re: ATF brace rule has been published

WOW

quote:

---

Not saying they can't. When did the ATF get granted the right to make laws?

---

Their point of contention is that they are not making a law, they are interpreting it. SBRs have been restricted items for decades, close to a century now.

Both sides of the argument have a lot of technicalities in place, and the ATF is arguing, for lack of more specific terminology, that they are making a "common sense" judgement in what is a rifle, and what is not.

The whole thing can end up mind-numbing and arbitrary.
16 inches for a barrel is the magic number, but you can permanently attach a flash hider to a shorter barrel, and although the bullet still only contacts the barrel for that original length, the additional length of the flash hider, if it makes it past the magic 16 inches, it's no longer a short-barrel. But that has to be permanent, it can't just be screwed on.

ATF is saying that if the barrel is under 16 inches, and you put "something" on the rear that aides or lends to shouldering, "that's a stock", and it's a SBR now. And yeah, if you do put a stock there, that's the case.

They're attempting to define the brace as a stock, citing it's potential use as such.

Just to make things more fun and "clear", if a firearm starts out as a pistol, you CAN put a stock on it- if you also put a 16+ inch barrel on it too.
Which you can do by putting a different upper on it.
And it's still legal as a pistol, meaning you can then remove the stock, and put the shorter barrel back on (I think it has to be in that order ).

But if it STARTS as a rifle, you can't do that.

So in theory, every AR lower "should" be a pistol first, just to allow you the freedom to swap things around. If them's the rules, that's the approach I'm taking.

quote:

---

When did the ATF get granted the right to make laws?

---

They have regulatory authority granted to them under the GCA of 1968. This isn’t the first time this has been done by the ATF. The street sweeper shotgun in the 90’s was designated a destructive device. The original drop in auto sears and lighting links were legal then ATF declared them machine guns.

quote:

---

Anyone think Sig Sauer wouldn’t give them up?

---

Sig would because of the government contracts they hold. It would be interesting to see what palmetto state armory does since they don’t have any contracts with the government and don’t have plans to get into that sector.

quote:

---

Why does any of what you typed matter? NOT SAYING IT DEOESN'T MATTER. Pistols and rifles are both firearms. Firearms are protected according to the second amendment. So why care about the distinction???

---

Well, they have the authority to arrest you, and if convicted you suffer consequences. It's a felony offense so you would lose the right to own firearms.
The maximum penalty is 10 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine.

That's why you should care; because it's not like you neighbor saying he doesn't like Chevy trucks. That can't harm you. Ignoring the ATF could.

Clames and I have had some words back and forth in this thread and the other, but we agree on the subject 100%. All of us who own AR pistols think this whole thing is bullshite, nobody is supporting it.

Our arguments have been me and some others saying "but hey, what if they *blank*, maybe we better do *blank* to cover our asses",

and his side has been "don't worry or freak out, it will never pass the first challenge- which was written and ready to file the moment they publish this new rule"

Any concerns I post are out of an abundance of caution only. I see no scenario where goon squads start going into the suburbs and start arresting people who purchased these firearms. The ranges I go to, the guys running them are the ones who got me interested in those pistols, so I don't fear them either. One of them put together what he said was his favorite; an AK in 556 with a blade and an 11" barrel, with a nice green dot optic. Great little firearm.

99% of the anxiety is because they normally don't go this far in the process to hassle owners (it's usually that they just rule on the brace, not the attached firearm); and a lot of the rest of the world isn't peachy right now.

quote:

---

Why does any of what you typed matter? NOT SAYING IT DEOESN'T MATTER. Pistols and rifles are both firearms. Firearms are protected according to the second amendment. So why care about the distinction???

---

This all goes back to the 1933 congressional debate on the future NFA. Later tonight I will post a thread up with links to the actual transcripts of the NFA debate from 1933 that will allow us to understand what was transporting back then.

The short answer is back then handguns were going to be placed on the NFA because of their "concealability." Women groups and prominent women were pushing for handguns to be on the NFA. In doing so any firearm that could or potentially could be concealed, were being written in the NFA. Originally the new at the time NFA law would restrict long guns with a barrel under 18 inches but after passage, hunters complained about their .22s being included and those guns often had much shorter rifle barrels to 16 inches. That's why we have 16 inch requirement for rifles.

Despite how anyone feels about the NRA, they weren't opposed to machine gun restrictions but lobbied to get handguns from being included in the NFA. Obviously the NRA was successful but the the long gun barrel restrictions was still kept.

And that's why sbr the problem we see today. Interesting enough, what we see today in gun control was almost exactly what was discussed and lobbied for all the way back to 1933.

quote:

---

They have regulatory authority granted to them under the GCA of 1968.

---

And that is my point. Congress has these powers and they cannot be delegated no matter what. Unconstitutional.

quote:

---

I guess I don’t see the benefit of keeping the brace in your possession and risking a possible arrest / legal battle.

---

Up to the individual. I don't own one, but one benefit is not unnecessarily throwing away property you were told was legal to purchase and possess.

quote:

---

The problem is, this issue is actually covered by a statute passed by Congress.

---

What statute are you referencing here?

I won't stop you from explaining why you think this applies.