New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[edwea]

Getting suppressors off the nfa is the lowest hanging fruit here. It is the place to start.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'm not advocating for defiance, each person is free to react to new legislation as they see fit. I am just commenting on the unjust nature of the current situation we find ourselves in. Good, decent people being categorized as felons for owning something that the government has deemed perfectly legal for 10 years.

I just posed rhetorical questions, so you don't need to answer if you suddenly find yourself in a country where you have to be careful what you say on the internet.

Some people don't care about pistol braces and feel that this isn't the hill to "die on," so to speak. That's fine, and a reasonable position. Easy enough to remedy anyway, if you don't want to be on a registry or be a felon. Take the brace off and wait to see how this plays out in the courts. If it's an AR platform, throw a $250 16" upper on it. Viola, new rifle. Until they deem even that a machine gun, of course.

That's not the point. The point is, this type of arbritary ******** from the government only serves to create a populace with less and less respect for the rule of law. When you have law enforcement officials in our neighboring state in a vast majority of their counties openly telling their governor to go **** himself with his infringements on the 2nd Amendment, I call that a clue.

Again, I'm not advocating that anyone take any action one way or the other. This is a discussion forum, so that's what I'm here for. I'm just making observations. One of those observations is that the federal government should not be shocked when the same disrespect and outright defiance and massive non-compliance shown to their laws regarding immigration and marijuana is seen in their attempts to criminalize decent, law-abiding people in other subject areas.

As for discussing what happens if this goes beyond pistol braces, we don't have to talk about that if you don't want to. I already know how that goes...

Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act - Hudson Valley One

In January 2013, as the nation still mourned the Sandy Hook massacre, New York State enacted one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws. But three and a half years later, state records obtained after a lengthy court battle show that a key provision of the New York Safe Ammunition and...

hudsonvalleyone.com

I see; I misunderstood you originally. I thought you were directing criticism at those who found the rule onerous, but were nevertheless simply stating that they plan to follow the new rule because they don't intend to risk 10 years in jail over a brace. I was mistaken, and you have my apologies.

I completely agree with everything you just said.

 

[KLB]

That was six years ago. I'm not defending the lack of action, but it was a drastically different time. There were seemingly no threats at that time to the 2A, (other than Wayne's wardrobe costs.) Our own actions in allowing our only 2A lobby to congress to squander are as much at fault for inaction as anything.

The anti's have brought this fight to us. We need to counter their actions legally and take back ground that should not have been lost in the first place.

If this doesn't energize us to act, then nothing will.

We might as well just go ahead and keep whining, as that has worked so well, eh?

You're like a battered wife defending her husband. The NRA could very easily turn things around, but the leadership that is sinking it will not let go of its power. You'd think that losing half of your annual membership would be a wakeup call, but apparently all it gets is getting rid of the people that actually question things.

NRA Elections 2023: LaPierre Wins – NRA Members Lose

This could be our last chance to vote in an NRA Board of Directors election. Unfortunately, there’s not really anyone to vote for...

www.ammoland.com

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Lets put this in different context.

1.)Assault weapons should be banned because a few bad apples decide to use them in the commision of a crime…

You comply?

2.)Braces should be registered under the NFA because a few morons shouldered them, thus making it more expensive and difficult for disabled people to use legitimately….

Do you comply?

Spot the difference between these statements.

Exactly.

You people talk all big and bad about being against gun control, but because they throw you a carrot, many see it as a trojan horse, you comply.

Compliance means they will keep chipping away at our rights until EVERYTHING is registered under the NFA or banned.

This is nothing more than a test case to see how many morons they can get to comply.

I don't have any braced pistols, so I personally don't have a dog in this fight, other than the interest that every citizen should have in resisting such obvious tyrannical overreaching and caprice.

Despite that interest, all I'm saying is that I'm not going to look at someone who says "I don't want to go to jail for 10 years over a stupid brace and a few inches of barrel" and call them names.

I think you asked earlier if I would give up my gas car if they banned them. Well, if I didn't have a group of trusted friends who I knew would have my back, and the penalty for being caught with a gas car was 10 years in prison and never being allowed to legally own firearms again, yes, I would. I'm sorry if that makes me a coward, but I'm just being real here.

What about you? How many braced pistols do you plan to keep in defiance of these new "rules"? If your neighbor gets his door kicked in a 3 AM for owning one, are you going to take up arms to defend him?

See the problem with those questions? You can't answer them online (or at least you really, really shouldn't.) But without those answers how is advocating for defiance going to look like anything more than empty bravado?

I don't doubt there are people out there who plan on defying this rule, but if they're not morons, they won't be touching this conversation online with a 10-foot pole.

 

[tackdriver]

STILL not published.

...as far as I could tell, but I'm not sure I'm using their search correctly. If I missed it, please let me know.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think somebody said it's supposed be published tomorrow (Jan 31)? Didn't see a source, though.

 

[jerrob]

One positive correspondence doesn't necessarily make a senator that I'd vote for, but it's a start. My representative, who I contacted first, hasn't bothered to reach out since my letter regarding his support for house speaker.
Anyway, this makes me feel like there may be a little support for us in DC.

 

[Ingomike]

That was six years ago. I'm not defending the lack of action, but it was a drastically different time. There were seemingly no threats at that time to the 2A, (other than Wayne's wardrobe costs.) Our own actions in allowing our only 2A lobby to congress to squander are as much at fault for inaction as anything.

The anti's have brought this fight to us. We need to counter their actions legally and take back ground that should not have been lost in the first place.

If this doesn't energize us to act, then nothing will.

We might as well just go ahead and keep whining, as that has worked so well, eh?

I believe we were close to getting the house to take up hearing protection when the Vegas shooting occurred and no elected critters wanted to be seen supporting 2A…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I believe we were close to getting the house to take up hearing protection when the Vegas shooting occurred and no elected critters wanted to be seen supporting 2A…

Odd, isn’t it? There are always times to act (to end “gun violence”) but there never seems to be the right time to roll back existing laws (on a federal level).

 

[Ingomike]

Odd, isn’t it? There are always times to act (to end “gun violence”) but there never seems to be the right time to roll back existing laws (on a federal level).

Uncanny! Particularly in light of the fact that no motive or details has every been released. There will be those that will dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, a term that rose to common use to put down those questioning the JFK assassination…

 

[wagyu52]

 

[AndreusMaximus]

TLDW = The ATF didn't mean to publish their new "rule" yet, it was supposed to be published and in the Federal Register on January 31. As of this morning, it is now in the Federal Register, but with a disclaimer saying it's a preview that's not officially published until tomorrow, Jan 31.

So it's now official (as of tomorrow.)

 

[wagyu52]

Good information for those that have import brace pistols

 

[Chance]

Now here is something that a true Constitutional representative of the people CAN do about this over reach: https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amend...ew-act-to-override-atf-stabilizer-brace-rule/

 

[SOUP]

I feel this is a turning point for our 2A rights.

Stand for something or fall for anything… this is our time to stand.

 

[Onebad06vtx]

I feel this is a turning point for our 2A rights.

Stand for something or fall for anything… this is our time to stand.

We will fall because of the lack of balls!

 

[Cameramonkey]

We will fall because of the lack of balls!

And the masses dont own them, so the average joe wont care because he hasnt read Niemoller.

But WE can do our best to be loud.

 

[bwframe]

Age Verification - NRA

...Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces​

MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2023

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

On Monday, January 30, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) published the final Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” rule for public inspection in the federal register.

As we reported earlier this month, the rule would subject essentially all firearms with attached stabilizing braces to the registration and taxation requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Since 2012, when Biden was serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, ATF has recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function, and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the National Firearms Act. That’s because stabilizing braces were first designed and intended to help disabled veterans fire large format pistols.

With the finalization of this rule, the Biden Administration is reversing over a decade of agency guidance and rulings that the firearms industry and law-abiding American gun owners have relied on when designing or acquiring firearms.

NRA has repeatedly pushed back on administration attempts to classify firearms with attached braces under the NFA. When the most recent rule was proposed, NRA submitted comments, which you can find here.

Since the rule was first posted on ATF’s website on January 13, ATF has already been required to “clarify” several issues with the rule.

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Second, in the final rule posted to ATF’s website, the agency appeared to claim that imported pistols with stabilizing braces would need to be destroyed or surrendered because they were unlawfully assembled in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(r), which generally prohibits the assembly of “non-sporting” rifles or shotguns without sufficient domestically manufactured parts.

Last week, ATF updated the final rule’ Frequently Asked Questions page to include the following answer to the question of whether section 922(r) applies to firearm impacted by the rule.

No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

While this answer seems to directly contradict the agency’s response to comments in the final rule, it is certainly positive news for owners of imported pistols with attached stabilizing braces.

The fact that ATF already needs to “clarify” aspects of the rule before it has been officially published in the federal register further underscores the arbitrary and confusing nature of the rule.

Fortunately for law-abiding gun owners, federal courts have recently proven more willing to invalidate agency actions that go beyond congressionally enacted statutes. Earlier this month, one of ATF’s most recent major rules was struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The agency’s stabilizing brace rule should meet the same end for the same reasons.

NRA-ILA is already working on litigation to challenge this arbitrary and capricious attack on law-abiding gun owners by the Biden Administration. Please check back to www.nraila.org for more updates...

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[KLB]

I wonder who files the first lawsuit