New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Angrysauce]

It's up to US to make them know what they care about...

It's easy to sit back and bitch about what our representatives are not doing for us. We are very very good at that.

It's a lot more difficult to make them know that they are accountable to represent us.

How has that worked with that *** Young?

 

[Paul30]

The process they outlined to get a free SBR stamp seemed risky in many ways. If I wanted a SBR, I would get a normal SBR the normal way. It isn't worth a felony, fines in the 250,000 range, 10 years in prison, etc. etc. to avoid a $200 tax. Most will either remove the brace making it a legal pistol, or add a 16 in or longer upper making it a rifle temporarily. You can go from a pistol to a rifle and back again, but you can't go from an original rifle configuration to a pistol. The Thompson Center Fire pistol was the test case that is a good example to look at. If you buy a Thompson single shot pistol, you can add a rifle length barrel and a stock. If you wish to go back to a pistol, you remove the stock. If you purchase it on your form 4473 as a rifle, you cannot remove the stock and put a short barrel on it and call it a pistol. I would make any braced pistols a pistol or a rifle and wait for the courts to correct them. Then you should be able to put the brace back on.

After all, disabled people have a right to shoot a heavy pistol too. Lawfare works in both directions sometimes.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

 

[KellyinAvon]

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I have two questions:

1) If I have an fx9 I bought in factory configuration with a pistol brace, it now needs registered to be legal?

2) I'm technically disabled and struggle to hold a pistol properly, does that mean I can legally possess a brace without registering it? I'm guessing my disability doesn't figure in at all and the brace, if I had one, would need registered but maybe I could still have it?

 

[Cameramonkey]

I have two questions:

1) If I have an fx9 I bought in factory configuration with a pistol brace, it now needs registered to be legal?

2) I'm technically disabled and struggle to hold a pistol properly, does that mean I can legally possess a brace without registering it? I'm guessing my disability doesn't figure in at all and the brace, if I had one, would need registered but maybe I could still have it?

First, IANAL and this is not legal advice.

1: Yes*. (see 2)

2: NO. There is no language I am aware of in the rule carving out exceptions for the disabled. Or anything really. Just register it, destroy it, or modify it so that it meets the definition of a rifle. I guess you only deserve a regular pistol.

 

[JTScribe]

Is it cynical or based that I shrug at the idea of this registration being a back door confiscation list?

If you bought anything firearms related over the internet or used a credit card, the NSA can parse that data. Hell, just being on a site like this probably kicks us up to the top of the list, boating accident jokes aside.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Hit the send button X3. I was THIS CLOSE to adding "Tell Igor I said hi!" to the one I sent to Senator Young.

 

[tackdriver]

I am absolutely against the whole SBR, "silencer", SBS, $200 stamp, finger prints, registration, transfer restrictions, and so on. Bad, bad, bad, and should be done away with.

All that aside, I want to try to be honest for just a moment:

Most people who got one of these braces, did it to fire from the shoulder without the NFA hassle, infringment, and cost. It's pretty simple. I think that Deep down inside, most of us know this whole "pistol brace" thing was all about getting around a BS bad law that we shouldn't have to put up with in the first place. However, the law is what it is. A rifle is "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder", it has a rifled barrel, and fires one round at a time. If a rifle's barrel is less than 16", it is a SBR - even if you put a velcro strap around the butt. Again, being honest, the braces are/were a pretty flimsy way to get around the letter of the law. (I guess a lawyer could argue the 'intended' angle, but...I'm being honest for just a moment.)

The real problem here, for me, is that the f***ing ATF. The ATF said "Yes, you can do that. It's fine." So people bought/built more firearms with short barrels, and more braces to go with them. Companies made more of them, and introduces more variety to fill the demand. Then the f***ng ATF said "Sure, you can put it on your shoulder if you want to. It's fine. That doesn't make it a SBR". This was the final signal, and the flood gates opened.

Now the ATF is saying "STOP! That's a felony! I'll let you do it, but only if you give me $200, comply with my commands, and I choose to give you my permission." Well... That's just bulls**t any way you smell it.

The material problem here is the ATF. The problem is it's ability to make, reverse, reimagine, it's own rules, then enforce them on the public. The problem is it's "authority" to use it's own policies to decide where the line is between compliance and serious felony. - The local PD shouldn't get to define what "distracted driving" is, then ticket me for looking at street signs when they are not meeting their (not-a-quota). - The ATF shouldn't get to decide "this is okay" then "no it's not", and then make felony arrests (or ignore felonies) based on their own whims.

I'm sure the lawsuits are on the way. I don't expect any court to rule that these braces don't modify a firearm into a SBR, in definition. My only hope is that the ATF actions, on braces, bump stocks, fluid traps, etc. etc., prompt both the courts and the legislators to address it's authority and ability to define the law, or neuter it altogether. I hope this little stunt will be the final straw, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[tackdriver]

Is it cynical or based that I shrug at the idea of this registration being a back door confiscation list?

If you bought anything firearms related over the internet or used a credit card, the NSA can parse that data. Hell, just being on a site like this probably kicks us up to the top of the list, boating accident jokes aside.

Exactly! I have long avoided NFA items. I'm very, very, close to just doing it at this point. There are SO many vectors that point to me being a gun owner, and frequent user, that it's not even a question. I might be more concerned if I DON'T do the form1. They could track that I bought a pistol brace - online was the only way I could find what I needed. What if the visits are aimed at owners that didn't sign in? Makes more sense than visiting the people they know bought it, then registered it.

If I jump now I save $200

If I Form 1, I'm likely to reconfigure even more, and enjoy it without always thinking about legal problems.

If I cross the line once, future additions are likely, without worrying about it. (I want a few suppressors, but didn't want the NFA hassle.)

I'm right on the line of do it/don't do it. Don't know what other downsides there may be other than "I'm in the database"

If "do it", the only question left is Individual, Trust, Single-Item Trust.

 

[nonobaddog]

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

Very good letter! I am going to send it to my congress critters. But I bolded one sentence that I don't think belongs between the sentence before it and the one after it. So I will move it somewhere else or just delete it before I send this.
Thank you very much for this letter!

 

[bwframe]

How has that worked with that *** Young?

Until that POS wakes up in the middle of the night with "shall not be infringed" nightmares haunting him, we have not pushed him hard enough.

This is a great start...

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

 

[bwframe]

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

Wonder if we shouldn't send copies of this to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert? They seem to be loud voices that get things done these days?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Wonder if we shouldn't send copies of this to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert? They seem to be loud voices that get things done these days?

Their "official" contact is probably filtered on ZIP like Rep Baird's. Not saying we couldn't find their district, then a random gas station and use that address... hhhhmmmmm

 

[grillak]

uhhh....did anyone notice the press conference where the "AG" mentioned the 1/4 of a billion dollars that the atf is currently missing out on?

wouldn't you know... i can't find the utube vid

i'll keep looking

 

[Basher]

I am absolutely against the whole SBR, "silencer", SBS, $200 stamp, finger prints, registration, transfer restrictions, and so on. Bad, bad, bad, and should be done away with.

All that aside, I want to try to be honest for just a moment:

Most people who got one of these braces, did it to fire from the shoulder without the NFA hassle, infringment, and cost. It's pretty simple. I think that Deep down inside, most of us know this whole "pistol brace" thing was all about getting around a BS bad law that we shouldn't have to put up with in the first place. However, the law is what it is. A rifle is "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder", it has a rifled barrel, and fires one round at a time. If a rifle's barrel is less than 16", it is a SBR - even if you put a velcro strap around the butt. Again, being honest, the braces are/were a pretty flimsy way to get around the letter of the law. (I guess a lawyer could argue the 'intended' angle, but...I'm being honest for just a moment.)

The real problem here, for me, is that the f***ing ATF. The ATF said "Yes, you can do that. It's fine." So people bought/built more firearms with short barrels, and more braces to go with them. Companies made more of them, and introduces more variety to fill the demand. Then the f***ng ATF said "Sure, you can put it on your shoulder if you want to. It's fine. That doesn't make it a SBR". This was the final signal, and the flood gates opened.

Now the ATF is saying "STOP! That's a felony! I'll let you do it, but only if you give me $200, comply with my commands, and I choose to give you my permission." Well... That's just bulls**t any way you smell it.

The material problem here is the ATF. The problem is it's ability to make, reverse, reimagine, it's own rules, then enforce them on the public. The problem is it's "authority" to use it's own policies to decide where the line is between compliance and serious felony. - The local PD shouldn't get to define what "distracted driving" is, then ticket me for looking at street signs when they are not meeting their (not-a-quota). - The ATF shouldn't get to decide "this is okay" then "no it's not", and then make felony arrests (or ignore felonies) based on their own whims.

I'm sure the lawsuits are on the way. I don't expect any court to rule that these braces don't modify a firearm into a SBR, in definition. My only hope is that the ATF actions, on braces, bump stocks, fluid traps, etc. etc., prompt both the courts and the legislators to address it's authority and ability to define the law, or neuter it altogether. I hope this little stunt will be the final straw, but I'm not holding my breath.

The problems are a) the SBR rule is taxation/extortion, and b) this new brace rule is entrapment, IMO. They said they were fine for OVER A DECADE and now, in an effort to force additional control on us w/ threats of imprisonment, they’ve changed their minds. They’ve laid a trap out, we all fell in to it (when we should have told them all to **** off originally anyway), and now here we are.

“Mr. & Mrs. America, we know we originally said these were fine, but we’ve changed our minds, turn them in.”

Mass non-compliance only works if it’s (wait for it…) MASS NON-COMPLIANCE. I don’t have an AR pistol or brace, but if I did, the ATF wouldn’t be getting **** from me. Period.

 

[Basher]

…Millions and millions of registered rifles with no way to avoid doing what they say…

Well, there IS a way, but it’s a last resort and no sane person would like it. But we’re pushing up against that option awfully damn fast…

 

[SOUP]

Millions of these braces have been legally purchased and obtained…

imagine how many people there are that have them and don’t follow social media or news outlets, or forums like this that will have ZERO idea that the pistol braced gun in their safe or closet is now an “sbr” because the ATF changed their minds. Again.

Their antics need to stop. This might sound dramatic, but it’s betrayal of law abiding American people… it’s the definition of treason.

 

[grillak]

wweelll...

i pick my 300blk PISTOL up monday

 

[bwframe]

Their "official" contact is probably filtered on ZIP like Rep Baird's. Not saying we couldn't find their district, then a random gas station and use that address... hhhhmmmmm

That sounds great sir! Your talent and knowledge are a great asset to the 2A.

Wonder if other loud national voices can stir up attention on these infringements to our folks across the country? People in news and reporting the news along with commenting on the news...

Tomi Lahren
Dan Bongino
Pete Hegseth
Johnny Joey Jones
etc, etc, etc...

We really need to get the news out on this. Especially before...

- The other side successfully spins this as "gun safety."
- The naive among us fall for this ATF/government trap of "free" NFA registration.

Folks on the other side and even our side of this could get dug in on this, before realizing how bad it is, justifying their own words and actions. Once set in, a lot won't give in to admit being wrong.

Hopefully Guy will be on the air today to give his valuable take on this locally...

WIBC to air "The Gun Guy with Guy Relford" every Saturday

Guy subbing for Hammer. Talking politics and the Colts now, but bound to get around to guns... https://tunein.com/radio/WIBC-931-s52361/ Ditto...

www.indianagunowners.com

WIBC, 93.1 FM, Indianapolis, IN | Free Internet Radio | TuneIn

WIBC - WIBC News is Indianapolis’ leading source for news, weather, sports, and engaging discussions—available for free on TuneIn! To listen to WIBC Radio, click the button to get your daily WIBC Radio news and talk. In addition to regular WIBC content,...

tunein.com

Maybe he'll get a bit more local influence out to the other WIBC hosts.