Pistol brace amnesty period incoming

[HK Guy]

Meeeh, my tinfoil is a little loose it seems.

It's an amnesty, meaning you can't / won't get charged with anything. They did it back in 1968 and they did it with the Street Sweepers. Pretty sure people didn't get tossed in the clink back then for following through.

As far as registration / list to round up gun owners. I'm on plenty of lists, I'm sure. As is anyone who's filled out a 4473 and or is a class III owner. Not a big deal to form 1 a SBR.

I do wonder if you will have to engrave and comply with 922r since it's an amnesty?

At the end of the day, I don't think the amnesty will stand the many court battles that are going to be coming over it. I'm not sweating it, I'll gladly take a free form 1 and go about my day.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Amnesty for what??? Owning something that is legal to own? When was there a law passed that declared pistol braces to be restricted or illegal to own?

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

Amnesty for what??? Owning something that is legal to own? When was there a law passed that declared pistol braces to be restricted or illegal to own?

No law was passed or will be. The movement now is for the ATF to do what they want when they want and all approved by the White House.

 

[MrSmitty]

Repeal the Hughes amendment.....

 

[Sphinx313]

Unpopular opinion: hate pistol braces. Not for their intended purpose which is assisting the disabled, but for anyone that skirts the rules no matter how ****** those rules are. But I hate it when anyone does that with anything, so, makes sense.

"Don't touch my drink." ::Proceeds to drink from straw:: "Wellllllll, I didn't touch it." Cannot stand anyone like that, and that's exactly what braces turned in to. Abolish the NFA! But while it exists, if you want an SBR, go through all the **** I did or just build it anyway...it's only an add-on charge. Nobody is going to know anyway. Maybe in 2022.

 

[bobzilla]

Unpopular opinion: hate pistol braces. Not for their intended purpose which is assisting the disabled, but for anyone that skirts the rules no matter how ****** those rules are. But I hate it when anyone does that with anything, so, makes sense.

"Don't touch my drink." ::Proceeds to drink from straw:: "Wellllllll, I didn't touch it." Cannot stand anyone like that, and that's exactly what braces turned in to. Abolish the NFA! But while it exists, if you want an SBR, go through all the **** I did or just build it anyway...it's only an add-on charge. Nobody is going to know anyway. Maybe in 2022.

Disagree. People followed the rules. Millions were made/sold/installed. Then some three letter agency decided it doesn’t want those to be legal anymore.
How about stop changing the ****ing rules trying to trap people. While I want the MAF repealed we know that is not happening. Let’s be realistic. Going the sbr route has lots of downsides like crossing state lines, weapons are now registered and worse what happens when they change their minds again and decide that what you have is now illegal?

No. Stop the atf and their ******** policies.

 

[Expat]

So as long as I don't like something, we should ban it...
I am struggling to avoid saying something hurtful.

 

[nucular]

Unpopular opinion: hate pistol braces. Not for their intended purpose which is assisting the disabled, but for anyone that skirts the rules no matter how ****** those rules are. But I hate it when anyone does that with anything, so, makes sense.

"Don't touch my drink." ::Proceeds to drink from straw:: "Wellllllll, I didn't touch it." Cannot stand anyone like that, and that's exactly what braces turned in to. Abolish the NFA! But while it exists, if you want an SBR, go through all the **** I did or just build it anyway...it's only an add-on charge. Nobody is going to know anyway. Maybe in 2022.

As a 2A advocate, this is the wrong perspective. You can like or dislike whatever you choose but you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the right to own them. I personally have no interest in bump stocks but the fact that the ATF feels it can arbitrarily outlaw parts is pure ********.

 

[Sphinx313]

As a 2A advocate, this is the wrong perspective. You can like or dislike whatever you choose but you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the right to own them. I personally have no interest in bump stocks but the fact that the ATF feels it can arbitrarily outlaw parts is pure ********.

Disagree. People followed the rules. Millions were made/sold/installed. Then some three letter agency decided it doesn’t want those to be legal anymore.
How about stop changing the ****ing rules trying to trap people. While I want the MAF repealed we know that is not happening. Let’s be realistic. Going the sbr route has lots of downsides like crossing state lines, weapons are now registered and worse what happens when they change their minds again and decide that what you have is now illegal?

No. Stop the atf and their ******** policies.

So as long as I don't like something, we should ban it...
I am struggling to avoid saying something hurtful.

Not necessarily stating that, "because I don't like it, and don't use it, ban it." I agree with the point that millions were sold and installed. What I mean specifically is, if you're upset that you can no longer have an "SBR" because you played with the, albeit ********, rules, that's a you problem. Pistol braces should be sold to folks with confirmed disability and not to the guy that thinks the NFA is ********. The NFA is ********. So is the IRS.....you pay your taxes? We all have to do things we don't like.

The entire time I was preparing for my SBR I was saying the same thing. Why should I even have to wait? This is absurd, etc. etc. etc. It simply doesn't change the fact that the NFA exists. We have to change that. Cans and SBR's for all! I am on your side. I am just using a few examples of, "Lol, you waited how long for your SBR? I just built a 7" .300blk in as fast as it was shipped to me because of this pistol brace that I'll never use for its intended purpose."

I have no interest in Bump Stocks either, but it falls under the same context. "I can't have a fully automatic weapon, so I'll interpret their text and make a device that has nothing to do with the trigger to make my weapon fully automatic. There."

But then we get mad when they choose how they want to interpret 2A text? In a twisted way it's hypocritical. I am not coming to the defense of bump stocks and pistol braces. I would rather go on the offense to abolish the NFA and let people have a bump stock, fun switch, SBR, whatever you want.

I went to college for 2 semester's and dropped out when I realized it was a waste of my time for what I wanted to do. I followed the rules and paid off my loans. Now they're getting paid off for "free". Guess I am an idiot on a lot of fronts. Should have faked my way to an SBR and waited for uncle Joe to pay me off. Fact is, this is like your kid coming to you, you saying no, then they go to mom and she says yes. You wouldn't be happy with it. But it's okay when you want an SBR for -$200? Most of your arguments act like I am anti-2A or pro-NFA. Neither of those are true.

I drive just fine at 0.09....but I can't. I don't like the rules, but they're there. Change 'em. But follow them 'til you do.

Edit: Forgot, @Expat, you can try to hurt me with words, wasted effort, though. Failing to understand myself why one would want to attempt to hurt someone with words because they follow the rules. Tell me how you're getting rid of the NFA and I will donate, fight, whatever you want. But say hurtful things because there's a stop sign and people run it because no one's enforcing it? Please.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Not necessarily stating that, "because I don't like it, and don't use it, ban it." I agree with the point that millions were sold and installed. What I mean specifically is, if you're upset that you can no longer have an "SBR" because you played with the, albeit ********, rules, that's a you problem. Pistol braces should be sold to folks with confirmed disability and not to the guy that thinks the NFA is ********. The NFA is ********. So is the IRS.....you pay your taxes? We all have to do things we don't like.

The entire time I was preparing for my SBR I was saying the same thing. Why should I even have to wait? This is absurd, etc. etc. etc. It simply doesn't change the fact that the NFA exists. We have to change that. Cans and SBR's for all! I am on your side. I am just using a few examples of, "Lol, you waited how long for your SBR? I just built a 7" .300blk in as fast as it was shipped to me because of this pistol brace that I'll never use for its intended purpose."

I have no interest in Bump Stocks either, but it falls under the same context. "I can't have a fully automatic weapon, so I'll interpret their text and make a device that has nothing to do with the trigger to make my weapon fully automatic. There."

But then we get mad when they choose how they want to interpret 2A text? In a twisted way it's hypocritical. I am not coming to the defense of bump stocks and pistol braces. I would rather go on the offense to abolish the NFA and let people have a bump stock, fun switch, SBR, whatever you want.

I went to college for 2 semester's and dropped out when I realized it was a waste of my time for what I wanted to do. I followed the rules and paid off my loans. Now they're getting paid off for "free". Guess I am an idiot on a lot of fronts. Should have faked my way to an SBR and waited for uncle Joe to pay me off. Fact is, this is like your kid coming to you, you saying no, then they go to mom and she says yes. You wouldn't be happy with it. But it's okay when you want an SBR for -$200? Most of your arguments act like I am anti-2A or pro-NFA. Neither of those are true.

I drive just fine at 0.09....but I can't. I don't like the rules, but they're there. Change 'em. But follow them 'til you do.

The heck?

So the government passes a law. Gun owners abide by the law. But oh wait! The government in its infinite wisdom has decided that certain things, which the law and letters published by government agencies to clarify the law said were 100% legal, are now in violation of the law because they're not being used for whatever subjective purpose they were "supposed" to be used for, and now suddenly owners of these things are being forced to either get rid of them, go through an onerous registration process, or become felons. But somehow gun owners are to blame if they complain about it?

Think about your last sentence for a bit. The rules are the rules, and whether or not we like them, we should be able to know what they are. If a police officer pulled you over suspecting you were drunk, but a blood test confirmed that you were below the legal limit, how would you feel if you were still charged with DUI because the officer thought you were acting too drunk, and gave some nonsense explanation about how even though the law says that below 0.08 is fine you shouldn't have tried to skirt the edges and you should have known that the spirit of the law is that you don't drive when you're acting drunk. That's essentially the same argument you're making here with pistol braces.

 

[BigRed]

The heck?

So the government passes a law. Gun owners abide by the law. But oh wait! The government in its infinite wisdom has decided that certain things, which the law and letters published by government agencies to clarify the law said were 100% legal, are now in violation of the law because they're not being used for whatever subjective purpose they were "supposed" to be used for, and now suddenly owners of these things are being forced to either get rid of them, go through an onerous registration process, or become felons. But somehow gun owners are to blame if they complain about it?

Think about your last sentence for a bit. The rules are the rules, and whether or not we like them, we should be able to know what they are. If a police officer pulled you over suspecting you were drunk, but a blood test confirmed that you were below the legal limit, how would you feel if you were still charged with DUI because the officer thought you were acting too drunk, and gave some nonsense explanation about how even though the law says that below 0.08 is fine you shouldn't have tried to skirt the edges and you should have known that the spirit of the law is that you don't drive when you're acting drunk. That's essentially the same argument you're making here with pistol braces.

Just think of it as "real compromise"!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Sphinx313]

The heck?

So the government passes a law. Gun owners abide by the law. But oh wait! The government in its infinite wisdom has decided that certain things, which the law and letters published by government agencies to clarify the law said were 100% legal, are now in violation of the law because they're not being used for whatever subjective purpose they were "supposed" to be used for, and now suddenly owners of these things are being forced to either get rid of them, go through an onerous registration process, or become felons. But somehow gun owners are to blame if they complain about it?

Think about your last sentence for a bit. The rules are the rules, and whether or not we like them, we should be able to know what they are. If a police officer pulled you over suspecting you were drunk, but a blood test confirmed that you were below the legal limit, how would you feel if you were still charged with DUI because the officer thought you were acting too drunk, and gave some nonsense explanation about how even though the law says that below 0.08 is fine you shouldn't have tried to skirt the edges and you should have known that the spirit of the law is that you don't drive when you're acting drunk. That's essentially the same argument you're making here with pistol braces.

Serious question: Is the ATF capable of passing laws? Is the whole pistol brace thing a law or just something that falls under their umbrella so they can call it a law?

With that out of the way, perhaps you can educate me. My understanding of pistol braces were they were created to allow the disabled/unable to be able. I love this!! Please, invent it, invest in it, ship it. So they did that. Then Joe said, "Wait a second, so I can build an SBR with this 'brace' for disabled people on it, put it up to my shoulder like a stock, and not have to form 1? Sign me up." Is that not how this went? I remember some grumblings about people saying, "The gun can't transform into an SBR just because you put the brace up to your shoulder." I agree with all that. But you shouldn't have bought the brace/made the SBR in the first place. You are not disabled.

So, were braces never intended for the disabled? Am I missing the part where we as the gun community "parked in the handicap spot" cause it was closer to the store? AKA put a brace on my rifle to call it a pistol and have an SBR? I don't think we're talking about the same thing with regard to my last sentence. .08 is illegal. We've known it forever. But we're driving at .09 (buying a brace when not disabled to make an SBR) and getting upset. The part of this that I think makes it complicated is at some point someone said, "Shouldering a brace is not a crime." And now the new ATF director or someone is like, "Welllllllll, that was a mistake." Roe V. Wade was apparently a mistake. They changed it. They told you about it? I guess I am confused. Are they not walking back the idea that its OK, and telling you about it, and giving you options? You wouldn't even care about any of this if you just Form 1'd from the jump. That is my whole point. Anything else about being Anti-2A or whatever is ********. I thought Bump Stocks were the dumbest thing I had ever seen. I didn't buy any. Didn't care if you banned them, classified people with them as Nazi's, whatever, cause I didn't have one. I have an SBR. The right way. I didn't ask the shittiest organization in existence to allow me to shoulder a brace and then get mad when they walk it back.

 

[Sphinx313]

View attachment 223952

Really? Jesus? Lol, come on, man? If you want to build 2 SBR's each and march to ATF HQ, I will take off next week and we can go do it. **** the NFA. Just don't build your SBR with a pistol brace like you never should have and then get mad when they **** you on it.....

 

[Usmccookie]

View attachment 223952

I'm stealing this for future argueme.... discussions.

 

[Usmccookie]

Serious question: Is the ATF capable of passing laws? Is the whole pistol brace thing a law or just something that falls under their umbrella so they can call it a law?

With that out of the way, perhaps you can educate me. My understanding of pistol braces were they were created to allow the disabled/unable to be able. I love this!! Please, invent it, invest in it, ship it. So they did that. Then Joe said, "Wait a second, so I can build an SBR with this 'brace' for disabled people on it, put it up to my shoulder like a stock, and not have to form 1? Sign me up." Is that not how this went? I remember some grumblings about people saying, "The gun can't transform into an SBR just because you put the brace up to your shoulder." I agree with all that. But you shouldn't have bought the brace/made the SBR in the first place. You are not disabled.

So, were braces never intended for the disabled? Am I missing the part where we as the gun community "parked in the handicap spot" cause it was closer to the store? AKA put a brace on my rifle to call it a pistol and have an SBR? I don't think we're talking about the same thing with regard to my last sentence. .08 is illegal. We've known it forever. But we're driving at .09 (buying a brace when not disabled to make an SBR) and getting upset. The part of this that I think makes it complicated is at some point someone said, "Shouldering a brace is not a crime." And now the new ATF director or someone is like, "Welllllllll, that was a mistake." Roe V. Wade was apparently a mistake. They changed it. They told you about it? I guess I am confused. Are they not walking back the idea that its OK, and telling you about it, and giving you options? You wouldn't even care about any of this if you just Form 1'd from the jump. That is my whole point. Anything else about being Anti-2A or whatever is ********. I thought Bump Stocks were the dumbest thing I had ever seen. I didn't buy any. Didn't care if you banned them, classified people with them as Nazi's, whatever, cause I didn't have one. I have an SBR. The right way. I didn't ask the shittiest organization in existence to allow me to shoulder a brace and then get mad when they walk it back.

These replies are getting too long for me to read patiently, from everyone mind you.


Braces aren't just for disabled folks. They're are for helping support the weight and control of a heavy firearm using any body part desired, except the shoulder. The atf later allowed the shoulder to be a point of support while utilizing a brace

 

[Usmccookie]

The disabled angle is politics using words to play with people's emotions. Much like "assault " guns.

I see the point you're trying to make, but it's an arguement not to be "won" here. We all want the same thing, were just bickering about the petty crap.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Serious question: Is the ATF capable of passing laws? Is the whole pistol brace thing a law or just something that falls under their umbrella so they can call it a law?

With that out of the way, perhaps you can educate me. My understanding of pistol braces were they were created to allow the disabled/unable to be able. I love this!! Please, invent it, invest in it, ship it. So they did that. Then Joe said, "Wait a second, so I can build an SBR with this 'brace' for disabled people on it, put it up to my shoulder like a stock, and not have to form 1? Sign me up." Is that not how this went? I remember some grumblings about people saying, "The gun can't transform into an SBR just because you put the brace up to your shoulder." I agree with all that. But you shouldn't have bought the brace/made the SBR in the first place. You are not disabled.

So, were braces never intended for the disabled? Am I missing the part where we as the gun community "parked in the handicap spot" cause it was closer to the store? AKA put a brace on my rifle to call it a pistol and have an SBR? I don't think we're talking about the same thing with regard to my last sentence. .08 is illegal. We've known it forever. But we're driving at .09 (buying a brace when not disabled to make an SBR) and getting upset. The part of this that I think makes it complicated is at some point someone said, "Shouldering a brace is not a crime." And now the new ATF director or someone is like, "Welllllllll, that was a mistake." Roe V. Wade was apparently a mistake. They changed it. They told you about it? I guess I am confused. Are they not walking back the idea that its OK, and telling you about it, and giving you options? You wouldn't even care about any of this if you just Form 1'd from the jump. That is my whole point. Anything else about being Anti-2A or whatever is ********. I thought Bump Stocks were the dumbest thing I had ever seen. I didn't buy any. Didn't care if you banned them, classified people with them as Nazi's, whatever, cause I didn't have one. I have an SBR. The right way. I didn't ask the shittiest organization in existence to allow me to shoulder a brace and then get mad when they walk it back.

No, the ATF cannot pass laws. They interpret existing laws; if someone doesn't like their interpretation and decides they want to take them to court, then the courts ultimately decided whether those interpretations are correct.

So you really don't have a problem with the ATF interpreting the law to mean X is legal, waiting until millions of people buy X, then deciding X isn't legal anymore?

Let me quote this phrase from your post: "I don't think we're talking about the same thing with regard to my last sentence. .08 is illegal. We've known it forever. But we're driving at .09 (buying a brace when not disabled to make an SBR) and getting upset."

That is patently wrong. The law, under the ATF's interpretation, never made ANY reference to being disabled or not; that's something you subjectively decided was part of their interpretation. Whether correct or not, it simply wasn't in the law, nor the ATF's interpretation of the law. Those who had pistol braces were being 100% legal, they were within the law, they were driving below 0.08, and now because of a new interpretation, suddenly they're not going to be anymore.

Building an SBR was no more "right" or "legal" than building a braced pistol. Because at the end of the day, there's a spectrum here. You can keep adding more and more material onto the back of a pistol, and with every millimeter ask, "Is this an SBR now?" The AFT drew their line in the sand and told us where that material became a stock, and they did so without making any reference to disabilities. So why do you have a problem with people going right up to the edge of that limit?

The comparison to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade just highlights all the more why this is so screwed up. Courts are supposed to review laws, and interpretations thereof, and even previous rulings, and change those that they deem are unconstitutional/contradict a higher law, etc. That's their job. The job of government agencies like the ATF, on the other hand, is to enforce existing laws and provide clear guidelines and explanations where the law has ambiguities. When they constantly change these guidelines in order to screw over people who were just trying to follow the law as written and not according to some subjective, dreamt-up notions of what the "spirit of the law" or whatever was, that's a big problem. And if you still don't see the problem at this point, I don't think I can help you.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Just think of it as "real compromise"!

Holy smokes.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Really? Jesus? Lol, come on, man? If you want to build 2 SBR's each and march to ATF HQ, I will take off next week and we can go do it. **** the NFA. Just don't build your SBR with a pistol brace like you never should have and then get mad when they **** you on it.....

Where, where, WHERE is this written? It was perfectly, 100% legal, and they said it was!

How would you feel if the ATF changed their interpretation of machine gun laws and decided that since any semi-auto AR-15 can be readily converted into a machine gun (yes, they can, it only takes a simple piece of plastic, and no tools) that all AR-15's are machine guns now? What if someone came along as was like "Oh, you knew all along the ATF meant that only military personnel should have semi-auto rifles, but you had to skirt the rules and bought an AR-15 like you never should have, why are you mad know that they're screwing you over"?

You're making up subjective criteria out of thin air that were never in the law, nor the interpretation thereof, and then saying that because people who complied with the law didn't also comply with your personal additions to the law they were somehow not doing things "right" and now they shouldn't complain that they're getting screwed.