New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Ingomike]

Tell us you havent read the whole thread without telling us you havent read the thread.

(Dupe of post 400)

GOA lawyer with some interesting points about the ruling.
Talked about an 88 day automatic denial if your application wasn't approved in that time.
Also brought up the fact that what the ATF is doing it backward from their norm (typically you get permission - tax stamp- then build your item, this time, you already have the item before getting permission).

 

[tackdriver]

Full stop. The AF has said that braces were legal. The stated bumpstocks were fine. The ATF says a LOT of **** they change their minds on continually. Why ANYONE would be dumb enough to fall for this latest in a long line of lies is beyond my comprehension. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me again and again and again and again..... well that's just me being a moron.

If I were saying to trust the ATF, you'd have a point.

If I were arguing that the ATF's opinions determined the law, you'd have a point.

My point was that the publicized statements by the ATF gives a person a good reason to believe that they are not committing a crime. The case, STAPLES v UNITED STATES, I referred to is a SCOTUS decision that what the possessor reasonably believes is critically important. This was specifically a case involving the possession of a NFA firearm (machinegun). I haven't read it in it's entirety, but the take away seemed to be that the possessor had to know that the gun was a machinegun, and that it was unlawful to possess without the stamp/approval. The defendant argued that he didn't know the gun could be full-auto, or that he was violating the law, and SCOTUS sided with him against the ATF. In this case, reasonable was a defense. (Noteworthy: SCOTUS said that this didn't apply in a similar Handgrenade case, because it wasn't reasonable or common for people to believe it was okay to have them. Guns are more common. Pistols with braces seem to fit into the common category also.)

In the immediate "pistol-brace" situation, the statements by the ATF about compliance - the 120 grace period, and the exception durring the Form 1 process if initiated durring the 120 day period - give me, and many others, a very reasonable belief that I am not committing a crime that I can be prosecuted for.

It's not about the ATF's authority to decide the law. It's not about trusting the ATF. It's not about what their intentions are now, if they will change their minds, or what their intentions will be in 6 months. It's all about whether I can be prosecuted and found guilty. That turns on whether I had a reason to believe I was committing a crime, or not. This is the point I was going after.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If I were saying to trust the ATF, you'd have a point.

If I were arguing that the ATF's opinions determined the law, you'd have a point.

My point was that the publicized statements by the ATF gives a person a good reason to believe that they are not committing a crime. The case, STAPLES v UNITED STATES, I referred to is a SCOTUS decision that what the possessor reasonably believes is critically important. This was specifically a case involving the possession of a NFA firearm (machinegun). I haven't read it in it's entirety, but the take away seemed to be that the possessor had to know that the gun was a machinegun, and that it was unlawful to possess without the stamp/approval. The defendant argued that he didn't know the gun could be full-auto, or that he was violating the law, and SCOTUS sided with him against the ATF. In this case, reasonable was a defense. (Noteworthy: SCOTUS said that this didn't apply in a similar Handgrenade case, because it wasn't reasonable or common for people to believe it was okay to have them. Guns are more common. Pistols with braces seem to fit into the common category also.)

In the immediate "pistol-brace" situation, the statements by the ATF about compliance - the 120 grace period, and the exception durring the Form 1 process if initiated durring the 120 day period - give me, and many others, a very reasonable belief that I am not committing a crime that I can be prosecuted for.

It's not about the ATF's authority to decide the law. It's not about trusting the ATF. It's not about what their intentions are now, if they will change their minds, or what their intentions will be in 6 months. It's all about whether I can be prosecuted and found guilty. That turns on whether I had a reason to believe I was committing a crime, or not. This is the point I was going after.

Yep. Given their back and forth on rules, I wouldn’t put it past them to change their minds yet again and just tell us something like “ sorry. Changed our minds. It’s going to be $200 after all. Pay up.” Or “never mind they are just illegal. Turn them in or destroy them in the next 120 days or you are a felon. “

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You forgot the obligatory:

A new Navy recruit has his first day on the submarine. He speaks with the officer, who assigns him his post. "Go stand at the periscope entry-way, and make sure no unauthorized personnel touch the periscope." The recruit follows orders, and stands by the periscope. After 15 minutes, the officer stops by. "Son I'm changing your post to the mess hal. Go in there and start washing some dishes." The recruit obeys, and heads to the mess hall. He's cleaned about 3 dishes when the officer walks up again. "Listen here recruit, your new post is in the supply room. need you to make sure everything is strapped down tight, in case of rough waters. The recruit again follows orders, and heads off to the supply room. There, he sees a crewman, moving some boxes. "Hey there," says the recruit. "is it normal to keep getting reassigned to new posts all day? I havent kept one position for more than 15 minutes!" The crewman says "Oh yeah- this sub is full of reposts."

 

[nucular]

As i have never purchased a AR pistol, were these sold as pistols or rifle or other? If you have one and covert it to a rifle would that be illegal if sold as a pistol?? I no longer have any ar with pistol braces but was just curious about this?

Yes you can just convert to rifle and be done.

Also, by the wording of the rule, I'm not even sure you can just dispose of the brace and be OK. AR pistols are technically not allowed as there is 'surface area' on the back of a buffer tube that you could shoulder. I can't imagine there are nearly as many of those as there are braced ARs but still...

 

[d.kaufman]

I expect it will be however they handle it now if you get denied.

The difference is with a standard form 1 you do not manufacture the SBR UNTIL you have approval. With this "amnesty" crap, you are admitting you are already in possession of a de facto SBR based on the BATFE's flip flopping.

Snorko Answered what the difference was already

 

[snorko]

Snorko Answered what the difference was already

As if that guy knows anything about anything!

 

[Tombs]

I expect it will be however they handle it now if you get denied.

Not legally possible.

If you fail the check, then you are a felon in possession of an NFA firearm. This means you will absolutely get in some legal trouble.

What do you think happens to you if you're a felon in possession of an NFA firearm, that has just mailed them proof of that felony.

 

[KLB]

Not legally possible.

If you fail the check, then you are a felon in possession of an NFA firearm. This means you will absolutely get in some legal trouble.

What do you think happens to you if you're a felon in possession of an NFA firearm, that has just mailed them proof of that felony.

Well, you're not a felon until they convict you.

 

[Tombs]

Well, you're not a felon until they convict you.

That's all fine and good, you're still a prohibited person in possession of an NFA firearm.

You're going to get rolled up.

 

[Cameramonkey]

That's all fine and good, you're still a prohibited person in possession of an NFA firearm.

You're going to get rolled up.

At least somebody is. They may not be able to keep up. So just hope you are at the bottom of the list and they give up somewhere above you. Or they could just issue warrants and wait till you pop up elsewhere. Like a traffic stop.

 

[Sigblitz]

This thread has been educational. The ATF division split off from the IRS to be the vice tax collector and enforcer.
It improves the IRS image and insulates the law makers. They're just stooges we can be mad at while we write the people who told them to shake us down. And Biden can say he banned ar15's again.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Not legally possible.

If you fail the check, then you are a felon in possession of an NFA firearm. This means you will absolutely get in some legal trouble.

What do you think happens to you if you're a felon in possession of an NFA firearm, that has just mailed them proof of that felony.

If you fail the check that means you are a prohibited person, so it doesn't matter if the rifle you have has been made into an SBR yet or not, you are a felon (or other prohibited person) in possession of a firearm. How do they handle that now?

 

[Sigblitz]

Appointed beuracrats can't make laws. This will be struck down. In the meantime, they've done something.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Appointed beuracrats can't make laws. This will be struck down. In the meantime, they've done something.

Dont hold your breath. All three branches of .gov have let them for a decade or more.
Lets hope that suddenly changes. (But I wont hold my breath because good conservatives are afraid to vote against crap like this because "for the children". (as they will be vilified by the leftitsts and therefore afraid they wont be re-elected)

 

[Expat]

Appointed beuracrats can't make laws. This will be struck down. In the meantime, they've done something.

Thats all well and good, but how long did it take for the bump stock ban to get overturned?

 

[JAL]

Thats all well and good, but how long did it take for the bump stock ban to get overturned?

It's still not overturned completely . . . only in the 5th Circuit jurisdiction and that one is res judicata within that jurisdiction for now - subject to any SCOTUS action. One or two other circuits have upheld it. I predict SCOTUS will take it up as one party or another in one of the circuit cases will petition for a Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS . . . which I'd bet dollars to donuts will be granted as there are conflicting circuit rulings . . . something SCOTUS is supposed to resolve for consistency across the U.S. You're right . . . it's taken years and will drag on for one or two more. What needs to occur is a binding Temporary Restraining Order or an equivalent order to block AFT and DoJ from enforcement pending the Federal Courts ruling on its constitutionality.

 

[KLB]

Dont hold your breath. All three branches of .gov have let them for a decade or more.
Lets hope that suddenly changes. (But I wont hold my breath because good conservatives are afraid to vote against crap like this because "for the children". (as they will be vilified by the leftitsts and therefore afraid they wont be re-elected)

Try more like 50 years or more. The Chevron case was 1984.

 

[tackdriver]

Form 1s for SBRs aren't taking 12 months. More like 1-2 months. Form 4s and form 1s for suppressors are at 9ish months.

I think both are right, depanding on whether you eFile or paper file. 1 month or 12 months.

 

[nucular]

I think both are right, depanding on whether you eFile or paper file. 1 month or 12 months.

That could be but is anyone actually submitting paper forms at this point for anything?