DOJ Seeks to make AR Pistols NFA SBRs

[Bill of Rights]

Who the hell knows for certain. That's the problem. It might not be if it's' over a certain weight and barrel length with an RDS type sight that could be used on a rifle and it's too cumbersome to fire it with one hand it might not be classified as a pistol even without a brace.

Too cumbersome to fire with one hand? I fired a Serbu super-shorty one handed. And I'm not a Schwarzenegger by any means.

If I understand it correctly, the current issue is for a proposed change that happens a set time down the road. The MrGuns... video posted above outlines it.

Interesting question in case this goes bad for us though. If you separate your brace from your pistol, is everything good? How much separation?

Well..... Suppose you have an upper with a 10" barrel. No law against that. And if you have a different upper, one for every rifle lower in your possession, one could presume that you're "good to go", esp. if you have paperwork in for a SBR. You can convincingly make the case that you are assembling a SBR, but waiting to do so for your stamp to be approved, as required. If you have a lower assembled and don't have an upper on it, though, "constructive possession" has reportedly been used as a charge.

And don't get me started on the "fuel filters" being sold online, presumably by ATF. As long as the buyer doesn't own a firearm, I suppose they're probably OK.

The person of whom I'm thinking, however, has an AR with a short barrel, which has to my knowledge, never had a stock on it. Never a brace, a stock, or anything else but the recoil assembly. I know *I* fired that Serbu at NFA Day, one handed, and really had no trouble with it at all. it would seem to me that the AR in question would be at least as easy to fire as that.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyDave1776]

Too cumbersome to fire with one hand? I fired a Serbu super-shorty one handed. And I'm not a Schwarzenegger by any means.


Well..... Suppose you have an upper with a 10" barrel. No law against that. And if you have a different upper, one for every rifle lower in your possession, one could presume that you're "good to go", esp. if you have paperwork in for a SBR. You can convincingly make the case that you are assembling a SBR, but waiting to do so for your stamp to be approved, as required. If you have a lower assembled and don't have an upper on it, though, "constructive possession" has reportedly been used as a charge.

And don't get me started on the "fuel filters" being sold online, presumably by ATF. As long as the buyer doesn't own a firearm, I suppose they're probably OK.

The person of whom I'm thinking, however, has an AR with a short barrel, which has to my knowledge, never had a stock on it. Never a brace, a stock, or anything else but the recoil assembly. I know *I* fired that Serbu at NFA Day, one handed, and really had no trouble with it at all. it would seem to me that the AR in question would be at least as easy to fire as that.


Blessings,
Bill

Constructive possession? Isn't that like charging someone with rape because he has a working pair of nuts?

 

[KG1]

Too cumbersome to fire with one hand? I fired a Serbu super-shorty one handed. And I'm not a Schwarzenegger by any means.


Well..... Suppose you have an upper with a 10" barrel. No law against that. And if you have a different upper, one for every rifle lower in your possession, one could presume that you're "good to go", esp. if you have paperwork in for a SBR. You can convincingly make the case that you are assembling a SBR, but waiting to do so for your stamp to be approved, as required. If you have a lower assembled and don't have an upper on it, though, "constructive possession" has reportedly been used as a charge.

And don't get me started on the "fuel filters" being sold online, presumably by ATF. As long as the buyer doesn't own a firearm, I suppose they're probably OK.

The person of whom I'm thinking, however, has an AR with a short barrel, which has to my knowledge, never had a stock on it. Never a brace, a stock, or anything else but the recoil assembly. I know *I* fired that Serbu at NFA Day, one handed, and really had no trouble with it at all. it would seem to me that the AR in question would be at least as easy to fire as that.


Blessings,
Bill

See the issue with the firing with one hand thing is that it's subjective nonsense. It's not whether YOU can fire it with one hand but rather is it too cumbersome for a random biased limp wristed ATF agent with a weak grip to fire it with one hand? I wish I were kidding but that's the kind of crap nonsense criteria they come up with.

 

[flatlander]

OK people I am closing this down if it does not settle out.
I am as pissed at the lefty's that stir up the pile as anyone else but we are on the verge of folks getting some time outs if this escalates.
When I get text's from more than 1 member and my down time gets messed with because of folks being pissed off and few trolls thinking its funny (and KUT this **** aint funny anymore)I will have no problem closing this thread and punting a few of you into the bleachers.

Try me.

WILCO sir. My apologies.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

See the issue with the firing with one hand thing is that it's subjective nonsense. It's not whether YOU can fire it with one hand but rather is it too cumbersome for a random limp wristed ATF agent with a weak grip to fire it with one hand? I wish I were kidding but that's the kind of crap nonsense criteria they come up with.

These are more random restictions on firearms, because liberals perceive features like "a shoulder thing that goes up" as dangerous.

I am not sure the XP100 could pass that brain damaged list.

 

[Magyars]

View attachment 143012

Embrace your inner outlaw....

 

[KG1]

These are more random restictions on firearms, because liberals perceive features like "a shoulder thing that goes up" as dangerous.

I am not sure the XP100 could pass that brain damaged list.
View attachment 143111

I would say no. Right off the bat that’s a rifle scope and the whole thing looks way too cumbersome. The bi-pod is probably a no-no as well not to mention it has an evil muzzle device.

You have three options. Turn it it to the authorities, register it as an nfa item and pay the “keep you out of jail” tax stamp fee or destroy it. There’s a forth option as well.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Constructive possession? Isn't that like charging someone with rape because he has a working pair of nuts?

There is a famous story, not sure if it's a joke or really happened, where a prosecutor challenged a defendant on the stand, "But Mr. Smith, when you were apprehended, you had all the tools necessary to commit a burglary on your person!"

And he answered, "Madame Prosecutor, at this moment, here in this court, you have on your person all the tools necessary to be a prostitute, too."

So yes, basically, that's about the same thing. You could be planning to (whatever) and are assembling the things you need to do it, so we're going to charge you with intent to commit, and you can prove your case in front of a judge.

In a way, I get it. You don't want to wait (for example) until after the child has been abducted and raped, or until the school has been shot up, to stop the crime. Suppose Klebold and Harris had been stopped prior to Columbine and an example made of them? Would we be seeing school shootings the way we do now? Conversely, and more liberty-minded, a person is innocent until proven guilty. It's a difficult line to walk, and I can see both sides of it, as I'm sure many/most/maybe even all of us can. I could even extend it to people in office: We know that Joe WANTS to pass some sweeping "gun control" legislation for his legacy. We want to stop him before he does, but can we fault him or for that matter, can we with any level of intellectual or logical consistency "convict" him in our minds of having already done so prior to his signing the bill into law? We can't, but keeping him from doing so is of the greater importance, so we go on his words telling us that doing so in violation of the Constitution is his intent, and/or his past record of action in favor of doing so.

I'm not sure where the line is. Liberty vs. Safety, a la Ben Franklin, I suppose.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[worddoer]

Just watched this video. I typed up and fired off a letter to my congress critter and our 2 senators. I hope it helps. I'm not sure if our republic functions anymore with the level of fraud and deception in both parties.

 

[BigRed]

In times like these, it is always good to remember our past. History does not not repeat, but does often times rhyme.

Lexington and Concord

Remember Patriot’s Day! Remember Lexington and Concord!

theamericancitadel.com

Rock and Roll.

 

[bwframe]

Dude specifically leaves out the only congressional 2A lobby group we have. Could be that's why we are talking about this in the first place?

 

[IndyDave1776]

There is a famous story, not sure if it's a joke or really happened, where a prosecutor challenged a defendant on the stand, "But Mr. Smith, when you were apprehended, you had all the tools necessary to commit a burglary on your person!"

And he answered, "Madame Prosecutor, at this moment, here in this court, you have on your person all the tools necessary to be a prostitute, too."

So yes, basically, that's about the same thing. You could be planning to (whatever) and are assembling the things you need to do it, so we're going to charge you with intent to commit, and you can prove your case in front of a judge.

In a way, I get it. You don't want to wait (for example) until after the child has been abducted and raped, or until the school has been shot up, to stop the crime. Suppose Klebold and Harris had been stopped prior to Columbine and an example made of them? Would we be seeing school shootings the way we do now? Conversely, and more liberty-minded, a person is innocent until proven guilty. It's a difficult line to walk, and I can see both sides of it, as I'm sure many/most/maybe even all of us can. I could even extend it to people in office: We know that Joe WANTS to pass some sweeping "gun control" legislation for his legacy. We want to stop him before he does, but can we fault him or for that matter, can we with any level of intellectual or logical consistency "convict" him in our minds of having already done so prior to his signing the bill into law? We can't, but keeping him from doing so is of the greater importance, so we go on his words telling us that doing so in violation of the Constitution is his intent, and/or his past record of action in favor of doing so.

I'm not sure where the line is. Liberty vs. Safety, a la Ben Franklin, I suppose.

Blessings,
Bill

I am going to introduce into evidence the historical record of what Franklin et alia did to people like Joe.

 

[femurphy77]

I'm sure that they'll manufacture the required information but I'd like to see the documentation to back up this claim: The National Firearms Act imposes heightened regulations on short-barreled rifles because they are easily concealable, can cause great damage, and are more likely to be used to commit crimes.

 

[jsx1043]

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am going to introduce into evidence the historical record of what Franklin et alia did to people like Joe.

So then, you support finding someone guilty based solely on intent, whether perceived or stated? Or must a citizen actually assemble the SBR to violate the law?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So then, you support finding someone guilty based solely on intent, whether perceived or stated? Or must a citizen actually assemble the SBR to violate the law?

I see no Constitutional allowance for the concept of SBR or any official act to disparage any personal weapon.

 

[darrent]

The worthless ****s even argued on here how great their guy was!!
**** the lowlife, scum sucking pieces of **** that voted for THEIR GUY. Bunch of socialist, Marxists oxygen thieves.

Don't keep things bottled up...lol

 

[jsx1043]

I see no Constitutional allowance for the concept of SBR or any official act to disparage any personal weapon.

This right here.

Say it louder for those in the back of the class too busy posting to Twitter with their “I voted” sticker.

 

[rooster]

I see no Constitutional allowance for the concept of SBR or any official act to disparage any personal weapon.

The Kentucky long rifle was prevalent in the revolutionary war. The founders and their militias used a weapon that had a superior range and accuracy to the Brown Bess that the British army had.

that alone is proof that our founders had no problems with civilians having weapons superior to that of the military regulars.
Had SBR’s or full auto been available at the time I have zero doubts that there use by civilians or militia would have been encouraged by those who wrote the founding documents.

this attempt at regulation is against the very spirit of this countries founding.

The American Longrifle Has A Censored But Very Patriotic Story To Tell

On this Independence Day it’s worth hearing how the American Longrifle helped win the battle for American freedom. If you don’t know this rifle’s starring role in American history you can’t understand America’s link to the gun or why so many firearms manufacturers are moving or expanding away...

www.google.com

 

[tbhausen]

I just watched that video attempting to explain the point system… The bottom line is, all these firearms are going to be off the market and we are being forced to SBR the ones we already have.