DOJ Seeks to make AR Pistols NFA SBRs

[KG1]

No, not at all. I think Obama was more principled than old businessman Trump or old politician Biden. I think Obama actually considered the limits of his presidential powers. I don’t think Trump nor Biden particular care. The only difference, is that something anti-2A made by Trump wouldn’t generate nearly as much unrest as something anti-2A from Biden. That’s my opinion, at least.

IDGAF who is at the helm. Biden currently resides in the oval office. If he makes any move toward gutting 2A rights I will oppose it vigorously. The proposed pistol brace ban is just the first step. It doesn't matter one wit what happened in previous administrations.

 

[darrent]

Well, I gotta say, this whole thing is surprising. I remember when braces couldn’t be shouldered, and then during the Obama admin, it was changed and we were allowed to do so. I do not recall people heaping accolades on him for it. Then under Trump, he banned bunpstocks, and then unsuccessfully went after braces. Some members grumbled. Some others were like “well, it an accessory.” Now Biden goes after braces, and there’s a universal consensus about this being bad... and yes, I’m in agreement. I can’t help but wonder if the lukewarm opposition to Trump’s stances were due to people being reluctant to criticize him. Is that not a fair criticism? Of the 3 presidents, our 2A rights explanded only under Obama.

I think it was less about Trump and more about not as many people being fans of bump stocks. Don't try to make Obama some hero here. He banned the importation of some weapons coming into the country. He would have done more, but Obamacare took away his political clout to do so (his comments are on the record if you want to Google). You're welcome to live in your own reality, but let's not rewrite history.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it was less about Trump and more about not as many people being fans of bump stocks. Don't try to make Obama some hero here. He banned the importation of some weapons coming into the country. He would have done more, but Obamacare took away his political clout to do so (his comments are on the record if you want to Google). You're welcome to live in your own reality, but let's not rewrite history.

I’m not making Obama a hero. If he had the ability to ban guns, he would’ve banned guns. The fact remains, our 2A rights expanded, and he followed the law as 2A supporters, I suspect, would like even if they won’t admit it. Rhetoric aside, that’s the reality of it.

 

[bwframe]

 

[BigRed]

I've said for a long time that I detest all these ******** regardless of wing in the uniparty.

Let the dissolution of the central state begin.

 

[KellyinAvon]

10,922 public comments

 

[Mgderf]

Well, I gotta say, this whole thing is surprising. I remember when braces couldn’t be shouldered, and then during the Obama admin, it was changed and we were allowed to do so. I do not recall people heaping accolades on him for it. Then under Trump, he banned bunpstocks, and then unsuccessfully went after braces. Some members grumbled. Some others were like “well, it an accessory.” Now Biden goes after braces, and there’s a universal consensus about this being bad... and yes, I’m in agreement. I can’t help but wonder if the lukewarm opposition to Trump’s stances were due to people being reluctant to criticize him. Is that not a fair criticism? Of the 3 presidents, our 2A rights explanded only under Obama.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Nazgul]

Our founding fathers were never concerned about specific kinds of firearms. They were very concerned with specific kinds of governments.

Don

 

[KellyinAvon]

44,603

 

[KG1]

44,603

Still gotta pump those numbers up. If there are millions of braces out there then there should be a lot more comments to reflect that.

 

[yote hunter]

Question : asking for a friend
1. So if a fella has AR pistols and they pass this BS on braces and a fella takes the upper off and removes the brace and adds a rifle stock or adjustable stock and a rifle upper he now just has a AR rifle.
2. If the fella then just puts the brace and pistol uppers away not on a lower is he still breaking the law by just having them.
My friend will be waiting for answers .
Thank you for your time, please continue.

 

[KG1]

Question : asking for a friend
1. So if a fella has AR pistols and they pass this BS on braces and a fella takes the upper off and removes the brace and adds a rifle stock or adjustable stock and a rifle upper he now just has a AR rifle.
2. If the fella then just puts the brace and pistol uppers away not on a lower is he still breaking the law by just having them.
My friend will be waiting for answers .
Thank you for your time, please continue.

Question # 1. You can go from a pistol upper on a lower receiver to a rifle length upper with a buttstock but you can't go the other way around if it originated as a rifle.

Once a rifle, always a rifle is the rule of thumb.

 

[dudley0]

Question : asking for a friend
1. So if a fella has AR pistols and they pass this BS on braces and a fella takes the upper off and removes the brace and adds a rifle stock or adjustable stock and a rifle upper he now just has a AR rifle.
2. If the fella then just puts the brace and pistol uppers away not on a lower is he still breaking the law by just having them.
My friend will be waiting for answers .
Thank you for your time, please continue.

Question #2: You can keep the short upper as long as you have a pistol lower for it. Otherwise might be constructive intent (to make an SBR). The brace would depend on if they made them all illegal, ala bumpstocks.

 

[yote hunter]

Question #2: You can keep the short upper as long as you have a pistol lower for it. Otherwise might be constructive intent (to make an SBR). The brace would depend on if they made them all illegal, ala bumpstocks.

That don’t really make since to me !
The upper is just that , a upper .
If it’s not a fixed to a lower it’s nothing more then a extra upper that you bought with the intent to buy a lower to build a SBR and pay the stamp fee.

So I guess if this BS happens then the best thing is just pay the $200 and take the pistol appart until you receive your paperwork for a SBR. ? Then get rid of the brace and put a stock of your choice and tell the ATF to suck it , I’m legal !!!!!

 

[bwframe]

...So I guess if this BS happens then the best thing is just pay the $200 and take the pistol appart until you receive your paperwork for a SBR. ? Then get rid of the brace and put a stock of your choice and tell the ATF to suck it , I’m legal !!!!!

If you think this is a good time to go signing up your weapons with the gubment?

 

[yote hunter]

If you think this is a good time to go signing up your weapons with the gubment?

I don’t truly think it will pass , I believe the courts will stand behind the constitution

 

[KellyinAvon]

If you think this is a good time to go signing up your weapons with the gubment?

^^^This!! Purple and all!!^^^

 

[dudley0]

That don’t really make since to me. The upper is just that , a upper .
If it’s not a fixed to a lower it’s nothing more then a extra upper that you bought with the intent to buy a lower to build a SBR and pay the stamp fee.

So I guess if this BS happens then the best thing is just pay the $200 and take the pistol appart until you receive your paperwork for a SBR. ? Then get rid of the brace and put a stock of your choice and tell the ATF to suck it , I’m legal !!!!!

I have SBR's. Had them before what I consider the pistol craze. Only reasons I built pistols is cost savings. No tax stamp. I don't get the vertical grip and I don't get the buttstock I want, but for my .22lr no worries. The latest build is set to be a truck gun. If someone breaks into my vehicle while I am in the mall I am not out the stamp as well.

Never said it made sense about constructive intent. Also have never heard of a case where the ATF busted in and popped someone for it. Maybe used it as an add-on to an ongoing investigation.

Think about this. The majority of pistols today have a rail underneath. Mount a vertical grip on it and now you have an SBR. Funny, isn't it.

 

[yote hunter]

I have SBR's. Had them before what I consider the pistol craze. Only reasons I built pistols is cost savings. No tax stamp. I don't get the vertical grip and I don't get the buttstock I want, but for my .22lr no worries. The latest build is set to be a truck gun. If someone breaks into my vehicle while I am in the mall I am not out the stamp as well.

Never said it made sense about constructive intent. Also have never heard of a case where the ATF busted in and popped someone for it. Maybe used it as an add-on to an ongoing investigation.

Think about this. The majority of pistols today have a rail underneath. Mount a vertical grip on it and now you have an SBR. Funny, isn't it.

True never thought of it that way . Thx for shedding some new light on this subject.