re: ATF brace rule has been published

quote:

---

If you have another ar thats a rifle, just keep it.

---

Yep. If the ATF insists that it's a stock, then it's easily a spare stock if you have a rifle.

quote:

---

What about constructive possession?

---

Does it fit on your rifle?

My son said it's a pistol brace.

So, anyone know the answer to my question about purchases earlier?

Say you bought a complete lower, with a brace. Palmetto sold them, they had to go through a FFL just like a complete gun.
Palmetto has clear and concise records of their sales;
"model 1" (example) is a stripped lower.
"model 1a" is a complete lower with an M4 collapsible stock.
"model 1b" is a complete lower with a blade brace.
"model 2" is a complete pistol, with brace.

If this all goes through and meets the legal challenges, and the law becomes that these braced pistols are unregistered SBRs...
the ATF will go to Palmetto, and I think can/will force them to reveal who they sold their "model 2" to.

What's the view on "model 1b", the complete lower with a brace? I'm trying to remember if the brace was on the buffer tube, or it it was detached and tucked to the side, but it came in one box. 4473 called it a pistol, I think.

ATF going to have any legal basis to go after that and obtain that list, too?

quote:

---

Worrying over nothing

---

Asking a question

quote:

---

Stop being a Fudd and spamming the board

---

Asking a question, in a thread. Is this upsetting the OP that I ask... oh, wait. I'm the OP. So nope, I'm not bothering me.

quote:

---

the ATF isn't going to do anything

---

your opinion (and probably true, for the record). Not fact. We don't know WHAT they're going to do.

quote:

---

Palmetto could give records of weapons that went to distributors but they would have no idea on individuals.

---

On a direct online order? Are you sure about that?

Put aside your "frick the ATF I will never submit" chatter, and answer the question- if you can. Or don't.

I imagine you probably would also have called people pussies in 1986, when they were faced with having to register Grandpa's trophy MG 42 or not. Well, if they didn't, there's no recourse available now- that unregistered MG 42 is now contraband, and if their grandkid is in possession because he didn't know, or didn't think about it, he's facing a felony conviction. If he tries to do the right thing and ask about transferring it to him, and it's not registered, he's probably going to be asked "and how long have you possessed this" and things will go downhill from there. He might be able to surrender it, and that be the end of it- but that isn't guaranteed, and people have been convicted in that scenario.

If we're facing a similar situation now, I'd think it would be wise to fully understand all options, instead of puffing up your chest and saying never submit.

quote:

---

I mean, if you have a stock or brace installed on your rifle, and an extra brace or stock laying around, and a pistol AR without anything installed, my understanding is that they could try to get you for constructive possession.

It’s unlikely that you’re going to end up in this situation, but if we’re talking about making changes to follow the law, I’d like to make sure I’m doing it right.

---

This is Fuddlore.

Constructive possession might (probably not) be something to care about if you didn't have a legal firearm, like a rifle, to install the brace on.

quote:

---

If we're facing a similar situation now,

---

Except we are not. In fact large portions of the 1968 GCA as well as FOPA will probably not survive scrutiny at the SCOTUS level now so that analogy could be rendered moot in the next decade. There are already indications the ATF is mailing it in on this rule in recent court filings, they aren't going to put much into defending it so they probably already know they are just doing what they are told by the Biden administration abd putting on a show.

Thats what im wondering. They wouldn't be designated as a pistol or rifle lower.