he only has a single AR carbine, no pistols. They're simply "extra stocks" for him, and out of my possession.

I never fully trusted this would go well for pistols, so my uppers are Bear Creek. Absolute worst case scenario, it cost under $200 per upper, and I can get different barrels if that is the only resolution.
These are side-charging, I wanted to try that out anyway.

I suppose another option if push came to shove, get a long flash-hider and have it pinned/welded, thus bringing the overall length to 16"+. Would have to find someone who can do that for a decent price, to make that worthwhile.
Posted by Pezzo
Member since Aug 2020
2857 posts
Posted on 6/7/23 at 6:34 am to
quote:

To my simple mind, if a rule can’t be clearer, it is inherently unnecessary.


thats their game, make vaguely worded rules that can be construed to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
54578 posts
Posted on 6/7/23 at 8:59 am to
If I remember high school civics class taught me congress makes the laws. School House rock taught that too. Thus the ATF doesn't make legitimate laws, only suggestions to congress.
This is all about posturing and control.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
137968 posts
Posted on 6/7/23 at 10:00 pm to
It would be hilarious if the brace takes down all the NFA's
Posted by MetroAtlantaGatorFan
Member since Jun 2017
15598 posts
Posted on 6/8/23 at 3:19 pm to
And then all the gun grabbers could scream about actual assault rifles (even though they're too expensive for 99% of us).
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
86209 posts
Posted on 6/8/23 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

If I remember high school civics class taught me congress makes the laws. School House rock taught that too. Thus the ATF doesn't make legitimate laws
Right, but short barreled rifles are covered by an act of Congress.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
111892 posts
Posted on 6/8/23 at 5:02 pm to
quote:

Right, but short barreled rifles are covered by an act of Congress


Act of Congress cannot supersede the Constitution.
Posted by SpookeyTiger
Williamsburg, MO
Member since Jan 2012
3605 posts
Posted on 6/8/23 at 5:35 pm to
quote:

Act of Congress cannot supersede the Constitution.


It should not but unfortunately, already has.
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
22707 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 12:27 am to
quote:

I suppose another option if push came to shove, get a long flash-hider and have it pinned/welded, thus bringing the overall length to 16"+. Would have to find someone who can do that for a decent price, to make that worthwhile.
Ok, putting aside the "never give up" comments for a moment -

would something like this

LINK

be enough to pull you back to legal safety, for the time being? That's a 6" flash hider, I'm guessing pinned and welded to a 10+ inch barrel, you're now no longer in possession of a SBR. Because the barrel is no longer short... right?

How hard, once it's pinned and welded, is it to reverse, if/when this rule gets whacked?
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
22707 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 12:39 am to
quote:

It would be hilarious if the brace takes down all the NFA's

That's a legit thought I've had.

I could see the NFA act get caught up in the backwash from this. Courts might rule in favor of keeping full-auto as a restriction, but the SBR angle might get wiped out.

It's truly weird that you could have a handgun (way more concealable) in any caliber, but you get restrictions on barrel length for rifles. Seems arbitrary, and arbitrary exceptions don't usually stand up under heavy scrutiny. The law shouldn't be about what you can shoot accurately and effectively, it should be about what you're allowed to have.

If I can own this in 30-30


what's the point of a law preventing me from having a larger firearm, in a smaller caliber? It won't be as concealable, it won't be as powerful.
Posted by Success
Member since Sep 2015
1942 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 5:55 am to
I'm not for this BS but it has to do with capacity and reloadability. You'll end someone's day with that pistol but it'll be alot worse if you had a 10" AR in your backpack with a loaded drum. But of course crazies are gonna be crazy.
This post was edited on 6/9/23 at 5:56 am
Posted by bbvdd
Memphis, TN
Member since Jun 2009
27968 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 6:50 am to
quote:

How hard, once it's pinned and welded, is it to reverse,


Very hard, you’d be better off buying a new 16” barrel.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
86209 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 8:53 am to
quote:

Act of Congress cannot supersede the Constitution.

I get that. I was just responding to the agency issue.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
18750 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 8:54 am to
quote:

Right, but short barreled rifles are covered by an act of Congress.


Except SBR's had a very specific definition that was also part of that act. Think there are now four injunctions against the ATF enjoining them from enforcement of this rule with at least one more injunction pending.
Posted by Don Quixote
Member since May 2023
4016 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 9:56 am to
Posted by Landmass
Premium Member
Member since Jun 2013
23664 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 10:17 am to
Only 0.6% to 1% have complied with the deadline.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/biden-and-atf-just-created-29-million-felons

quote:

The owners of just 0.6% to 1% of AR-15-style pistols have complied with a May 31 deadline set by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to register their firearms.


quote:

According to ATF spokesman Erik Longnecker, “As of June 1, 2023, ATF received 255,162 applications for tax-free registration.”




Posted by X123F45
Member since Apr 2015
29405 posts
Posted on 6/9/23 at 10:22 am to
Am I reading that right, there are over 40 million AR pistols?
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 15Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram