ATF is going to have an amnesty for braced pistols

[Diamondback]

Time will tell, I suppose. From listening to a couple attorneys discuss this, that is not the impression I was given. In fact, it's questionable whether the ATF even had the right to waive the tax in the first place. One issue I do see with your reasoning is that I think you missed the words "pursuant to" in the approval language. Once the rule itself is declared unconstitutional, for any reason, anything approved "pursuant to" the now voided rule is also null.

ETA: This doesn't preclude a subsequent and separate executive amnesty, I imagine. Though I find that to be pretty unlikely.

Frankly, the Blackpill in me suspects that was part of the design... if it's struck down you've all confessed to man/poss of unregistered SBR's and they know exactly where to come find you.

[georgeib]

Frankly, the Blackpill in me suspects that was part of the design... if it's struck down you've all confessed to man/poss of unregistered SBR's and they know exactly where to come find you.

I don't think so. One of the points at issue is whether the ATF has the right to arbitrarily change the definition of a term, such as SBR in this instance. If the rule is overturned for reasons other than this, and the judges' opinions don't specifically address this point, then what you said could very well happen. However, in the most recent 5th circuit judicial opinion, this issue is specifically addressed, with the judge tearing the agency a new one in regards to their vacillations between saying that pistol braces don't turn a weapon into an SBR for years, and then now that they were always SBRs.

That to say, it will almost certainly be addressed, and there will be no danger of prosecution. Coupled with a law, who's name escapes me at the moment, that prevents prosecution based on information submitted in attempted compliance with a regulation.

[Diamondback]

In point of law, perhaps true. In point of fact that's cold comfort after SS-Reichsfuhrer Garland unleashes the Sturmtruppen... after all, as I keep reminding everybody, your wrongful death at the hands of a trigger happy meatpipe-smoking jackboot is a bell no court on earth can un-ring. Doesn't matter if you beat the rap when Amerikanisches Schutzstaffel decides to put you on that ride...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

In short, congratulations to all you suckers who got Buffalo Jumped--those irons are now registered and that bell is never un-rung. Just ask the Canadians how well the order to purge THEIR gun registry was complied with by their own Deep State...

Time will tell, I suppose. From listening to a couple attorneys discuss this, that is not the impression I was given. In fact, it's questionable whether the ATF even had the right to waive the tax in the first place. One issue I do see with your reasoning is that I think you missed the words "pursuant to" in the approval language. Once the rule itself is declared unconstitutional, for any reason, anything approved "pursuant to" the now voided rule is also null.

ETA: This doesn't preclude a subsequent and separate executive amnesty, I imagine. Though I find that to be pretty unlikely.

Frankly, the Blackpill in me suspects that was part of the design... if it's struck down you've all confessed to man/poss of unregistered SBR's and they know exactly where to come find you.

Thanks everyone for the debate. I see both sides and definately the “PURSUANT” word is what got my attention.

I can think of some very rosy outcomes and some pretty dark ones involving half-way compromises to ‘fix’ this. I also have some other thoughts that I’m not going to put on an open forum so as not to give the other side some ideas. While I definately am a ‘partisan’ on this issue, I can take that hat off and try to see things from other sides.

The biggest issue I see is that legislatures and govt agencies can move things in weeks or months, while it takes courts years and decades to ‘fix’ them. The magazine limits and AWBs should be thrown out based on Heller, but we still have them on the books is one example. The fact that Bruen reinforced Heller and made it explicit, and yet we are getting MORE restrictive laws is another example.

I’m willing to play these games as if nothing more than a mental excercise and pass time. But frankly, SCOTUS needs to get off its ass and clear all this up. This isn’t just about guns. We, the country, our civilization, needs to have an objective basis to our laws. If they can twist the 2A wording to disarm us, wait till you see what they can do the 1A. Just look at the Michigan bill restricting speech and imposing the Progressive religion onto the rest of us. It’s still in process, but it passed the House there- which is the biggest indictment and proof that ‘democracy’ can be a fancy word for ‘mob rule’.

As to being on a list for guns, to argue that on a public forum is kind of amusing. Unless you bought your guns and all your ammo with cash in 1985 from the back of a truck at a gun show, and have lived in cabin in the woods, with out any electronics, re-reading Catcher in the Rye over and over- ‘they’ know who you are.

[WillBrink]

Latest:

[Bret]

There's now a nationwide injunction against the pistol brace rule.



Some retailers are now selling braced pistols again. For example...
https://gunprime.com/products/smith-...arrel-13658?gd
https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-...tm_campaign=cl

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

There are Time Travel movies that have less possible outcomes and parallel constructions…

[CRT2]

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it imply or otherwise indicate that the “Arms” must be in common use or have any other conditional language?

[ruckusjuice]

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it imply or otherwise indicate that the “Arms” must be in common use or have any other conditional language?

The pertinent SCOTUS decisions don’t say anything about arms having to be in common use to be allowed. They do say that arms in common use can’t be banned.

[glocktogo]

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it imply or otherwise indicate that the “Arms” must be in common use or have any other conditional language?

It's that '68 GCA BS. I don't know why it's such a sacred cow, but it needs to be sacrificed HARD.