New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[bwframe]

You mean all those people who haven't repealed one piece of gun control legislation in their entire careers?

Yes.

This is EXACTLY why we need to call them out on it. They need to be made to publicly take a side on this.

It's up to US to get this done.

.

 

[nonobaddog]

First lawsuit dropped yesterday in the Northern District of Texas "Mock v Garland" . . . by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) seeking relief

Do you really mean dropped?
Or what do you mean?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Do you really mean dropped?
Or what do you mean?

I believe he means filed.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The states that don’t allow SBRs include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

IL actually allowed SBRs a few years ago, but you need an FFL 03 (C&R license) to have one with an OAL <26in (<16in barrel with >26 OAL is fine without FFL)

 

[nonobaddog]

IL actually allowed SBRs a few years ago, but you need an FFL 03 (C&R license) to have one with an OAL <26in (<16in barrel with >26 OAL is fine without FFL)

What did the FFL 03 have to do with it? That seems completely unrelated.

 

[nonobaddog]

I believe he means filed.

OK, I hope so.
Dropped means more like unfiled than filed.

 

[bobzilla]

OK, I hope so.
Dropped means more like unfiled than filed.

I think he meant more like a mike drop, or dropped on the desk type of reference and not a legal one.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What did the FFL 03 have to do with it? That seems completely unrelated.

IIRC it was related to some petition from WWII re-enactors wanting period-accurate weapons. I think it comes down to the fact IL legislature can't do anything in a simple, straightforward manner. They always have to throw in hoops to jump through for the sake of making people jump through hoops.

 

[tackdriver]

That all sounds great, but right now the Democrats control the Senate and presidency, and even when Republicans have held both plus the house in recent memory, they've shown no interest in moving anything forward that helps protect our 2A rights.

The courts, on the other hand, have been more favorable to protecting our 2A rights in the last few years than they were for a LONG time before that. Plus, with how obviously capricious and nebulous this new "rule" is, it's hardly even a 2A issue (well it is, but it's much more than that at the same time) and has less to do with whether or not the NFA violates the 2nd Amendment, and more to do with the fact that the ATF already drew a line with what they said constituted a stock or didn't, and now they want to change it on a whim, so it should be a case that just about can't be lost in court.

I agree with everything you're saying.

I was specifically referring to the Congressional Review Act I first saw mentioned back in post #122 (?), and then heard politicians blabing about it. If I understand it, the House - without the Senate - can simply review and agency's rule and reject it.

One and done. No new bill to create or amend law. No need for the Senate or the President. Bang, done, the rule has no effect. Some representatives are already talking about wanting to do this.

I think this is Perfect for them at this time. The Republicans keep yammering about their duty and authority for oversight of the alphabet soup. Acting on this now gives them a very focused, specific, and limited target. They are defending the current status quoe, not doing something new. They are reigning in an agency that's going after citizens property, not putting new scarry guns on the street. It also sends a clear message to the executive agencies, tests the effectivenes of the CRA "in combat", AND signals to the voters that they are serious for once. Low cost, easy win, good air-time, and a boost in credibility. Sounds like a lay-up!

I'm probably missing something big about the CRA, or some undercurrent in the swamp. I want to read up on the CRA more.

I think we can win in the courts - eventually - probably. Unfortunately I think the ATF's attorneys already have a game plan along the lines of "Well, yea, they were just opinions on specific situations. Unfortunately, the guys that wrote those made innocent errors, and then the public misunderstood the meaning. This Rule was meant to correct and clearify exactly what the law is, and has always been." ... and on it goes. I'd love to have Congress neuter the rule today, and then the court battles tomorrow.

Either way, time to fight.

 

[tackdriver]

All this for a ****ing brace. You can have the gun but you can't shoulder it. Maybe next they can outlaw bag rest. After all, they make rifle more dangerous. I might have put this in purple but given the ATF this remains as an actual possibility. Brace = felony. Ridiculous.

Don't forget those bloodthirsty bi-pod accessories!!!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I agree with everything you're saying.

I was specifically referring to the Congressional Review Act I first saw mentioned back in post #122 (?), and then heard politicians blabing about it. If I understand it, the House - without the Senate - can simply review and agency's rule and reject it.

One and done. No new bill to create or amend law. No need for the Senate or the President. Bang, done, the rule has no effect. Some representatives are already talking about wanting to do this.

I think this is Perfect for them at this time. The Republicans keep yammering about their duty and authority for oversight of the alphabet soup. Acting on this now gives them a very focused, specific, and limited target. They are defending the current status quoe, not doing something new. They are reigning in an agency that's going after citizens property, not putting new scarry guns on the street. It also sends a clear message to the executive agencies, tests the effectivenes of the CRA "in combat", AND signals to the voters that they are serious for once. Low cost, easy win, good air-time, and a boost in credibility. Sounds like a lay-up!

I'm probably missing something big about the CRA, or some undercurrent in the swamp. I want to read up on the CRA more.

I think we can win in the courts - eventually - probably. Unfortunately I think the ATF's attorneys already have a game plan along the lines of "Well, yea, they were just opinions on specific situations. Unfortunately, the guys that wrote those made innocent errors, and then the public misunderstood the meaning. This Rule was meant to correct and clearify exactly what the law is, and has always been." ... and on it goes. I'd love to have Congress neuter the rule today, and then the court battles tomorrow.

Either way, time to fight.

Oh wow. I didn't realize that part (about it just being the house that needs to vote.) That really does sound like the route things ought to go, then.

 

[PRasko]

 

[Cameramonkey]

And if you do write your congresscritter, stroke their egos and remind them of their duties/power. Remind them that passing laws is THEIR job, not alphabet agencies, and that the ATF stepped on their toes and took their power away from them when they made these rules instead of asking them to pass a law like they are supposed to per the constitution.

Make them want to throw this rule out for the ATF not staying in their own lane.

 

[yote hunter]

For those with them ugly braces on them ugly guns, the ice sure is thin out so be careful if you take that ugly brace gun with you fishing !
You might fall thru the ice and lose it ?

 

[JAL]

Do you really mean dropped?
Or what do you mean?

Filed

 

[JAL]

I agree with everything you're saying.

I was specifically referring to the Congressional Review Act I first saw mentioned back in post #122 (?), and then heard politicians blabing about it. If I understand it, the House - without the Senate - can simply review and agency's rule and reject it.

One and done. No new bill to create or amend law. No need for the Senate or the President. Bang, done, the rule has no effect. Some representatives are already talking about wanting to do this.

I think this is Perfect for them at this time. The Republicans keep yammering about their duty and authority for oversight of the alphabet soup. Acting on this now gives them a very focused, specific, and limited target. They are defending the current status quoe, not doing something new. They are reigning in an agency that's going after citizens property, not putting new scarry guns on the street. It also sends a clear message to the executive agencies, tests the effectivenes of the CRA "in combat", AND signals to the voters that they are serious for once. Low cost, easy win, good air-time, and a boost in credibility. Sounds like a lay-up!

I'm probably missing something big about the CRA, or some undercurrent in the swamp. I want to read up on the CRA more.

I think we can win in the courts - eventually - probably. Unfortunately I think the ATF's attorneys already have a game plan along the lines of "Well, yea, they were just opinions on specific situations. Unfortunately, the guys that wrote those made innocent errors, and then the public misunderstood the meaning. This Rule was meant to correct and clearify exactly what the law is, and has always been." ... and on it goes. I'd love to have Congress neuter the rule today, and then the court battles tomorrow.

Either way, time to fight.

CRA was enacted in 1996, originated by Newt Gingrich, and signed into law by Clinton.
Requires a Joint Resolution, passing both House and Senate - has method to go around Senate Filibuster/Cloture Rule.
Must be signed by POTUS, allowed to pass into effect without signature, or vetoed.
Requires 2/3 veto override in House and Senate if POTUS vetoes it.

You'll never get it past a presidential veto even if you do get it through the Senate. However, it could signal Congressional disapproval of it to the courts.

Lengthy details on CRA can be read here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act

 

[printcraft]

Just saw this tidbit.

"Stabilizing braces transform a pistol into a weapon that's powerful and easy to conceal"

By adding more than double the length to it...

"more power" ?
I guess the same as if I put chrome valve covers on my chevy V8, it makes at least 20% more horsepower.

 

[nonobaddog]

"more power" ?
I guess the same as if I put chrome valve covers on my chevy V8, it makes at least 20% more horsepower.

Yeah, chrome is awesome that way, you can add it anywhere, engine, interior, doors, wheels, etc. - and Boof!... more power!

 

[williamnewman1]

At USDS in Bloomington today and they were going over their Q/A they had with the ATF on Monday.
I had asked them some questions to check on and they had a huge list for clarification.

One I did not expect was mounting a scope or magnifier on a pistol can now be considered a SBR. Only pistol length eye relief scopes or unlimited eye relief such as holos and red dots are OK.

To be clear holosight on pistol OK by ATF, add a magnifier now its a SBR and a felony if not registered as such.

Someone can probably come along and explain this better, but this is straight from the ATF PowerPoint they were shown.

Just a polite heads up .....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, chrome is awesome that way, you can add it anywhere, engine, interior, doors, wheels, etc. - and Boof!... more power!