New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Cavman]

It probably isn't easy to sue the feds for damages, but most of the brace people initially had ATF position letters stating that their product was legal. I know I had a copy that came with my Sig Brace back years and years ago. I would think that would make a pretty good prima facie case.

Unfortunately if they could sue the atf its the tax payers thatll pay as always. Be nice if the could garnish the people who said they're now illegal salary

 

[MikeDVB]

Unfortunately if they could sue the atf its the tax payers thatll pay as always. Be nice if the could garnish the people who said they're now illegal salary

That's the way it always is though.

The government is tax-funded. If you ever win anything from the government - it comes from that funding.

The real win would be if the suit got the rule/law changed.

 

[firecadet613]

So I was doing some research on this whole situation trying to understand it. Researching the NFA and why an SBR needs a tax stamp and registered where as a pistol or rifle does not, etc.

So it seems, from my understanding, NFA was originally designed to make all gun ownership cost prohibitive. It was introduced back when you could get a firearm for ~$3 and the tax was $200. Granted $200 isn't much now as it hasn't been adjusted for inflation - but when NFA was proposed/introduced it essentially made guns cost prohibitive.

Originally the NFA was to cover hand guns as well - but it seems that the people were able to get that removed from the bill. My understanding is that the reason short barreled rifles and shotguns are NFA items is to avoid them basically being converted into something that could be easily concealed, like a handgun could be.

I.e. if the NFA essentially banned handguns by making them too expensive - people could then take their rifles and shotguns and cut them down to make them handgun-like in size and getting around the NFA.

The silly part, imho, is that since we were able to get handguns off the NFA back then - it doesn't make sense to control short barreled rifles and shotguns ... because if one wants an easily concealed gun they need not shorten a rifle or shotgun - handguns are readily available.

That said - I suspect it still exists due to a) forcing people to register and b) $$$ [tax stamps].

Basically the whole thing is a farse and should be repealed, imho - but I'm sure you probably knew that.

This whole stabilizing brace thing is a joke. First they said it was ok - and now they changed their mind... All because it makes the 'pistol' a 'short rifle' which is only prohibited because shortening it makes it "concealable" like a "pistol".......

Great post, thanks!

 

[STEEL CORE]

I don’t have any braces, but if they come for braces snd I don’t fo anything, whats next for the stuff I do have?!?

 

[PRasko]

I had bought a brace on here to try because of ulnar nerve issues in my right arm and it just didn't work out. Sold it at a local show. How do I prove I sold it?

 

[88E30M50]

I had bought a brace on here to try because of ulnar nerve issues in my right arm and it just didn't work out. Sold it at a local show. How do I prove I sold it?

That supports the idea that compliance cannot be proven. Non-compliance is a gray area that can mean whatever they want it to mean on a particular day.

 

[MCgrease08]

I had bought a brace on here to try because of ulnar nerve issues in my right arm and it just didn't work out. Sold it at a local show. How do I prove I sold it?

Why would you need to prove that you sold it?

You don't have to "prove" you haven't broken the law.

 

[88E30M50]

At what point does a pistol stop being a pistol and if it does, is the 'once a rifle, always a rifle' rule in place?

If this abomination is not struck down, is it possible to put a rifle upper on a pistol, then later pull the stock and run it as a pistol again? Or, did it become a rifle when it had a rifle upper installed.

This is assuming that it was not purchased as a rifle to begin with.

How about anyone that bought an AR pistol that was declared to be a pistol on the 4473? Does putting a 16" upper on it make it a rifle or, is it a long barreled pistol?

So many questions in this pig of a rule.

 

[nonobaddog]

I had bought a brace on here to try because of ulnar nerve issues in my right arm and it just didn't work out. Sold it at a local show. How do I prove I sold it?

After they destroy your front door and trash your whole house looking for it and shoot your dog, you can ask them if they would be nice enough to give you a statement that you don't have one.

 

[manifest destiny]

Crash your house, terrorize your children, shoot your dog, throw your dirty laundry on the front lawn.... for a brace. The icing on the cake will be when they refer to you as a extreme survivalist because you had a tent, sleeping bag and spare batteries for your flashlight.

 

[Michigan Slim]

It does, but sometimes it lets things slide through that probably shouldn't. Best practice IMO is to check your post to see if the auto-censor worked. If it didn't (and you think you said something that would've gotten you in trouble), edit the post and use the asterisks where needed.

I got a notification on a post that must not have ***. And it was a longer one.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Abolishing the NFA would be better but this is a good start.


“The continued existence of the ATF is increasingly unwarranted based on the actions they're taking to convert otherwise law-abiding people into felons," he said. "My bill would abolish the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to try defunding the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to target the individual bureaucrats at the top of the ATF who have exceeded their authority in rulemaking. And if that doesn't work, we're going to take a meat cleaver to the statutes that the ATF believes broadly authorize their actions."”

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the "Abolish the ATF Act" on Tuesday following a controversial ruling by the agency that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Cavman]

Abolishing the NFA would be better but this is a good start.


“The continued existence of the ATF is increasingly unwarranted based on the actions they're taking to convert otherwise law-abiding people into felons," he said. "My bill would abolish the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to try defunding the ATF. If that doesn't work, we're going to target the individual bureaucrats at the top of the ATF who have exceeded their authority in rulemaking. And if that doesn't work, we're going to take a meat cleaver to the statutes that the ATF believes broadly authorize their actions."”

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the "Abolish the ATF Act" on Tuesday following a controversial ruling by the agency that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.

www.foxnews.com

Infuriating ya don't see any hoosier reps doing squat about it. I wrote Erin housing. 0 response except automatic reply crap

 

[manifest destiny]

"Rule" making, by unelected bureaucrats, that have the weight of law needs to stop. If an agency believes the law should be changed, re-interpreted or otherwise amended, they should put that in writing to the legislators. The lawmakers can then take a vote. I realize the legal argument that congress created the bureaucracies to work in their stead, but it's gone too far. In this particular case the ATF has done nothing more than 'change their collective mind'. They are literally outlawing on a Monday what they said, in writing, was legal the previous Friday. You don't like it? You don't want to play along? You're a felon and the full, sometimes deadly, weight of the federal government will be used to force your compliance. That, IMO, is tyranny. A whimsical creation of law benefitting the king. It's a ****ing brace!!

 

[indykid]

It would be a dream come true, that in my lifetime I would see at least the unconstitutional F removed from that out of control agency. Need to write to Matt Gaetz and thank him for upholding his oath of office and seeing to it that federal agencies don't have the same ability that congress has. Per that pesky document, only congress can make laws. These fake laws called rules, codified regulations and the like that violate the rights of Americans need to be expunged!

 

[jsx1043]

I agree with those above that state the ATF doesn't have the resources to track down millions of unregistered/no-stamp SBR's. But as they come across them through other run of the mill investigations/actions, they most certainly will break it off in the *** of the individual that didn't play along with their new "rule". The idea that my purchase on Monday was legal, became illegal on Tuesday and I have a deadline of Wednesday to come into compliance is so, so, so wrong. But what am I to do? Legally fight an entity with unlimited resources coupled with their existing chevron deference? I suspect most people could ignore this, remain quiet about what may or may not be in their closet. But what good is a gun that must remain hidden? Without successful lawsuits against this, the common man is screwed.

This is called tyranny, and is the exact reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

I’m seeing a lot of “Mother, may I?” comments floating around and that’s the whole reason why we are in this predicament in first place. Last I checked, an enumerated right is an enumerated right, but we’ve cucked our way along now to our own gilded cages.

 

[JAL]

So I was doing some research on this whole situation trying to understand it. Researching the NFA and why an SBR needs a tax stamp and registered where as a pistol or rifle does not, etc.

So it seems, from my understanding, NFA was originally designed to make all gun ownership cost prohibitive. It was introduced back when you could get a firearm for ~$3 and the tax was $200. Granted $200 isn't much now as it hasn't been adjusted for inflation - but when NFA was proposed/introduced it essentially made guns cost prohibitive.

Originally the NFA was to cover hand guns as well - but it seems that the people were able to get that removed from the bill. My understanding is that the reason short barreled rifles and shotguns are NFA items is to avoid them basically being converted into something that could be easily concealed, like a handgun could be.

I.e. if the NFA essentially banned handguns by making them too expensive - people could then take their rifles and shotguns and cut them down to make them handgun-like in size and getting around the NFA.

The silly part, imho, is that since we were able to get handguns off the NFA back then - it doesn't make sense to control short barreled rifles and shotguns ... because if one wants an easily concealed gun they need not shorten a rifle or shotgun - handguns are readily available.

That said - I suspect it still exists due to a) forcing people to register and b) $$$ [tax stamps].

Basically the whole thing is a farse and should be repealed, imho - but I'm sure you probably knew that.

This whole stabilizing brace thing is a joke. First they said it was ok - and now they changed their mind... All because it makes the 'pistol' a 'short rifle' which is only prohibited because shortening it makes it "concealable" like a "pistol".......

^^^^ THIS
In addition, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, that might have ruled the NFA unconstitutional was decided because Miller was illegally denied representation before SCOTUS. DoJ engineered his release from jail, and then informed all his enemies of his whereabouts to have him murdered, which occurred before the case was heard. His body was not found until after the case was heard. In addition, his attorney was denied payment, whereupon he withdrew by refusing to show for the SCOTUS argument hearing. In short, the now dead Miller and his attorney that was supposed to be representing him were both "no show" leading to a SCOTUS decision in favor of the U.S. This could easily be revisited in light of the now well-known facts surrounding that case and the resulting SCOTUS decision.

 

[tackdriver]

I had bought a brace on here to try because of ulnar nerve issues in my right arm and it just didn't work out. Sold it at a local show. How do I prove I sold it?

They have to prove you didn't.

Don't help them do their job.

 

[tackdriver]

^^^^ THIS
In addition, U.S. v. Miller, 1939, that might have ruled the NFA unconstitutional was decided because Miller was illegally denied representation before SCOTUS. DoJ engineered his release from jail, and then informed all his enemies of his whereabouts to have him murdered, which occurred before the case was heard. His body was not found until after the case was heard. In addition, his attorney was denied payment, whereupon he withdrew by refusing to show for the SCOTUS argument hearing. In short, the now dead Miller and his attorney that was supposed to be representing him were both "no show" leading to a SCOTUS decision in favor of the U.S. This could easily be revisited in light of the now well-known facts surrounding that case and the resulting SCOTUS decision.

Now THERE is an interesting rabbit hole to go down. (after some food and sleep)

Thanks for the new adventure!

 

[MemphisR32]

Now THERE is an interesting rabbit hole to go down. (after some food and sleep)

Thanks for the new adventure!

Forgotten Weapons did a great job giving the history of this and also why the NFA barrel length requirements are different between rifles and shotguns (spoiler it’s because the government was accidentally selling SBR’S)