What are people likely to do with their AR pistols after Augusts rule change?

[defaultdotxbe]

It's not a "SHOULDER BRACE". NOWHERE is it called a "SHOULDER BRACE".

End of Message. Period. FULL STOP.

John

FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH
ACCESSORIES* commonly referred to as “STABILIZING BRACES”

Also, if you tried to score a firearm without a brace it will always score 0, or would already be an AOW under existing criteria (such as by having a vertical foregrip)

 

[JAL]

It is possible to pass the ATF 4999 with a pistol brace of some type in a particular configuration. You might not like what it requires you to do, but it is possible. I made certain of that with two pistol builds.

John

 

[thelefthand]

View attachment 214952 View attachment 214951

Testicular fortitude? Yes. It’s called being a citizen patriot, governed by the Constitution, not by man.

You think they’re going to stop at AR pistols? They want the whole enchilada. If they get this one, the rest of them go, sooner rather than later. You don’t have to worry about taking the pistol or the rifle to the flat range, because you won’t be allowed to anymore.

You either play on the flat range right now, cuck out when they come calling, or get plenty of practice on the hot range later. The choice is up to all of us individually. As for me, I have forefathers who fought and died for liberty. I have a legacy to maintain.

Actually, it's just called being a free man. This has been our home since Jamestown. Don't see a reason to go giving it away now.

 

[FishersCPA]

re: Nobody ever does anything to stand up anymore. We just give and give and give.

Some people are so clueless they think they can still vote their way out of the problems we have. Now that's sad.

In your original post you stated "For me, it's obvious that this isn't the hill to die on. I'm not losing my rights and going to prison over a few inches of barrel length." Be careful calling out others for NOT acting "...does anything to stand up anymore." when you clearly stated that it wasn't hill for YOU to die on. So it should be up to others? The first one through the door always get bloody...but SOMEONE has to be the 1st and by declaring that this isn't YOUR "hill" perhaps bitching about others not being the bloody one is a bit ironic and isn't a great look.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

In your original post you stated "For me, it's obvious that this isn't the hill to die on. I'm not losing my rights and going to prison over a few inches of barrel length." Be careful calling out others for NOT acting "...does anything to stand up anymore." when you clearly stated that it wasn't hill for YOU to die on. So it should be up to others? The first one through the door always get bloody...but SOMEONE has to be the 1st and by declaring that this isn't YOUR "hill" perhaps bitching about others not being the bloody one is a bit ironic and isn't a great look.

I doubt we will ever be given a good hill to die on, it will be a matter of many straws before backs start to break.

 

[Usmccookie]

I doubt we will ever be given a good hill to die on, it will be a matter of many straws before backs start to break.

there have been many hills, but none have been worthy of any sacrifice by "i" only "them"

 

[DadSmith]

This will be before SCOTUS soon. I see them stopping this cold.
As to the new AWB aka Semiautomatic firearms ban. It will be before SCOTUS and get a big slap down. In fact the House of representatives passed that when it is a clear violation of previous SCOTUS ruling. Even if the senate doesn't save us I believe SCOTUS will.
Thank you Trump!

 

[JAL]

This will be before SCOTUS soon. I see them stopping this cold.
As to the new AWB aka Semiautomatic firearms ban. It will be before SCOTUS and get a big slap down. In fact the House of representatives passed that when it is a clear violation of previous SCOTUS ruling. Even if the senate doesn't save us I believe SCOTUS will.
Thank you Trump!

SCOTUS can't touch it until POTUS signs it into law after identical versions are passed by both House and Senate (or allowed to pass into law without POTUS signature or veto). Until then, it's words on paper grinding through the legislative process. I predict it will die in the Senate in the first week of January next year without even being voted on. Schumer won't let it onto the floor of the Senate unless he knows it will pass. Same as Pelosi did with the floor of the House until she knew there were enough votes for passage.

John

 

[DadSmith]

SCOTUS can't touch it until POTUS signs it into law after identical versions are passed by both House and Senate (or allowed to pass into law without POTUS signature or veto). Until then, it's words on paper grinding through the legislative process. I predict it will die in the Senate in the first week of January next year without even being voted on. Schumer won't let it onto the floor of the Senate unless he knows it will pass. Same as Pelosi did with the floor of the House until she knew there were enough votes for passage.

John

That's why I said if the senate doesn't save us....

 

[nagantoid]

"Brace" then.

...which never goes anywhere near a shoulder. Uh huh.

Look, the SBR law is dumb, but thinking if we call it something else but use it as a stock, everything changes....not quite as dumb, but dumb. This point-system form shows that and the only thing we should be surprised about is that its as "lenient" as it is.

So to respond to the OP, why would anyone be worried about their pistol?

Exactly, thank you. The 4999 is a form for scoring a pistol which has a brace attached to it.

I totally understand "they're delegalizing my desired toy by administrative sleight of hand, no actual elected representatives present". I totally sympathize with it. I don't want to own a stock, sorry, a brace, and I think they are a pointless and silly product that exists solely to give a middle finger to the ATF - but sure, I think if you want to own one, you should be able to. Exactly the same way I think if you want to own "truck nuts" to put on your hitch, you should be allowed to - ridiculous, but shouldn't be illegal.

What I'm objecting to in this thread is the notion that this makes the pistols themselves illegal. Nowhere is that even hinted. Chicken Littling and conflating the two ideas gets my goat.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Exactly, thank you. The 4999 is a form for scoring a pistol which has a brace attached to it.

I totally understand "they're delegalizing my desired toy by administrative sleight of hand, no actual elected representatives present". I totally sympathize with it. I don't want to own a stock, sorry, a brace, and I think they are a pointless and silly product that exists solely to give a middle finger to the ATF - but sure, I think if you want to own one, you should be able to. Exactly the same way I think if you want to own "truck nuts" to put on your hitch, you should be allowed to - ridiculous, but shouldn't be illegal.

What I'm objecting to in this thread is the notion that this makes the pistols themselves illegal. Nowhere is that even hinted. Chicken Littling and conflating the two ideas gets my goat.

I didn't see it stated anywhere that ALL AR pistols will be illegal, it was simply stated that if this rule goes into effect, thousands of people who currently have AR pistols that are 100% legal right now will suddenly be transformed into felons overnight unless they take those pistols and reconfigure them. And that is definitely worth being angry about.

 

[DDadams]

Edit:

Nevermind.

Nobody wants to read the other parts besides the scoresheet.

We'll see when it comes out. This is just funny. So much favor for ATF it seems.

 

[Bill of Rights]

…(or allowed to pass into law without POTUS signature or veto)….

John, I don’t think this happens at the federal level or indeed, most states. I could be mistaken, but I think Indiana may be alone in having this.

Regards and as always,

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HoughMade]

Edit:

Nevermind.

Nobody wants to read the other parts besides the scoresheet.

We'll see when it comes out. This is just funny. So much favor for ATF it seems.

What are you referring to other than the worksheet linked above? I've read the Federal Register on this. It is aimed at clarifying what "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder..." is. You are right. It is not exclusively about braces, but braces are by far the most prominent part of the rule. Though its not all about braces, for the most part, it is about "fired from the shoulder".

We may not like the point system or even that the law it refers to exists (18 U.S.C. sec 921(a)(7)). I don't, but as long as that law is on the books, more clarity is better than less. This way people can intelligently choose whether they want to comply with the law or not. Not knowing whether you are in compliance or not is certainly not a good situation.

If there are things that are evaluated which affect "pistols" that are not fired from the shoulder, or likely to be fired from the shoulder...what are they? What is the specific concern?

 

[areamike]

There are no new laws.

It's another definition change and they're bringing in a 'score sheet' that has an impossible to pass point system.

atf 4999 - Google Search

www.google.com

Click the very first link for the proposal. This is what is coming in August - maybe with changes - but they won't be massive changes more than likely.

Rules, regulations, codes and statutes are not LAW, lack due process and are unconstitutional. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court on many occasions.

 

[HoughMade]

Rules, regulations, codes and statutes are not LAW, lack due process and are unconstitutional. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court on many occasions.

Sometimes.

Cite me a case.

 

[DFacres]

How many millions of “braced” guns have been sold? I’ve heard many millions of “braces” sold. I consider myself fairly in tune with whatever unconstitutional nonsense they are doing and even I was unaware that they actually set this little to go active already. There will be literally hundreds of thousands if not a few million people who have no idea about the “law” at all.

Sounds then like they are of “common use” and the US Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot ban “common use” firearms. Thank you for pointing that out attorney Colion Noir.

United States vs Miller

 

[rooster]

"Brace" then.

...which never goes anywhere near a shoulder. Uh huh.

Look, the SBR law is dumb, but thinking if we call it something else but use it as a stock, everything changes....not quite as dumb, but dumb. This point-system form shows that and the only thing we should be surprised about is that its as "lenient" as it is.

So to respond to the OP, why would anyone be worried about their pistol?

Speaking of calling something one thing and then using it as another.

If I put my hand on my mag well does that now make it a verticals grip?

 

[JAL]

. . .
(or allowed to pass into law without POTUS signature or veto)
. . .
JAL

John, I don’t think this happens at the federal level or indeed, most states. I could be mistaken, but I think Indiana may be alone in having this.

Regards and as always,

Blessings,
Bill

Civics 101 Refresher:

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, Role of the President:
. . .
"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

POTUS has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto which usually ends up being 11 calendar days, occasionally 12. If POTUS does neither and Congress is still in session (meaning it could have been returned with a veto), it passes into law by default. If Congress is not in session which would prevent its return to Congress, it dies, permanently, and cannot passed by a veto override (2/3 of both chambers). The latter is called a "Pocket Veto" after James Madison reportedly put a bill he didn't like in his vest pocket knowing Congress would be in recess when the ten days expired. Vetoed bills are returned to their originating chamber. To prevent a Pocket Veto on a bill, the originating chamber will sometimes designate one member (or a few members) to be present for business to accept a veto while everyone else is out. The fuzzy area legally continues to be what constitutes "adjournment". SCOTUS has held forth on this a few times, but there's never been complete clarity.

I don't know about Indiana's Constitution . . . Indiana's Supreme Court declared the Pocket Veto on Indiana bills unconstitutional in 1969 wreaking havoc with many bills that had been subjected to it, some well over 100 years old. Indiana legislature repealed them all to clean everything up. Where that all stands now I don't know.

John

 

[The Bubba Effect]

This thread is a great opportunity to say things online that get our dogs shot.