- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ATF brace rule has been published
Posted on 1/31/23 at 7:30 pm to armsdealer
Posted on 1/31/23 at 7:30 pm to armsdealer
quote:wtf are you talking about....plenty of threads here we're bashing trump for him bump stock ban.
Trump did it and people cheered
0
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:01 pm to beerJeep
quote:I fully understand the sentiment of this, but it's not quite reality.
The atf is a terrrorist organization and as such, I will not follow the directions that a terrorist gives me.
ISIS is a terrorist organization. If they come after you, the local, city and state PD's will spring to your aide, as well as federal forces. Military, even.
The ATF is a federal agency, and if they come after you, there's a good chance the local PD will be there in support. They have jurisdiction in our country. So while you might oppose them, you can not deny they have the authority to give you a real bad hassle, and simply reciting the 2nd Amendment in court isn't going to make that go away.
That's why I said I was not going to push opinions here, regardless of what we want or believe.
I don't care for the IRS either, but I'm damn sure not going to run afoul of them intentionally. It's a fight I can't win.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:16 pm to Scoob
quote:
It's a fight I can't win.
No, but it's a fight we could win. The federal government has spent a long time and lot of effort cultivating the mythology of their own authority.
But, realistically, people are too comfortable or apathetic to put in any really legwork or effort to organize in a meaningful way.
Ultimately, we're going to have to rely on the courts when it comes to that.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Good in principle, but people have to make their own determinations on their lives.
It's a fight I can't win.
No, but it's a fight we could win. The federal government has spent a long time and lot of effort cultivating the mythology of their own authority.
But, realistically, people are too comfortable or apathetic to put in any really legwork or effort to organize in a meaningful way.
Unless you are the guy in your avatar
and commit fully to defending me in court free of cost, provide for my family, and everything else that falls on me currently, then I don't want to be the test case. I suspect most of us don't.
Even if we don't do "anything", how comfortable are you going to be in taking your braced pistol out of the house? For me, it was a fun range toy. I now would be hesitant to bring it somewhere, where somebody might decide I have something illegal.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:42 pm to beerJeep
quote:
The atf is a terrrorist organization
Which is why I won’t turn any guns over to them for any reason whatsoever. I will not be complicit in arming a terrorist group.
In no way should an unelected bureaucracy be able to write regulations concerning a constitutional right. Ideally such regulations should only be passed via amending the constitution, at worst passed by Congress and upheld by courts as constitutional.
ATF only job concerning firearms should be the illegal trafficking of firearms to criminals and their organizations
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:46 pm to Scoob
Anyone else laugh about that absurdity of that combination everytime they read it?
Why did they lump Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms together under a singular agency?
Why did they lump Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms together under a singular agency?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 8:53 pm to Scoob
quote:
Good in principle
It's good in practice, too.
quote:
defending me in court
From what? I'm not advocating that anyone does anything illegal.
quote:
how comfortable are you going to be in taking your braced pistol out of the house?
I don't own a braced pistol.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:15 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:ok, we're playing games here, I see. How's this:quote:
defending me in court
From what? I'm not advocating that anyone does anything illegal.
quote:This ruling, if it goes through, would convert a braced pistol legally to a SBR. If you own one and refuse to bring it into compliance, you risk:
Q: May a private citizen who owns an NFA firearm which is not registered have the firearm registered?
A: No. The NFA permits only manufacturers, makers, and importers to register firearms. Mere possessors may not register firearms. An unregistered NFA firearm is a contraband firearm, and it is unlawful to possess the weapon. The possessor should contact the nearest ATF office to arrange for its disposition. Violators may be fined not more than $250,000, and imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In addition, any vessel, vehicle or aircraft used to transport, conceal or possess an unregistered NFA firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture, as is the weapon itself.
10 yrs in federal prison
$250,000 fine
Any vehicle (car, truck etc) that you own, and they decide you transported it in.
That isn't make-believe, it's not new, and it has stood up in courts before. Will they attempt to nail the average Joe with it? I dunno, it seems unlikely; but it's definitely on the table.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:22 pm to Scoob
quote:
we're playing games here
You may be. I'd suggest working that out on your own.
quote:
How's this
Why are you working under the assumption that noncompliance is the only, or even the best way to fight this?
There are countless ways to get involved that don't end up with you worrying about going to prison.
The hell are you even talking about here?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why are you working under the assumption that noncompliance is the only, or even the best way to fight this?
There are countless ways to get involved that don't end up with you worrying about going to prison.
The hell are you even talking about here?
I didn't start this thread to talk about fighting anything. I posted it to let people know the ATF ruling on braced pistols was officially published in the registry, and the clock on those owning them has started.
Now, with lawsuits, that clock might be paused. We don't know yet, not for sure. Until an injunction or something of the sort has been granted, it's 120 days starting today, to go into compliance... or face the possibility of being charged with an unregistered NFA item.
Simple, non-debatable fact.
Since you don't even have one per your reply, why are you even posting here? As you state, it doesn't affect you.
So again, I will say- you're playing games. You want to debate something; take that to another thread.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:58 pm to Scoob
quote:
I didn't start this thread to talk about fighting anything.
That's nice. You're the one who mentioned it in the post I replied to.
quote:
Since you don't even have one per your reply, why are you even posting here? As you state, it doesn't affect you.
BS. I didn't own a bump stock, either. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be opposed to overreach, or that I can't comment on it. Next time, maybe it's something I do own.
It's interesting that you're completely hammering home my point about apathy.
quote:
So again, I will say- you're playing games. You want to debate something; take that to another thread.
I'm not keeping you in the discussion.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:22 pm to Scoob
the brace on mine easily slides on or off the buffer tube, and taking off the upper is extremely quick too, so i just took off the brace and upper because it takes like 2 seconds to take it off or put it back on, it's not like this is my first option for defending myself
another question, is simply possessing a <16" upper illegal by this rule? i can assemble the upper with the lower and brace so damn fast
another question, is simply possessing a <16" upper illegal by this rule? i can assemble the upper with the lower and brace so damn fast
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:53 pm to Scoob
quote:
d it has stood up in courts before
Not since v. Bruen. Whole different game now.
quote:
Even if we don't do "anything", how comfortable are you going to be in taking your braced pistol out of the house? For me, it was a fun range toy. I now would be hesitant to bring it somewhere, where somebody might decide I have something illegal.
You can be a wimp. Many of us will be perfectly fine taking out our guns, perfectly comfortable because, like the bump-stock ban, there is almost no chance of enforcement for non-compliance.
This post was edited on 1/31/23 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:14 pm to DVinBR
quote:What little I understand, the brace must be removed, and addressed in such a way that it not be able to be placed back on again. Destroying the brace is an option. Apparently, sending them to a person without a pistol would be, too.
the brace on mine easily slides on or off the buffer tube, and taking off the upper is extremely quick too, so i just took off the brace and upper because it takes like 2 seconds to take it off or put it back on, it's not like this is my first option for defending myself
Question arises about non-smooth buffer tubes. I think that stems from a statement regarding smooth pistol tubes, as an example of what would be ok. Problem being, a lot of us have tubes with divots, basically a carbine buffer tube. It makes the brace mountable again.
quote:Yeah, it gets hazy, "constructive intent" and all.
another question, is simply possessing a <16" upper illegal by this rule? i can assemble the upper with the lower and brace so damn fast
My understanding before all this, you needed a pistol (or SBR) lower before you start buying those short uppers. The shops would sell them to you, but if anyone ever came and looked, you'd be in trouble.
Personally, I'm going to set up at least one with a smooth buffer tube, and keep it as "a pistol". That should justify my uppers.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:32 pm to Clames
quote:That's fine, and you can call me names if you like.
You can be a wimp. Many of us will be perfectly fine taking out our guns, perfectly comfortable because, like the bump-stock ban, there is almost no chance of enforcement for non-compliance.
Hell, we can all talk shite on an anonymous message board.
I'm trying not to do that, feed trolls, or anything else. But just for the sake of making a point- do you ignore whatever WLF rules you don't like or agree with? Hunt out of season, or with the wrong weapon for that season? If you comply, is that wimpy?
I'm also trying hard to stay in the clear, and out of the way of what seems to be an increasingly aggressive and hostile administrative branch running our gov.
I said above, I don't necessarily expect them to throw the book at some average dude with a brace, and give him 10 years. But they might. And with the increasing disconnect between us 'normal folk' in 'flyover territory' and those running things in DC, it wouldn't shock me if they do make examples out of some folks.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 11:56 pm to Clames
Ok, another question for those with FFL knowledge:
This ruling is going to affect not just us owners, but dealers as well. Palmetto, Primary Arms, etc. If this stands as ruled- retroactively selling SBRs- then they are going to be put under the microscope, I suspect, to find where all these illegal devices are.
So, at what level are buyers in trouble?
Obviously, if you bought a complete gun with a brace, you're going to show up. I would imagine that the first thing they demand to know.
What about complete pistol lowers, with braces? That had to ship to an FFL, and they were advertised as including the brace. It's a specific model #, pretty sure it's easily searchable on PSA's sales list. Can they demand that info, as this rule is worded?
What about ordering a complete upper with less than a 16" barrel? No FFL transfer there, but that's the actual culprit (the brace being a stock is irrelevant, if you don't have short barrels).
Further down the list, what about buying a brace from KAK for building a stripped lower?
I'm curious to learn- at what point will a store have to reveal it's client list, and at what point is that not legally applicable?
This ruling is going to affect not just us owners, but dealers as well. Palmetto, Primary Arms, etc. If this stands as ruled- retroactively selling SBRs- then they are going to be put under the microscope, I suspect, to find where all these illegal devices are.
So, at what level are buyers in trouble?
Obviously, if you bought a complete gun with a brace, you're going to show up. I would imagine that the first thing they demand to know.
What about complete pistol lowers, with braces? That had to ship to an FFL, and they were advertised as including the brace. It's a specific model #, pretty sure it's easily searchable on PSA's sales list. Can they demand that info, as this rule is worded?
What about ordering a complete upper with less than a 16" barrel? No FFL transfer there, but that's the actual culprit (the brace being a stock is irrelevant, if you don't have short barrels).
Further down the list, what about buying a brace from KAK for building a stripped lower?
I'm curious to learn- at what point will a store have to reveal it's client list, and at what point is that not legally applicable?
Posted on 2/1/23 at 4:20 am to PT24-7
quote:
So when did I miss the memo that laws are just published randomly on a tuesday now in this country?
The better question is why the ATF can change laws at all... that's the point of having a Congress
Posted on 2/1/23 at 5:35 am to DVinBR
quote:
another question, is simply possessing a <16" upper illegal by this rule? i can assemble the upper with the lower and brace so damn fas
ATF calls this constructive intent. It’s a no no having the parts to readily make an NFA item in the same location as a non registered receiver.
Posted on 2/1/23 at 6:03 am to terd ferguson
quote:
The better question is why the ATF can change laws at all... that's the point of having a Congress
This is true, as with the West Virginia ruling; these regulatory authorities don’t have this power; only Congress. As soon as this can get to the Supremes, the better…
Posted on 2/1/23 at 6:54 am to Scoob
quote:
Hunt out of season, or with the wrong weapon for that season? If you comply, is that wimpy?
Are there clear constitutional violations involved with this? No, so that is a very poor analogy.
quote:
I'm also trying hard to stay in the clear, and out of the way of what seems to be an increasingly aggressive and hostile administrative branch running our gov.
Advocating for passivity in compliance is the wrong answer as that is what the ATF wants. I donate to SAF and GOA, they sue the ATF and win. While they are doing their work, I'm going to do mine by not hiding perfectly legal firearms nor complying by altering or destroying my personal property because some shitheads in a governmet agency suddenly changed their minds.
Page 2 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News