Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 243

Thread: Dept of Justice announces the new rules on Stabilizing Braces.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    831
    Feedback Score
    0
    ATF already has a really good idea how many ARs, AKs and other firearms with braces are out there, they just want to know exactly where they are. This is an attempt to create a registry of as many firearms as they can in one fell swoop. They were beaten at their own game and are now changing the rules.
    ~Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    And then they weaponize the Sporter Clause in GCA68 which allows them to proibit anything they like as "not suitable for sport." Pretty much you'd be lucky to be left with revolvers, lever actions and break-opens in that scenario... NFA is a nuisance but it's not the biggest elephant in the room.
    Hey everybody. Stop what you are doing and LOOK. After 10 years of saying it here and decades of explaining it on TOS...somebody....finally...understands it. It's almost like the validation of my existence on the internet.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MA2_Navy_Veteran View Post
    So since when does the DOJ/ATF (a part of the Executive branch) have the authority to "redifine" anything by amending the wording of codified law (GCA/NFA)? Last I checked, ONLY CONGRESS HAS THAT POWER...

    The definition of a rifle is codified in the NFA. The ATF does not get to redefine, change, add to, or amend the wording of the NFA, just because they don't like it. Only Congress has the ability to make, or make changes to laws.

    MA2
    Since the 1968 Gun Control Act and the "sporter clause" which gave ATF the power to pretty much regulate imports and domestic manufacture along a loosely defined criteria related to suitability for sporting applications. It is the bases from which they can write determination letters, redefine established definitions and all sorts of ridiculous shit.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    1,428
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    So if you remove a brace and have a padded check rest... There are no issues....

    Registering anything is a trap.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,122
    Feedback Score
    50 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hotbiggun42 View Post
    Curious, what does this have to do with arm braces?
    It doesn’t. The whole thing is rotten (the decision should have been made 7 years ago) and may not hold up by the time it gets to a high court in whatever 3-5 years.

    My assumption is that they don’t want people with trusts taking advantage of it because of transferability on death, ability to add/remove individuals from the trust documents, and so on. They don’t have as much information about location, and I would guess (IANAL) there will be more roadblocks when they come to take them. I dislike this a lot, and it’s dirty. I assume they also know that people with trusts probably have more firearms on averages, so this prevents missed revenue for them.

    For those whining about “free SBR’s, you guys are chumps,” some of us a) are generally law abiding, b) like to go to training classes with our short barrels and actually use the guns we purchase, and c) planned ahead enough that a nice $50 lower that gets a free tax stamp and has always been considered a throwaway doesn’t detract from the other NFA items already held.

    Also, Steyr, pretty sure you’re the only person on the internet posting about the Sporter clause.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JediGuy View Post
    It doesn’t. The whole thing is rotten (the decision should have been made 7 years ago) and may not hold up by the time it gets to a high court in whatever 3-5 years.

    My assumption is that they don’t want people with trusts taking advantage of it because of transferability on death, ability to add/remove individuals from the trust documents, and so on. They don’t have as much information about location, and I would guess (IANAL) there will be more roadblocks when they come to take them. I dislike this a lot, and it’s dirty. I assume they also know that people with trusts probably have more firearms on averages, so this prevents missed revenue for them.

    For those whining about “free SBR’s, you guys are chumps,” some of us a) are generally law abiding, b) like to go to training classes with our short barrels and actually use the guns we purchase, and c) planned ahead enough that a nice $50 lower that gets a free tax stamp and has always been considered a throwaway doesn’t detract from the other NFA items already held.

    Also, Steyr, pretty sure you’re the only person on the internet posting about the Sporter clause.
    Well, there's me too... Sporter is their catchall, until it burns in hell all the rest is just regulatory/courtroom masturbation. The only reason they haven't popped that nuke yet is I don't think they're ready, still too much potential resistance. Either that or they're trying to wait til everyone forgets it exists.

    I still think we really need to also be hammering on Miller, how it explicitly protected "common military use".
    Last edited by Diamondback; 01-14-23 at 08:09.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5,149
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    So… dumb question;

    Is this all done on a Form1? What is the ATF going to do with 20,000,000 Form1s? It will take them a decade to process them all.
    I am part of that power which eternally wills evil, and eternally works good.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    And if they don't get the F1 processed in time for the 120 days you're still in Illegal Possession. This game is rigged, even if you play by the rules you still lose.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,058
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal Dragger View Post
    Mass non compliance is the answer.

    I never got into pistol braces or sub 16” bbl’s because I don’t enjoy excessive muzzle blast, but those of you who have them…. ignore this dumb shit.
    No excessive muzzle blast from a 9x19 braced pistol.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    1,016
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JediGuy View Post
    It

    For those whining about “free SBR’s, you guys are chumps,” some of us a) are generally law abiding, b) like to go to training classes with our short barrels and actually use the guns we purchase, and c) planned ahead enough that a nice $50 lower that gets a free tax stamp and has always been considered a throwaway doesn’t detract from the other NFA items already held.
    The whole thing is BS. But for everyone saying they’re getting a free tax stamps In order to be tax exempt, your nice $50 lower wouldn’t qualify unless it was assembled with a pistol brace attached prior to 1/13/23.

Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •