View Full Version : ATF coming after all pistol braces now
nighterfighter
12-16-2020, 19:27
https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/16/atf-to-institute-rulemaking-regarding-stabilizing-braces-and-require-registration-of-currently-owned-braces/
If anyone is considering buying any sort of gun with a pistol brace, maybe reconsider.
hollohas
12-16-2020, 19:43
I knew we'd see an attack on all these things due to the election results, I just never considered they'd move this fast. The next president hasn't even taken office and here we are. Imagine what they do with a new administration and potentially even control of the senate (pending Georgia results). They aren't going to hold back.
kidicarus13
12-16-2020, 19:49
Great... great [emoji867]
As part of that
process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been
informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the
collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this
notice, in good faith.
Until that process is separately implemented, and absent a substantial public safety concern, ATF will exercise its enforcement discretion not to enforce the registration provisions of the NFA against any person who, before publication of this notice, in good faith acquired, transferred, made, manufactured, or possessed an affected stabilizer-equipped firearms.
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2020, 20:18
BUT, BUT. NOBODY WANT'S TO CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS
Of course not but by the time they get done. We'll be lucky to own a pistol grip.
Curious where all those OMB members are ? Sure they'll be the first to hand their guns in. Right along side those here who would willingly turn them in. Cause gun safety
BULLSHIT!
hurley842002
12-16-2020, 20:25
Meh, if I still had a pistol AR, I would not comply, that goes for any other currently legal firearm I may own, that the tyrannical government waves their wand and deems illegal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bailey Guns
12-16-2020, 20:31
That's what you should be concerned about because the changes aren't coming from Washington. They are coming right here at home.
Hold that thought...
They are definitely moving fast.
If I wanted an NFA registered SBR, then this may be an economical way to go [LOL] I do anticipate compliance to be quite low. I think the reason they publish a low/no priority in enforcement is to avoid any outrage cases among gun owners and anything escalating to SCOTUS. They are patient, if they stop the production and purchase of them, they still eventually get what they want if they wait long enough.
bellavite1
12-16-2020, 20:53
So, one could, theoretically, after this free registration, replace the brace with an actual stock and end up with a tax free SBR...
An SBR is an SBR, right?...asking for a friend...[Coffee]
What about a Roni conversion? Would one be registering a Glock 19 as an SBR?
It is Bush's fault..... oh wait, it is Carter's.
[flamingo]
It's a gun registration scheme, is what it is.
It's the frog turning up the heat in its own pot of boiling water to accept their "kind" and "gracious" offer.
How magnanimous of them.
kidicarus13
12-16-2020, 21:12
So, one could, theoretically, after this free registration, replace the brace with an actual stock and end up with a tax free SBR...
An SBR is an SBR, right?...asking for a friend...[Coffee]
My friend likes your friend's way of thinking.
So, one could, theoretically, after this free registration, replace the brace with an actual stock and end up with a tax free SBR...
An SBR is an SBR, right?...asking for a friend...[Coffee]
What about a Roni conversion? Would one be registering a Glock 19 as an SBR?
That?s the way I look at it. I mean I?m already on the books with suppressors and SBRs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wont matter...Biden wants all semi firearms registered as well.
But...we will see what they try and what the courts allow. There will be a number of ADA challenges to this. If they allow it unregistered for the disabled and not for the able bodied then they will have even more discrimination lawsuits.
Rucker61
12-16-2020, 22:44
What attorney general?
I wonder if any machine guns will sneak into the registration if its overloaded with pistols and semi-autos.
Just as a side note for people, GCA and NFA firearms are two different categories. What may regulate CGA firearms in the future may likely not apply at all to NFA firearms. And vice versa.
In other words, just by way of example, if they prohibited the sale of AR's to others and grandfathered them (e.g. magazine ban), it likely would not apply to NFA registered SBRs. You may be able to, or may even likely still be able to sell and trade SBR's that were registered prior to the GCA affecting-legislation, even if for all intent and purpose, they were an AR.
Also some of you folks might be wanting to get a trust setup mighty fast :p
ETA: Also FYL (f*** your life) for anyone trying to buy a suppressor in 2021. We should start a pool on wait times. 18 months for starters is my bet...
Rucker61
12-16-2020, 22:59
"This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16? or greater for a rifle, or 18? or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm"
If it's registered under NFA, why does the brace need to be removed?
It's a "one of the following" list, not an "and" thing.
battlemidget
12-16-2020, 23:06
Wont matter...Biden wants all semi firearms registered as well.
But...we will see what they try and what the courts allow. There will be a number of ADA challenges to this. If they allow it unregistered for the disabled and not for the able bodied then they will have even more discrimination lawsuits.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redbubble.com%2Fi%2Fsticker% 2FHandicap-Icon-by-GamingTV%2F15990350.EJUG5&psig=AOvVaw1vspD5r8OI2OBmspW9_3J8&ust=1608267940483000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNCM1ZKf1O0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABADRemin ds me of the handicap sticker of the guy in the wheelchair with the rifle
84247
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2020, 23:07
"This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16? or greater for a rifle, or 18? or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm"
If it's registered under NFA, why does the brace need to be removed?
Simple solution, for now. Cut the brace off, just under the buffer tube. Until they see what everyone has done for a work around.
Then they'll be going for the reach around.
Rucker61
12-16-2020, 23:14
Simple solution, for now. Cut the brace off, just under the buffer tube. Until they see what everyone has done for a work around.
Then they'll be going for the reach around.
What is it being registered as? What's the category? Ex-braced pistol? AR pistols don't need to be registered.
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2020, 23:19
What is it being registered as? What's the category? Ex-braced pistol? AR pistols don't need to be registered.
Not sure as i don't now, or ever owned a firearm with a brace. Ask my attorney.
he's in the cell next to me.
Rucker61
12-16-2020, 23:20
This makes as much sense as registering unserialized magazines under NFA.
What is it being registered as? What's the category? Ex-braced pistol? AR pistols don't need to be registered.
It's a SBR registration. Short Barreled Rifle. Apparently waiving the normal fee to do so ($200). So according to this draft, you can do one of the following to still be "legal":
1) Keep the brace, register your lower as a SBR under the N.F.A. for free. Interestingly, after it is registered, you could do pretty much anything you pleased. Put a legitimate rifle stock on your former pistol? Fine. Keep the brace on it? Fine. Take the brace off of it? Fine. Put a rifle upper on it? Fine. Put a pistol upper on it? Fine. Etc.
2) Take the brace off, and uh, destroy the brace. Your AR pistol is still a pistol, the issue is with the brace.
3) Wear a diaper and hand over your gun to law enforcement and say five "hail bidens" as penance, and donate to the DNC.
I'd register as an SBR for free in a heart beat. Then I'd move the brace to every other gun I wanted registered as an SBR as well.
hurley842002
12-16-2020, 23:30
I'd register as an SBR for free in a heart beat. Then I'd move the brace to every other gun I wanted registered as an SBR as well.
I like your style....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you mean, you would register eleven SBR's one at a time, with eleven pistol braces that you happened to have bought for cash over the last few months.
[Flower]
Great-Kazoo
12-16-2020, 23:35
It's a SBR registration. Short Barreled Rifle. Apparently waiving the normal fee to do so ($200). So according to this draft, you can do one of the following to still be "legal":
1) Keep the brace, register your lower as a SBR under the N.F.A. for free. Interestingly, after it is registered, you could do pretty much anything you pleased. Put a legitimate rifle stock on your former pistol? Fine. Keep the brace on it? Fine. Take the brace off of it? Fine. Put a rifle upper on it? Fine. Put a pistol upper on it? Fine. Etc.
2) Take the brace off, and uh, destroy the brace. Your AR pistol is still a pistol, the issue is with the brace.
3) Wear a diaper and hand over your gun to law enforcement and say five "hail bidens" as penance, and donate to the DNC.
Ok i'll apply for another 20+ SBR stamps. Figure with all the "compliance" for $0.00 it will take what, 4-5 years to approve everyone.
OR they use the applications as the excuse for IMMEDIATE CONFISCATION. Concerned the delay time would have many illegal guns on the street.
I can see that happening, easier than the flat earthers can see the horizon line.
With the buffer tube, isn?t a ?brace? just cosmetic anyway? Has there been any talk about at pistols?
Ok i'll apply for another 20+ SBR stamps. Figure with all the "compliance" for $0.00 it will take what, 4-5 years to approve everyone.
OR they use the applications as the excuse for IMMEDIATE CONFISCATION. Concerned the delay time would have many illegal guns on the street.
I can see that happening, easier than the flat earthers can see the horizon line.
Lets be real though. I'd guess there is probably 500,000 of these in circulation, if not a crapton more. Maybe even a couple million. Lets say they have 200,000 SBR registrations, and they demand 200,000 confiscations.
Not going to happen. You wouldn't find a LEO that wouldn't walk away from the job, and I'm not talking about them supporting the 2a. If your boss says "Hey, for the next two years, I'm going to have you knock on 2,000 houses and demand to confiscate your guns", that's would be classified as suicide by profession. Someone, somewhere, is going to be a nut out of all of those houses you would have to go to, and they know it in that volume. That's why they have not ever, and will not result to confiscation. Instead, they are patient and go with grandfathering. People who "bury it" don't shoot it and their kids don't either, also solving their problem. [OMG GRANDPA HAS A TERRIFYING ARSENAL WE FOUND AFTER HE DIED!]
What I'm starting to think... we all saw this writing on the wall and the Biden admin made it clear they were quickly going for it. This is getting rushed BEFORE Biden takes office.
Maybe they are trying to undermine the incoming admin - free SBR registration - that Biden/Harris clearly WOULD NOT WANT. As far as "registration" in NFA for a SBR, I don't think that's a value-add for the government, because they already know you are a gun owner. It does, identify one specific gun that could be accounted for, but it's still subject to the same issue I mentioned above.
(ETA: I should add, they also do voluntary buybacks, even "mandatory" buybacks, and prosecute when they find people e.g. with one in a car, but they still never do door-to-door confiscation, and never will in our lifetime, anyway)
While I may or may not possess such a device, I have more SBR lowers than short uppers, so I'm conflicted over what one theoretically might do. Asking for a friend.
1. Not comply, FU ATF
2. Pay the $200 and e-file it now to get ahead of the pre-confiscation lottery
3. SBR if/when there's a free window
While I may or may not possess such a device, I have more SBR lowers than short uppers, so I'm conflicted over what one theoretically might do. Asking for a friend.
1. Not comply, FU ATF
2. Pay the $200 and e-file it now to get ahead of the pre-confiscation lottery
3. SBR if/when there's a free window
#2 seems crazy. Even if it takes excessively long, the draft states they won't be enforcing. If your friend already has SBR's and want more SBR's, might as well register them free, even if it takes quite awhile to get it back. In the meantime, it sounds as if nobody is going to care if your friend keeps shooting short uppers on a pistol brace.
Harder decision if your friend has no NFA registrations yet.
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 00:46
The timing seems odd.
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 00:48
So if my friend had 15 lowers and one upper, is that 15 free SBR registrations?
Yes, the timing IS odd. And the short deadline on comments, the works. It's what got me thinking.... WHY this timing?
Beats the incoming admin, sets up a policy of non-enforcement, and opens a door for free NFA registration. Which can probably only happen if done before Jan 20.
Where Biden's admin through a director appointment would have banned them, required mandatory turnover (but no confiscation), no $ paid back, and may have went after companies, and instructed enforcement.
I wouldn't ever advocate banning them in any circumstance. Yet, in this circumstance it's hard to ban something that's already been banned. May be an intelligent chess move, but I'll never know. It could also easily just be a director gunning for a reappointment.
Scanker19
12-17-2020, 00:58
So if my friend had 15 lowers and one upper, is that 15 free SBR registrations?
Only if they weren’t 80% lowers sold with the uppers....on a Tuesday.... with an even date... if a crow flies overhead and bocks like a chicken, but not if the lower is polymer, and shipped with the jig.
Great-Kazoo
12-17-2020, 01:02
Lets be real though. I'd guess there is probably 500,000 of these in circulation, if not a crapton more. Maybe even a couple million. Lets say they have 200,000 SBR registrations, and they demand 200,000 confiscations.
Not going to happen. You wouldn't find a LEO that wouldn't walk away from the job, and I'm not talking about them supporting the 2a. If your boss says "Hey, for the next two years, I'm going to have you knock on 2,000 houses and demand to confiscate your guns", that's would be classified as suicide by profession. Someone, somewhere, is going to be a nut out of all of those houses you would have to go to, and they know it in that volume. That's why they have not ever, and will not result to confiscation. Instead, they are patient and go with grandfathering. People who "bury it" don't shoot it and their kids don't either, also solving their problem. [OMG GRANDPA HAS A TERRIFYING ARSENAL WE FOUND AFTER HE DIED!]
What I'm starting to think... we all saw this writing on the wall and the Biden admin made it clear they were quickly going for it. This is getting rushed BEFORE Biden takes office.
Maybe they are trying to undermine the incoming admin - free SBR registration - that Biden/Harris clearly WOULD NOT WANT. As far as "registration" in NFA for a SBR, I don't think that's a value-add for the government, because they already know you are a gun owner. It does, identify one specific gun that could be accounted for, but it's still subject to the same issue I mentioned above.
(ETA: I should add, they also do voluntary buybacks, even "mandatory" buybacks, and prosecute when they find people e.g. with one in a car, but they still never do door-to-door confiscation, and never will in our lifetime, anyway)
Why not. you have to leave your house, sometime. Hell, how long did the atf and other alphabet agencies, sit in waco before they torched the place? In places like CA, NY, NJ,CO etc, all it takes is 1 phone call and they're on you. Under the guise of those red flag laws.
Call me crazy but even AR10 would be interesting as an SBR. Wish I wasn't so budget limited and could afford to buy out a store. I imagine 358 winchester would be amazing as a SBR. 38 spl/357 bullets, cost effective reloading, and kickass M/E when you want it. Someday...
Call me crazy but even AR10 would be interesting as an SBR. Wish I wasn't so budget limited and could afford to buy out a store. I imagine 358 winchester would be amazing as a SBR. 38 spl/357 bullets, cost effective reloading, and kickass M/E when you want it. Someday...
That is a cool idea. SBR AR10.
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 08:28
I'd register as an SBR for free in a heart beat. Then I'd move the brace to every other gun I wanted registered as an SBR as well.
I'm thinking about buying some lowers just for this purpose.
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 09:00
Imagine if they'd had a similar process for bump stocks ;)
clodhopper
12-17-2020, 10:13
While I may or may not possess such a device, I have more SBR lowers than short uppers, so I'm conflicted over what one theoretically might do. Asking for a friend.
1. Not comply, FU ATF
2. Pay the $200 and e-file it now to get ahead of the pre-confiscation lottery
3. SBR if/when there's a free window
No question. 1. Harder to confiscate when they dont have documentation of specifically what you own, provided by your own hand. Someone might say they know what I have from my past purchases... sure, they might have some idea of what I might have, but they wont have an inventory. Besides, that boating accident a couple years back wiped out my safe contents pretty well. I see no reason to assist the government removing my constitutional rights. YMMV.
Yes, the timing IS odd. And the short deadline on comments, the works. It's what got me thinking.... WHY this timing?
Beats the incoming admin, sets up a policy of non-enforcement, and opens a door for free NFA registration. Which can probably only happen if done before Jan 20.
Where Biden's admin through a director appointment would have banned them, required mandatory turnover (but no confiscation), no $ paid back, and may have went after companies, and instructed enforcement.
I wouldn't ever advocate banning them in any circumstance. Yet, in this circumstance it's hard to ban something that's already been banned. May be an intelligent chess move, but I'll never know. It could also easily just be a director gunning for a reappointment.
My first thought is so Biden/dems can publicly claim they didnt do it, policy change under orangebadman. Not that they seem too concerned with hypocrisy.....
battlemidget
12-17-2020, 10:26
That is a cool idea. SBR AR10.
Adams Arms vends a piston 12.5 in 308, I hear it rips.
https://www.adamsarms.net/pistol-p2-308-12-aars
Grant H.
12-17-2020, 10:33
My first thought is so Biden/dems can publicly claim they didnt do it, policy change under orangebadman. Not that they seem too concerned with hypocrisy.....
100% this.
Biden has repeatedly PROMISED to come after guns that he and the other dems deem "unnecessary" for us lowly peasants to own. However, if he can accomplish this via the goons at ATF, during the last few months of the previous Pres, why not?
None of the goons at ATF are interested in doing something that would benefit gun owners.
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 12:44
My first thought is so Biden/dems can publicly claim they didnt do it, policy change under orangebadman. Not that they seem too concerned with hypocrisy.....
How would this work? Who is issuing instructions to ATF to do this? The AG?
clodhopper
12-17-2020, 13:54
How would this work? Who is issuing instructions to ATF to do this? The AG?
Doesnt matter. The Dem members of the ATF havent left their positions just cause Trump was elected. Now that he is on the way out, no risk, hammer down. There are no "orders" passed down on this. It is a lockstep action and effectively shields "their guy" when someone tries to tag him on it. "I didnt initiate new policy on xxx, it was the other guy! Look I am on your side!" And even if he does start some new crackdown, if ever called on it he can just compare himself to Trump identifying bumpstocks and braces. Same kind of tricks Obama used.
hollohas
12-17-2020, 13:55
How would this work? Who is issuing instructions to ATF to do this? The AG?The incoming Biden admin is. It's been reported for a while now that they were already working with the ATF.
The incoming Biden admin is. It's been reported for a while now that they were already working with the ATF.
Which sounds as illegal as all get-out, frankly.
clodhopper
12-17-2020, 15:40
Which sounds as illegal as all get-out, frankly.
Sure it is. Well really only if someone calls bullshit and files a suit. Otherwise, just forge ahead and act you know what you are doing!
Lets be real though. I'd guess there is probably 500,000 of these in circulation, if not a crapton more. Maybe even a couple million. Lets say they have 200,000 SBR registrations, and they demand 200,000 confiscations.
Not going to happen. You wouldn't find a LEO that wouldn't walk away from the job, and I'm not talking about them supporting the 2a. If your boss says "Hey, for the next two years, I'm going to have you knock on 2,000 houses and demand to confiscate your guns", that's would be classified as suicide by profession. Someone, somewhere, is going to be a nut out of all of those houses you would have to go to, and they know it in that volume. That's why they have not ever, and will not result to confiscation. Instead, they are patient and go with grandfathering. People who "bury it" don't shoot it and their kids don't either, also solving their problem. [OMG GRANDPA HAS A TERRIFYING ARSENAL WE FOUND AFTER HE DIED!]
What I'm starting to think... we all saw this writing on the wall and the Biden admin made it clear they were quickly going for it. This is getting rushed BEFORE Biden takes office.
Maybe they are trying to undermine the incoming admin - free SBR registration - that Biden/Harris clearly WOULD NOT WANT. As far as "registration" in NFA for a SBR, I don't think that's a value-add for the government, because they already know you are a gun owner. It does, identify one specific gun that could be accounted for, but it's still subject to the same issue I mentioned above.
(ETA: I should add, they also do voluntary buybacks, even "mandatory" buybacks, and prosecute when they find people e.g. with one in a car, but they still never do door-to-door confiscation, and never will in our lifetime, anyway)
So...they said there were about 500k bumpstocks. I would expect braces to exceed 2.5m.
If "creating" an SBR takes 5 months to get thru the registration process....then that works out to be 12m months to go thru all those registrations...or more than 1m years. If it even just takes 1 month to run the paperwork that puts things at 2.5m months or 208k years.
Adams Arms vends a piston 12.5 in 308, I hear it rips.
https://www.adamsarms.net/pistol-p2-308-12-aars
Now I def want a registered SBR Ar-10. The only unique thing needed for .358 is a barrel. They are just necked up 308. Same mags, same bolt, same everything.
And for those not in the know, 358 Winchester has loads with the same muzzle energy as 300 win mag and 338 win mag.
Except.... 358 Win happens to do better in much shorter barrels than other "hunting" calibers. So you can get that M/E with an optimal barrel length is about 20", where you need 26" or so for the magnums. It's amazing it isn't more popular in AR10 platforms. Probably kick like a horse on an SBR, but that's half the fun.
ETA: It should also be much better than 300 blackhawk for subsonic loads in theory. Both for loading costs, powder burn (probably quieter), and M/E. Just stick heavy 357 magnum bullets in there instead of super-expensive and hard to stabilize heavy 308 projectiles in a blackout.
wctriumph
12-17-2020, 16:09
I don’t have any SBR’s, no AK or AR pistols, never had any interest in them. But if I have a 12.5” upper hanging around, and I put it on my ghost lower, who will know?
I don’t really see very many people being compliant with the regulations.
I just hope that they don’t reclassify my M1 as a assault rifle.
Those braced pistol are perfect for trunk/truck guns. Ideal firearm for trip to free state visits. I will be going to NV at least 2x year, and I prefer taking pistol w/ brace over SBRs anytime.
hollohas
12-17-2020, 17:03
Those braced pistol are perfect for trunk/truck guns. Ideal firearm for trip to free state visits. I will be going to NV at least 2x year, and I prefer taking pistol w/ brace over SBRs anytime.Exactly. Everyone who is even considering the "free" NFA registration needs to think about what comes with that...out of state travel, moving, local laws concerning NFA. Etc.
Once you go NFA, you can't go back.
This isn't going to be cut and dry. And the arm brace determination is 100% subjective in how this reads. It may be too long. Your gun may be too heavy. Your sight may not be ideal. They may decide your point of aim changed too much. Your brace maybe too firm. Too large. If this becomes the policy and If THEY decide any of the above things doesn't make sense for a braced pistol, case-by-case, you now have an SBR.
It's so subjective, and based completely on what they think makes sense, who''s to stop them from saying your arm brace doesn't makes sense because you have TWO hands? Or that your arm brace has a strap that needs a second hand to secure so it's not actually a one-handed pistol anymore?
This is as grey as it gets.
Bailey Guns
12-17-2020, 17:12
I just hope that they don?t reclassify my M1 as a assault rifle.
OMG!!! YOU LITERALLY OWN A WEAPON OF WAR? LITERALLY!!!
kidicarus13
12-17-2020, 17:28
So...they said there were about 500k bumpstocks. I would expect braces to exceed 2.5m.
If "creating" an SBR takes 5 months to get thru the registration process....then that works out to be 12m months to go thru all those registrations...or more than 1m years. If it even just takes 1 month to run the paperwork that puts things at 2.5m months or 208k years.Huh? [scratching head]
So in 5 months, the ATF only approves 1 SBR application?
Huh? [scratching head]
So in 5 months, the ATF only approves 1 SBR application?
The time from submitting an application to approval varies. I heard someone today got theirs back in one month. Often it takes longer. Why does it take so long...per the feds they don't have the money or manpower to improve on that. Now you are going to add an additional...per Colion Noir...4 million more applications to that backlog.
Last I heard the time to transfer a MG is taking about 8 months and for some people it has been a year recently.
But to answer your question...no they approve more than one every x months...but each approval is taking x number of months...
Currently eform form 1’s are taking approximately 1 to 2 months to get back.
I don’t have any SBR’s, no AK or AR pistols, never had any interest in them. But if I have a 12.5” upper hanging around, and I put it on my ghost lower, who will know?
Wont that be next? Need to have your ghost lower engraved so it can be registered? How many more NFA applications can they process?
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 22:06
Interesting interpretation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3YTO2iCGnxvIqj6uFhlXRSKbpJsR1S77n uJyVr9sWSrupqvFdfFrT3fBo&v=yfDm5yfdh4Q&feature=youtu.be
Rucker61
12-17-2020, 22:36
SB Tactical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOt8FsbaXXQ
It sounds like it will be published today, so no bona fide purchases after tonight. But, who knows what level of scrutiny things will have. Probably low just from volume.
Rucker61
12-18-2020, 16:31
The notice has been posted.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2020-0001-0001
Here's what I submitted as a comment:
Regarding:
Type and Caliber.
Weight and Length.
Length of Pull.
Attachment Method.
Stabilizing Brace Design Features.
Aim Point.
Secondary Grip.
Sights and Scopes.
Will these have actual quantifiable definitions in the guidance, or will they remain as nebulous as currently written, with the enforcement of potential violations subject to the whim or mood of the investigating officer?
The exact same weapon used by a strong, 6'6" man may be classified as a pistol due to his ability to easily fire it one handed could fail that 'test' if used by a 5' tall petite woman. The possession of that firearm by the former would be legal while possession by the latter would be illegal, which would seem to violate the equal protection guaranteed to all citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Also, what is the purpose of this change? Only the law abiding will register their pistol as an SBR with the ATF under NFA 1934, and regardless of whether their weapon was equipped with a brace or stock doesn't make them or the firearm any more or any less of a risk to the public. What exactly does the government gain from this exercise, given that there will be no taxes collected from those who register while the process itself will cost the government money? If you trust a lawful citizen with an SBR, why don't you trust them with an AR pistol with a arm brace?
Bailey Guns
12-18-2020, 17:07
I'm sure the ATF will be scrupulously poring over in detail all comments submitted, just like they did with bump stocks. Then, after careful review of what the public really wants and what the law actually says, they'll tell us to all go fuck ourselves.
The notice has been posted.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2020-0001-0001
Here's what I submitted as a comment:
Regarding:
Type and Caliber.
Weight and Length.
Length of Pull.
Attachment Method.
Stabilizing Brace Design Features.
Aim Point.
Secondary Grip.
Sights and Scopes.
Will these have actual quantifiable definitions in the guidance, or will they remain as nebulous as currently written, with the enforcement of potential violations subject to the whim or mood of the investigating officer?
The exact same weapon used by a strong, 6'6" man may be classified as a pistol due to his ability to easily fire it one handed could fail that 'test' if used by a 5' tall petite woman. The possession of that firearm by the former would be legal while possession by the latter would be illegal, which would seem to violate the equal protection guaranteed to all citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Also, what is the purpose of this change? Only the law abiding will register their pistol as an SBR with the ATF under NFA 1934, and regardless of whether their weapon was equipped with a brace or stock doesn't make them or the firearm any more or any less of a risk to the public. What exactly does the government gain from this exercise, given that there will be no taxes collected from those who register while the process itself will cost the government money? If you trust a lawful citizen with an SBR, why don't you trust them with an AR pistol with a arm brace?
Looks fairly well stated.
I'm sure the ATF will be scrupulously poring over in detail all comments submitted, just like they did with bump stocks. Then, after careful review of what the public really wants and what the law actually says, they'll tell us to all go fuck ourselves.
That is for all intent and purpose what I told a co-worker this morning when he asked about it.
Ya, this is already decided, they are just going through the process they are required to.
I'm sure the ATF will be scrupulously poring over in detail all comments submitted, just like they did with bump stocks. Then, after careful review of what the public really wants and what the law actually says, they'll tell us to all go fuck ourselves.
^ this.
Quick summary of how next 9mo most likely be.
Interesting, I saw no ability to change the offending configuration. Only registration, making it full length, or destroying the brace or frame.
So if you had a scope that doesn't meet their eye relief requirements you cant just take off the scope?
I heard an opinion that NFA registered items are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. If that is true, this is as dirty as possible tricking people to registering by removing the fee.
Nope. I checked. No mention of any sort of NFA stuff or any exemptions mentioned in the second amendment.
Nope. I checked. No mention of any sort of NFA stuff or any exemptions mentioned in the second amendment.
Just some quaint reference to "...shall not be infringed."
I heard an opinion that NFA registered items are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. If that is true, this is as dirty as possible tricking people to registering by removing the fee.
Yeah buy back program for a coupon
Trap
I heard an opinion that NFA registered items are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. If that is true, this is as dirty as possible tricking people to registering by removing the fee.
https://www.guns.com/news/2016/07/05/court-holds-machine-guns-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment
Southwick basically saying 2A is about self-defense and not revolution, which is historically incorrect and essentially ignores the self defense from government aspect of revolution.
Rucker61
12-19-2020, 10:17
https://www.guns.com/news/2016/07/05/court-holds-machine-guns-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment
Southwick basically saying 2A is about self-defense and not revolution, which is historically incorrect and essentially ignores the self defense from government aspect of revolution.
I'm not worried about Southwick. I'm concerned about Kavanaugh:
"In sum, our task as a lower court here is narrow and constrained by precedent. We need not squint to divine some hidden meaning from Heller about what tests to apply. Heller was up-front about the role of text, history, and tradition in Second Amendment analysis – and about the absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulations. Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding – or, put another way, sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition – are consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. "
Dissent, Heller II.
Given this position, Kavanaugh would seeming uphold the NFA as Constitutional.
You're not going to find any SCOTUS, conservative or not, that is willing to overturn the 1934 NFA and make fully-autos available e.g. at Cabellas for $400. We have to live in pragmatic reality. That's essentially what it means.
However, banning NFA regulated firearms is still a new ban (e.g. such as banning all SBR), no different than banning GCA firearms such as an AWB. And there would especially be no precedence nor history, tradition, or text. So I don't think you have to worry about Kav.
Rucker, from the quote:
Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding – or, put another way, sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition – are consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.
So unconstitutional becomes constitutional due to the amount of mold on the rind of a constitutional violation block of smelly cheese?
This is the sort of legal genius we expect to decide things?
Oof.
Rucker61
12-19-2020, 11:31
Curious if you think that there is any actual risk to a new AWB if the Republicans lose the Senate. The Democrats know that any new gun control laws will be reviewed by SCOTUS with the risk of a strict scrutiny requirement as a result.
I'm also curious on your opinion of the impact of Caetano v Massachusetts on parts of the NFA, given that "in common use" has been defined as "hundreds of thousands" sold. SBRs and suppressors certainly qualify as "in common use" under that definition.
Good video from Colion regarding the new ATF letter on "stabilizing braces".
FWIW:
/BYISBtPpYTg
Good video from Colion regarding the new ATF letter on "stabilizing braces".
FWIW:
/BYISBtPpYTg
Link doesn?t work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
12-19-2020, 12:26
Curious if you think that there is any actual risk to a new AWB if the Republicans lose the Senate. The Democrats know that any new gun control laws will be reviewed by SCOTUS with the risk of a strict scrutiny requirement as a result.
I'm also curious on your opinion of the impact of Caetano v Massachusetts on parts of the NFA, given that "in common use" has been defined as "hundreds of thousands" sold. SBRs and suppressors certainly qualify as "in common use" under that definition.
Even with a very slim majority. Look at the politicians in congress who backed trump. Then look at those who don't, or waivering . That will tell you any common sense gun laws / restrictions/bans. Will have decent support, from spineless r's. Under the guise of well it could have been worse, but we were able to reach a compromise
Rucker61
12-19-2020, 12:29
Speaking of spineless Rs, why haven't Trump and Barr shut this down?
Speaking of spineless Rs, why haven't Trump and Barr shut this down?
Because Trump isn't 2A friendly. He's a New York business man for crying out loud. He's never been 2A friendly.
Bailey Guns
12-19-2020, 14:05
First off, I don't agree with the ATF at all on this issue. As a matter of fact, I find the ATF about as useful as the TSA. I rarely agree with anything the ATF does. I also think the NFA is wrong and directly violates the 2nd Amend. But no one cares what I think.
Having said that, I gotta ask... Why is anyone surprised this is happening?
Let's face it...many, many people have used these braces in ways they weren't intended to be used. In other words, they're misusing them and turning their AR-style pistols into SBR wanna-bes by adding these braces. For many people it's a cheap and fast way to avoid the wait and the cost of a stamp for a legal SBR. That's pretty common knowledge. It's so common it was picked up on the ATF radar. Hell...I considered getting an AR pistol w/brace. And I'd probably use it that way on occasion, too. But, frankly, after bump-stocks I knew it was a matter of time before this became the next target of the ATF. Honestly, I'm surprised it took them this long.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not defending the ATF by any means. But sometimes I'm certain some gun owners are their own worst damn enemies.
I have my own ideas regarding non-compliance with ridiculous laws. I choose to generally be a law-abiding sort. If I were going to pick a law with which to practice non-compliance, I sure as hell wouldn't advertise that I was doing so on YouTube and other social media.
And if anyone thinks they're gonna stop with pistol braces... Well, you just haven't been paying attention.
Because Trump isn't 2A friendly. He's a New York business man for crying out loud. He's never been 2A friendly.
Speaking of spineless Rs, why haven't Trump and Barr shut this down?
I knew that since 2016. (actually late 80s when he start opening his mouth on TV)
Rule of thumb since 1986. CA, NY, MA, IL, heavy blue state republican= Moderate Democrats.
+1 to that BG.
Separately, we can argue theoretically about the constitution and what we should have access to, but we have to realize that it's an ideological discussion. At it's core, we're 244 years into the judicial writing their own rules and wiping their ass with the constitution, dating way before any issues with the second amendment (try the judicial's inapposite-rewriting of the 11th for starters). Trying to defend ourselves in court with the constitution is as effective as trying to defend ourselves from home invaders with just the paper constitution. That's not the way it should be, but the way it is. I've said it before, our constitutional rights are more defined by what society will tolerate around you, and have always been defined by that, than anything else. Judges react to shifts in society, judges write the rules, and they also for all intents and purposes, get to enforce them. That's probably not the way our country was intended, and I do not agree with it, but it has operated that way longer than we've been alive.
We can argue that 1934 and 1986 should be overturned. Nobody is going to listen, even if you have 9/9 conservatives on SCOTUS.
We can argue that 4473's should be overturned. Nobody is going to listen, even if you have 9/9 conservatives on SCOTUS.
A judge can, and always do create any necessary justification for their position.
That doesn't mean we roll over (NRA) but that also doesn't mean we live in ideological stupidity and appeal things to judges who will never, in a billion billion billion lifetimes, side with us (RMGO).
It's a shitty bed, but there's no other one to sleep in. This :loophole: like all other sage legal genius from gun owners who've never been inside a courtroom, was doomed from the moment it started. It was only a matter of time.
Aloha_Shooter
12-20-2020, 22:17
Here we go again, letting the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Kavanaugh's statement clearly hits at undermining the recent bans and restrictions but that's not good enough for some people. The fact of the matter is that an 86 year old law has established a great deal of precedent so overturning it requires a great deal of legwork and frankly probably needs to be done via the legislative branch rather than the courts.
Rucker61
12-21-2020, 08:44
A judge can, and always do create any necessary justification for their position.
My favorite example of this being the majority opinion in Friedman v Highland Park.
"If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events...If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit. "
battlemidget
12-21-2020, 08:53
I agree with Foxart on the " constitutional rights are more defined by what society will tolerate around you", but it's largely situational. I used to live/work in NYC and you definitely live with reduced rights when people are packed in that dense. It's just a byproduct of being that close to other people. They're in your personal space (and you're in theirs) constantly. You ride mass transit all packed in butt to nut, and short people are frequently wedged between larger people (when I say wedged, I don't mean conveniently standing between 2 larger people, I mean WEDGED, see my name) . If all those people were armed it would be unsafe even with the absence of any intent. That erosion of rights has a trickle down effect. Every successful nation in history produced large city-states, that arguably contributed to their downfall.
The problem is, the people in those big cities think that's the way life is, and the people in the rest of country disagree.
sportbikeco
12-21-2020, 10:39
What would be an example of a braced pistol that would be compliment with this most recent opinion?
Rucker61
12-21-2020, 11:05
What would be an example of a braced pistol that would be compliment with this most recent opinion?
The "objective" standards in this latest ruling are still too subjective to positively identify a braced pistol guaranteed to be exempt.
The problem is it will be a subjective standard. So once again, a judge can provide basis for however they want to rule. Your 10.5" with a night vision scope, a SB4 pistol brace with a "shape filler" installed, a bipod, three pistol grips, a suppressor, and a 20 pound iron weight hanging off the end of it could still be considered a pistol.
If the judge was conservative, pro gun.
Or, your 5.5" 300 blackout with open sights and skeletonized everything and a blade-style brace and no other accessories could be determined a unregistered SBR if your judge is progressive, arbitrarily sentencing you to 24 months in the can with a $5,000 fine. If you appeal it, the appeal goes before progressive appointed appellate judges. You'd still serve your sentence and pay $85,000 to have appealed it.
That's how the system works.
That said, the proposed policy for now is one of non-enforcement. That means, if you get in trouble for something else, they'll probably tack on SBR charges to really "NAIL YOU" and force you to accept an inflated plea bargain so that you never can risk a jury trial and they never risk anyone being found innocent. However, if you don't get in trouble for something else, they'll overlook your SBR/Pistol even if LEO see you shooting it. It's just a convenient, selectively enforced, "get into jail card" if they need to utilize it.
That's actually, more correctly, how the system works, and selective enforcement is far more f'ed up that subjective enforcement.
OR...you keep your f**king mouth shut and not advertise what you may or may not have in your possession, at least until the direction of the wind changes again
Dont forget this letter actually goes against the court case where the atf lost
So, one could, theoretically, after this free registration, replace the brace with an actual stock and end up with a tax free SBR...
An SBR is an SBR, right?...asking for a friend...[Coffee]
What about a Roni conversion? Would one be registering a Glock 19 as an SBR?
Yep on all accounts. An SBR can have an actual stock on it as that is what an SBR is. So...if a brace makes a gun into an SBR...then it can have a stock instead of a brace.
Personally I am not a glock fan...but this might be reason to own one. I had always considered getting a glock just to put a brace on it...ala this....but replace the stock with a brace...but...if they are doing the SBR thing this might be interesting...
My hope is...they don't restrict it to registering items with braces on them. It would be nice to slip in SBRing something like a PS90 into the system. That being said...we will see what they do...and what response I will have to their actions.
SouthPaw
12-22-2020, 09:33
If this has already been posted, I apologize. You can leave comments on your thoughts about this here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
Little Dutch
12-22-2020, 11:08
If this has already been posted, I apologize. You can leave comments on your thoughts about this here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
Someone needs to post a template for comments. While simply telling the commies to F off and denigrating their sexual preferences is the correct response, it's not likely to work in our favor.
battlemidget
12-22-2020, 14:25
I think ultimately braces will be kept, but scopes and braces that are clearly not braces on pistols opens the door to scrutiny. I think the hidden danger is that firearms may be legally statused relative to the owner, which could be a paving stone made into a legal roadmap for something else.
hollohas
12-22-2020, 21:05
I think the hidden danger is that firearms may be legally statused relative to the owner, which could be a paving stone made into a legal roadmap for something else.
That's exactly where it's going. Lets be honest here, braces were ALWAYS meant to be a SBR loophole. What one handed people are securing a velcro strap around their other arm? Braces are not particularly practical for one handed shooters and that's what this proposal fundamentally addresses...is the arm-braced weapon practical for true one handed shooting?
The only way to answer that is by the characteristics of the shooter.
Obeying the law is not a loophole, unless the goal is criminalizing people. Especially when it’s been clarified as legal and fine for years, only to suddenly come out of the progressive closet as a “violation” of NFA (retroactively, of course). We shouldn’t use the language of the enemy.
Grant H.
12-22-2020, 21:45
Obeying the law is not a loophole, unless the goal is criminalizing people. Especially when it’s been clarified as legal and fine for years, only to suddenly come out of the progressive closet as a “violation” of NFA (retroactively, of course). We shouldn’t use the language of the enemy.
Criminalizing people is the goal...
hollohas
12-22-2020, 21:46
We shouldn?t use the language of the enemy.
Meh. They're moving forward with this no matter what language we use on a small gun forum. Everyone knows arm braces are used almost exclusively so we can have legal shorter rifles. A very small amount are used as tools by the disabled as they were approved. And now they're calling us out.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit and the NFA is bullshit. But let's not all act surprised that the ATF is fully aware that damn near every arm brace sold goes on a wannabe SBR...
Grant H.
12-22-2020, 22:12
It's cracking me up that I have gotten several promo emails advertising sale prices on braces...
Two fold:
1. Middle finger to the ATF from some e-tailers.
2. Divesting of stock that may be banned in the near future.
Maybe we need some 80% arm braces. If it isn?t 100% an arm brace then it can?t fall under the new rules.
Maybe we need some 80% arm braces. If it isn?t 100% an arm brace then it can?t fall under the new rules.
Yes, not that it will change the rules once manufactured.
If we can be expected to bend over backward for the tiny percentage of transgender in the population, then we should expect the same for the equally tiny percentage of disabled firearm owners.
Great-Kazoo
12-22-2020, 22:49
That's exactly where it's going. Lets be honest here, braces were ALWAYS meant to be a SBR loophole. What one handed people are securing a velcro strap around their other arm? Braces are not particularly practical for one handed shooters and that's what this proposal fundamentally addresses...is the arm-braced weapon practical for true one handed shooting?
The only way to answer that is by the characteristics of the shooter.
We've discussed this at the range a few times. Oddly enough, a few of us can shoot a pistol config AR with brace, 1 handed. AND hit something, other than the dirt & berm.
As a disabled (as recognized by the federal .gov) firearm enthusiast AND VETERAN, who supports any and all disabled gun owners. This reeks of blatant ADA discrimination.
Grant H.
12-22-2020, 22:57
Yes, not that it will change the rules once manufactured.
If we can be expected to bend over backward for the tiny percentage of transgender in the population, then we should expect the same for the equally tiny percentage of disabled firearm owners.
As you well know, that is not within the proverbial "tolerance" of the liberals.
hollohas
12-22-2020, 22:59
As a disabled (as recognized by the federal .gov) firearm enthusiast AND VETERAN, who supports any and all disabled gun owners. This reeks of blatant ADA discrimination.
They'll avoid that by classifying arm-braced pistols owned by disabled individuals as just that, armed braced pistols. No NFA registration required.
Everyone else will be subject to whatever whims the ATF can dream up to classify thier arm braces pistols as NFA.
I can see the gov issuing disabled permits or something in the future so folks who need arm braces pistols can have them outside NFA. Like a handicap placard for your gun. Sounds outrageous and illegal, but hey, things are getting crazy. Who knows what fun is in our future.
Meh. They're moving forward with this no matter what language we use on a small gun forum. Everyone knows arm braces are used almost exclusively so we can have legal shorter rifles. A very small amount are used as tools by the disabled as they were approved. And now they're calling us out.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit and the NFA is bullshit. But let's not all act surprised that the ATF is fully aware that damn near every arm brace sold goes on a wannabe SBR...
I agree actually. The nfa is a sham but I don't see how anyone is thinking that the brace wasn't trying to subvert it in the end.
“Subvert”... An unjust and unconstitutional “law”... and then be told it’s fine for years... until it’s not. Right.
You people amaze me. Now I understand how those unconscionable regimes of yesteryear achieved what they did. “Law” abiding folks.
Amazing.
Subvert the law...what you actually mean is...people worked within the boundaries as established by the government to do something completely legal. Otherwise...the ATF would never have said it was legal to begin with.
It completely annoys me when people refer to things like this as subverting the law. No. People looked at what the law says...and made something that does not break the law. It is not illegal...or unethical...or immoral...to work within the law.
Let's look at it another way....is putting a second hand on your pistol against the law? The definition of a pistol is a firearm designed to be fired with 1 hand. Have you subverted the law by placing that second hand on it? Keeping in mind that a pistol designed to be fired with both hands is an NFA item....a lot of pistols have ribbing on the front of the trigger guard. Is that subverting the law?
The term "subverting the law" comes across to me as liberal speak for "while what you are doing is perfectly legal...I still don't like it and want it made illegal".
hollohas
12-23-2020, 06:55
You people that get all bent out of shape about words amazing me.
Nobody here is saying it's right. The NFA is wrong and the new ATF proposal is wrong. It's all unconstitutional. But it's a fact that arm braces are used to make wannabe SBR's. Absolutely it's been 'legal' and now they're going to make it mostly illegal. That's wrong too. But it's no surprise.
And while we're getting all uppity about word choice and equating word choice to being some sort of indicator of willingness to allow tyrannical rule...none of this is LAW in the simple sense. The ATF choosing to allow arm braces for the last whatever years was not law, it was not passed by any legislature. And them choosing to change their classification now is not law, it won't be voted on by any legislature. It's all adminstrative. If we're going to get upset about anything, it should be rules, punishable by jail and fines, being made up by people who weren't elected and who aren't accountable to the people.
hollohas
12-23-2020, 07:07
People are totally cool when ATF bureaucrats make determinations in their favor.
Then they're totally pissed when those determinations change.
Instead people should be angry that ATF bureaucrats make determinations at all.
Determinations based on interpretations of law should be made in court, not on papers published for 14-day citizen review.
The underlying issue is that the ATF/ NFA/GCA should NOT exist, yet they do.
American Citizens have, and will continue to be incarcerated for failing to abide by the unconstitutional rules and regs of the ATF/NFA/GCA.
Playing by the silly rules simply means we are compromising on the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
However, going to the ATF with facts, truth, and logic and telling them they should not exist will NOT actually prevent them from shifting the legal-ish goal posts yet again.
A holistic view of any of the current or future ATF views, opinions, and definitions means that the ATF gets to decide when your Home Defense Shotgun has no clear sporting purpose and is now an evil Destructive Device, unless you pay the tax and register it.
Gripping your Glock 19 with two hands? Illegal unless you pay the tax and register it.
The only reason anyone follows the silly rules is that if they do not, there is a chance they will be caught, made an example of, and punished, or be significantly inconvenienced, win our day in court, regain whatever government authorized freedom we are allowed back and then still owe a pack of lawyers and the court a bunch fees and charges.
Complying with Gun registration = Holding pattern awaiting confiscation.
Failing to comply = Evading confiscation
Would the NFA still be here if not a single American had chosen to comply? Ever? Or, would there simply have been more prisons built to hold all the new inmates?
We've got a law, something technical by nature. We all seem to agree that this particular law is arbitrary and unconstitutional. A brace was allowed based on breaking down some technical details of this law, what I see happening here is that it's being broken down even further now and the initial technicality is getting overshadowed. I'm not trying to split hairs over one specific word or another. I wanted to point out that I feel that it was common knowledge that the brace was allowed under a technicality in the first place.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
nighterfighter
12-23-2020, 18:35
About an hour ago, the ATF seems to have backed down on their position.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
Edit: Joe_K posted it right before me.
Zundfolge
12-23-2020, 18:52
About an hour ago, the ATF seems to have backed down on their position.
Have they actually backed down or are they just saying they aren't asking for input from the public anymore?
DenverGP
12-23-2020, 19:12
if they have backed down, it's only because they tipped their hand a month too soon, and need to wait until biden is actually in office first. It'll be back.
nighterfighter
12-23-2020, 19:20
Have they actually backed down or are they just saying they aren't asking for input from the public anymore?
They withdrew their proposed rule change...
In reality, I'm sure it won't matter. Biden has said he wants pistol braces gone, I believe. So maybe it will just be an executive order.
Well... that actually is a disappointment.
WHY? Because it's 100% coming down the pipe under BIDEN now, and it'll just be a outright ban with "mandatory turnover" but no confiscation, and also no payment. At least we could have kept them as SBRs which was desirable.
APEXgunparts
12-23-2020, 20:53
We know a DC based law firm that specializes in firearms related law (manufacturing, imports, exports, etc)
I have been chatting and was told this action by ATF didn't happen without cause.
This is the industry fighting back, and putting political pressure to bear.
Hopefully the companies "paying the bill" will post details when the time is appropriate.
Richard
Great-Kazoo
12-23-2020, 21:33
We know a DC based law firm that specializes in firearms related law (manufacturing, imports, exports, etc)
I have been chatting and was told this action by ATF didn't happen without cause.
This is the industry fighting back, and putting political pressure to bear.
Hopefully the companies "paying the bill" will post details when the time is appropriate.
Richard
and hopefully the people who own them, or even a gun. Will spend money with said companies, or at least make a donation for them.
JohnnyDrama
12-23-2020, 21:45
Well... that actually is a disappointment.
WHY? Because it's 100% coming down the pipe under BIDEN now, and it'll just be a outright ban with "mandatory turnover" but no confiscation, and also no payment. At least we could have kept them as SBRs which was desirable.
Maybe not that draconian... Someone will arrive at a "common sense" "compromise".
nighterfighter
12-23-2020, 22:06
Maybe not that draconian... Someone will arrive at a "common sense" "compromise".
The "loopholes" of today were the "compromises" of yesterday.
There truly won't be any stopping gun control nuts until all firearms are banned.
It seems like we lost a chance to register a bunch of lowers as SBRs for free and quickly.
89 members of congress contacted the ATF and DOJ and told them they needed to back off on this.
It seems like we lost a chance to register a bunch of lowers as SBRs for free and quickly.
You and FoxyFart are a special kind of special.
89 members of congress contacted the ATF and DOJ and told them they needed to back off on this.
It does read like someone got dick slapped.
Good.
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/12/23/atf-withdraws-pistol-brace-guidance/
The ATF should have been rightly concerned. I predict noncompliance would have been 100%, and I frankly wouldn’t have wanted to be an ATF agent under such rules (but then I wouldn’t want to be an ATF agent anyway because I have moral scruples).
Zundfolge
12-24-2020, 12:19
We'll see where we are this time next month. I smell short term tactical retreat, not surrender.
It seems like we lost a chance to register a bunch of lowers as SBRs for free and quickly.
Next week the EPA will give you a chance to register your household appliances and tools for free!
The week after that, USDA will give you a once in a lifetime opportunity to register any Land or real estate you own with them. For Free!!!
I also heard the FDA is going to go out of there way to let you serialize and register any canned food goods you may or may not own for, get this, FREE, FREE, FREE! Yep, you heard me right, zero cost to you!
When the government allows you to do something for free, that you should never have had to do in the first place, you, me, all of us, are NOT free.
America, aint she a swell FREE country!?
palepainter
12-24-2020, 15:34
I generally feel like I am going to get straight info here. Thanks everyone for the updates.
I generally feel like I am going to get straight info here. Thanks everyone for the updates.
Completely FREE.
You people that get all bent out of shape about words amazing me.
Nobody here is saying it's right. The NFA is wrong and the new ATF proposal is wrong. It's all unconstitutional. But it's a fact that arm braces are used to make wannabe SBR's. Absolutely it's been 'legal' and now they're going to make it mostly illegal. That's wrong too. But it's no surprise.
And while we're getting all uppity about word choice and equating word choice to being some sort of indicator of willingness to allow tyrannical rule...none of this is LAW in the simple sense. The ATF choosing to allow arm braces for the last whatever years was not law, it was not passed by any legislature. And them choosing to change their classification now is not law, it won't be voted on by any legislature. It's all adminstrative. If we're going to get upset about anything, it should be rules, punishable by jail and fines, being made up by people who weren't elected and who aren't accountable to the people.
Semantics on the general gist.
Words mean things. But beyond their mere strict definition they carry social context. To use the language of the enemy is to give them comfort. Change the language, change the view. Simple as that.
We've got a law, something technical by nature. We all seem to agree that this particular law is arbitrary and unconstitutional. A brace was allowed based on breaking down some technical details of this law, what I see happening here is that it's being broken down even further now and the initial technicality is getting overshadowed. I'm not trying to split hairs over one specific word or another. I wanted to point out that I feel that it was common knowledge that the brace was allowed under a technicality in the first place.
No technicality. Just reality. The reality they swear to adhere to and defend, until they don?t. That the GayTF wants to live in Lala land where everything is a machine gun SBR, cus ya know... the operator of it would totally intend to do that if they could...
What you?re talking about is a concept in philosophy called first principles. If the first principle is wrong then all conclusions necessarily are wrong. The only thing left to do is defend (St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in the first part of the Summa Theologica). But that becomes problematic when the decisive agency in establishing principles of interpretation get first principles wrong. It?s akin to Microsoft not understanding the basics of an OS, or Cisco not understanding an IP address. It effectively nullifies any authority in doing anything. But, that much is clear by the fact that it?s the GayTF.
So many brace haters here.
Next time might not be a brace but it can be anything from ammo to fun toys like fostech/franklins.
Gotta fight for every single things. We did not fight hard enough for that bump fire stock and is now banned with exe order.
thedave1164
12-27-2020, 08:52
So many brace haters here.
Next time might not be a brace but it can be anything from ammo to fun toys like fostech/franklins.
Gotta fight for every single things. We did not fight hard enough for that bump fire stock and is now banned with exe order.
quote for truth
technically speaking we should not need to have this discussion, according to the supreme law of the land that is. ( I know, I should be preaching to the choir here, but feel like many have backslid )
Aloha_Shooter
12-28-2020, 14:49
It's not a matter of being brace haters. I don't use one, don't care if someone else does. However, we should expect loopholes to get closed down when people openly brag about circumventing the law or rules. Bureaucrats in my experience rarely take the time or trouble to go after small potatoes but of course they're going to do something when they see dozens of videos and hundreds of pictures being posted with people who are obviously using using pistol braces as a way to get around SBR laws. This is why I've said before to fix the law (i.e., take SBRs out of the NFA) or just work to repeal the NFA altogether instead of trying to circumvent it with widespread obvious distortions.
Making what is essentially a shoulder stock and calling it a brace while posting videos of using it as a shoulder stock is just going to hurt the people that actually need braces for their pistols. It is really no different from colorado.gov trying to circumvent TABOR by calling everything a fee and creating new "enterprises", just reversing the direction of who is trying to circumvent the rules.
Bailey Guns
12-28-2020, 15:20
So many brace haters here.
Next time might not be a brace but it can be anything from ammo to fun toys like fostech/franklins.
Gotta fight for every single things. We did not fight hard enough for that bump fire stock and is now banned with exe order.
It's not about hating braces. It's about hating stupid people. Simple as that.
If you're (generic...not you) stupid enough to put a brace on a "pistol" then call it a brace while you give a big *wink**wink* and then proceed to post a video of yourself shooting your pistol like a rifle WTF do you expect the ATF to do? Stupid people are the problem. And the ATF is comprised of people who, if they weren't working for the ATF, would be making videos of themselves shooting their pistol w/brace like a rifle.
I don't know. It was always a stupid rule that people never intended to follow. What's another stupid rule that people don't intend to follow?
It's not about hating braces. It's about hating stupid people. Simple as that.
If you're (generic...not you) stupid enough to put a brace on a "pistol" then call it a brace while you give a big *wink**wink* and then proceed to post a video of yourself shooting your pistol like a rifle WTF do you expect the ATF to do? Stupid people are the problem. And the ATF is comprised of people who, if they weren't working for the ATF, would be making videos of themselves shooting their pistol w/brace like a rifle.
How you hold a gun does not change the definition of what the gun is. If it did then 99+% of pistols would be AOWs becaiuse of people placing a second hand on them.
Great-Kazoo
12-28-2020, 16:20
I don't know. It was always a stupid rule that people never intended to follow. What's another stupid rule that people don't intend to follow?
speed limits. noise ordinances, fireworks, rental property capacity, building codes, watering limits, to name a few.
speed limits. noise ordinances, fireworks, rental property capacity, building codes, watering limits, to name a few.
What? No illicit drugs or prostitution? I?m disappointed in you.
It's not about hating braces. It's about hating stupid people. Simple as that.
If you're (generic...not you) stupid enough to put a brace on a "pistol" then call it a brace while you give a big *wink**wink* and then proceed to post a video of yourself shooting your pistol like a rifle WTF do you expect the ATF to do? Stupid people are the problem. And the ATF is comprised of people who, if they weren't working for the ATF, would be making videos of themselves shooting their pistol w/brace like a rifle.
Well... the GayTF themselves said that a brace remains a brace if shouldered, correcting their 2014 and 2015 mistake in saying use constituted redesign.
https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Pistol-brace-ATF-letter-March-21-2017.pdf
This country has become so concerned about rules and laws, we forgot to just be people. But, that?s just like, my opinion Man...
This country has become so concerned about rules and laws, we forgot to just be people. But, that?s just like, my opinion Man...
We aren’t people. We are chattel for the ruling class of betters. At least until each man decides he is Spartacus, at least for himself.
BushMasterBoy
12-28-2020, 19:10
You have to fight! This sucks.
Bailey Guns
12-28-2020, 19:38
Well... the GayTF themselves said that a brace remains a brace if shouldered, correcting their 2014 and 2015 mistake in saying use constituted redesign.
https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Pistol-brace-ATF-letter-March-21-2017.pdf
So I read that as saying the ATF concludes that using a pistol brace as a stock does constitute the pistol becoming a SBR. It reads to me they used faulty terminology to reach that conclusion but the conclusion is valid. I don't see how that rebuts what I said. Then again, wouldn't be the first time I missed something obvious.
Bailey Guns
12-28-2020, 19:40
You have to fight! This sucks.
How would you propose someone fight this? If you have a viable idea I'm all ears.
So I read that as saying the ATF concludes that using a pistol brace as a stock does constitute the pistol becoming a SBR. It reads to me they used faulty terminology to reach that conclusion but the conclusion is valid. I don't see how that rebuts what I said. Then again, wouldn't be the first time I missed something obvious.
This is why I keep bringing up how a pistol is held. If they are correct in their line of thought virtually every pistol suddenly becomes an AOW as soon as you place the second hand on it.
TEAMRICO
12-28-2020, 23:28
But does any of this make the bullets less deadly or more deadly coming out of the muzzle if used for crime purposes?
Great-Kazoo
12-29-2020, 00:10
But does any of this make the bullets less deadly or more deadly coming out of the muzzle if used for crime purposes?
Less deadly.
. Just like the CA law limiting mags to 10 rounds. As if getting shot by 10 rounds doesn't do anything. Till that illegal 11th rounds hits you. Then . IT'S MAYHEM AND DESTRUCTION.
https://youtu.be/C3E5Fdt-XD8
Sounds like the comment form is still up and active.
Aloha_Shooter
12-29-2020, 03:59
This is why I keep bringing up how a pistol is held. If they are correct in their line of thought virtually every pistol suddenly becomes an AOW as soon as you place the second hand on it.
No, that's ridiculous and stretching to try to make a point (badly). Holding a pistol with 2 hands is far from putting a shoulder stock on it. It would be far more consistent and cleaner to just get rid of the SBR designation but I can't fault the ATF for saying that putting a shoulder stock on the pistol makes it an SBR -- especially when they are deluged with photographic and video evidence of people doing precisely that with "braces". This ruling is a self-inflicted wound and it's not going to get solved with childish insults like "GayTF".
Add on the fact that thousands of people have probably written letters to the ATF asking for clarification on shouldering a brace.
But does any of this make the bullets less deadly or more deadly coming out of the muzzle if used for crime purposes?
The re question is:
Has any of these infringements stop a single criminal from obtaining or using a gun in a crime?
.
.
.
Nope.
Criminals don't care what the law says, but the elected morons punish us for the acts of criminals. I getting close to that point that we stop following these infringements and build what we want.
No, that's ridiculous and stretching to try to make a point (badly). Holding a pistol with 2 hands is far from putting a shoulder stock on it. It would be far more consistent and cleaner to just get rid of the SBR designation but I can't fault the ATF for saying that putting a shoulder stock on the pistol makes it an SBR -- especially when they are deluged with photographic and video evidence of people doing precisely that with "braces". This ruling is a self-inflicted wound and it's not going to get solved with childish insults like "GayTF".
The ATF stated that if you put a brace on a pistol...and use it as a brace (how you hold it) it is a braced pistol. Then as soon as you touch it to your shoulder (again how you hold it) you have suddenly made it into a SBR. That is per the ATF.
The same can be said with a pistol. If you are holding it with one hand it is just a pistol...but as soon as that second hand touches it it no longer meets the definition of a pistol. It now meets the definition of an AOW. They made it all about what is touching the gun.
The ATF stated that if you put a brace on a pistol...and use it as a brace (how you hold it) it is a braced pistol. Then as soon as you touch it to your shoulder (again how you hold it) you have suddenly made it into a SBR. That is per the ATF.
The ATF backtracked on that statement a few years back.
So I read that as saying the ATF concludes that using a pistol brace as a stock does constitute the pistol becoming a SBR. It reads to me they used faulty terminology to reach that conclusion but the conclusion is valid. I don't see how that rebuts what I said. Then again, wouldn't be the first time I missed something obvious.
Page 2, 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and Page 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, get at the heart of the matter in the letter (most of which was rehashing the original 2014 and 2015 letters to set up the aforementioned paragraphs for clarification).
Page 2, paragraph 2: Manner of Use argument is not cut and dry; certain circumstances of use would constitute redesign and NFA status.
Page 2, paragraph 3: Redesign and thus NFA necessitates specific things, such as permanently placing at end of buffer tube (SBA3 and others are not permanently in such a configuration, and a valid argument could be made for larger individuals), arm strap removal, etc. Key takeaway line, "This conclusion is not based upon the mere fact that the firearm was fired from the shoulder at some point."
Page 3, paragraph 1: use of an arm brace "fired at or near the shoulder does not constitute 'redesign', and such interpretation is incorrect and not consistent with ATF's interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced"
Page 3, paragraph 2: milquetoast exact opposite of what they said in page 2, paragraph 2, but without stating so definitively.
Translation: use of a brace against the shoulder does not make it a stock unless one takes actions to make it so, but, taking actions to make it so does not necessarily make it so unless it does, or something (who knows).
Subtranslation: We have no idea what we're doing, don't mean what we say unless we do (but don't), and the public has no way of knowing anything unless we decide to slip on the ol' jackboots.
My take: FATF. Their ability to interpret "law" is about on par with my 3 year old's ability to decide what he wants for a snack. Tough shit, ATF, you get chicken nuggets and NO you cannot have more ketchup since you haven't used all that's on your plate. If they'd said "no" originally, that would be one thing. But they've let a situation fester for 8+ years now and millions of these things are in common use. They are clear that manner of use does not constitute a redesign, but rather that a person must do something to the device to constitute as such. And, while that does not have to be permanent, the determination as such is nebulous at best.
The ATF backtracked on that statement a few years back.
Yes, but that wasn't his argument. His argument was that they made it about what's touching the gun, which per law can only be one hand. So by that logic, 2 hands on a pistol = AOW.
Per law, that's the rub: a pistol is designed to be fired with one hand (hep cats and ragtime dolls!) and as such the manner of use argument would extend to two handed pistol shooting. But that's different from sticking a VFG on a pistol.
Moreover, their original BS criteria of things (too heavy, etc.) basically cuts the knees out of things like BR pistol shooting.
Maybe they SHOULD go after the Fudds. Then LaPierre might do something besides be a wart on the shaft of the NRA.
wctriumph
12-29-2020, 15:36
I have not read every single post but check in every couple of days so I apologize if someone else answered this:
At the first put up or shut up, I shot a AK pistol Islandermike brought, it had a sling that I wrapped around my shoulder and fired it with both hands. Would the sling on my shoulder qualify as a stock?
Rucker61
12-29-2020, 15:53
I have not read every single post but check in every couple of days so I apologize if someone else answered this:
At the first put up or shut up, I shot a AK pistol Islandermike brought, it had a sling that I wrapped around my shoulder and fired it with both hands. Would the sling on my shoulder qualify as a stock?
According to the ATF ruling, you would have had to send it in to the ATF and let them decide.
beast556
12-29-2020, 15:55
I have not read every single post but check in every couple of days so I apologize if someone else answered this:
At the first put up or shut up, I shot a AK pistol Islandermike brought, it had a sling that I wrapped around my shoulder and fired it with both hands. Would the sling on my shoulder qualify as a stock?
No a sling around your shoulder is not considered a stock by the atf yet. In a few more years who knows.
Maybe. If the sling was touching the front of your shoulder you were probably shooting an SBR. I don?t think there?s an official opinion yet about bracing something off the back side of your shoulder.
Shoulder Brace
https://content.motosport.com/images/items/large/EVS/EVS0062/X001.jpg
Shoulder Sling
https://www.breg.com/wp-content/uploads/product_images/Slingshot-2-shoulder-brace.png
Does either one of those go up?
That could be super deadly.
TEAMRICO
12-29-2020, 21:19
Newsom is already looking at ways to make them CA compliant.
Great-Kazoo
12-30-2020, 00:05
Does either one of those go up?
That could be super deadly.
If my shoulder was in a sling, i doubt, thoughts of anything going up, was crossing my mind. Or possible, depending what meds were prescribed.
In fighting over silly details...
Why can't we all just agree gun laws are bad, and our 2nd amendment right should be unregulated? Does it matter the shape, length, feature, function of a gun? They all go boom and fire a projectile. There should be no such classification for a pistol, shotgun,, rifle,, ect in the federal codes, just firearm.
No wonder our side is losing.
TEAMRICO
12-30-2020, 19:13
Is anyone here arguing any of that?
It is what you use it for. Legally or illegally.
I just had an opportunity yesterday to take a look at the "point system" the ATF is proposing to use in order to determine if adding a pistol brace to your pistol will reclassify it as an "SBR". From my understanding you are allowed 3 points, that's it. If the brace hits 4-points or higher it's now an SBR. Problem is, it's still vague enough that it would be incumbent upon the ATF Agent analyzing your blaster to rate it on the point system on-scene. It literally doesn't take much to push it to 4 points. I seriously hope this garbage doesn't get passed.
So If I can keep it under 4 pounds, I'm good to go then, regardless.
whitewalrus
06-18-2021, 12:27
That?s a pretty horrible point system. I wonder by looking at the sights, what do they assume you should use to have 0 points? Weld on some sights from a revolver?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2021, 12:48
So If I can keep it under 4 pounds, I'm good to go then, regardless.
Oly Arms drilled their lowers for the OA-94 223 pistol, to meet the under 50 oz guidelines. . There's plenty of meat on an 80% to skeletonize , as needed. Hypothetically, of course.
kidicarus13
06-18-2021, 13:47
That?s a pretty horrible point system. I wonder by looking at the sights, what do they assume you should use to have 0 points? Weld on some sights from a revolver?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWon't keep most pistols <4pts but...86525
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sounds like about 140 lawmakers wrote the DOJ telling them to back down on this.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/make-millions-of-law-abiding-citizens-felons-overnight-lawmakers-warn-doj-about-brace-ban/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20210618_FridayDigest_335&utm_campaign=/digest/make-millions-of-law-abiding-citizens-felons-overnight-lawmakers-warn-doj-about-brace-ban/
Sounds like about 140 lawmakers wrote the DOJ telling them to back down on this.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/make-millions-of-law-abiding-citizens-felons-overnight-lawmakers-warn-doj-about-brace-ban/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20210618_FridayDigest_335&utm_campaign=/digest/make-millions-of-law-abiding-citizens-felons-overnight-lawmakers-warn-doj-about-brace-ban/
Good. More people need to tell the BATFE to go pound sand. They need to be told to stop trying to play "lawmaker". They suck at it.
Based on what I heard tonight from Sleepy Joe, they are moving full steam ahead to ban your pistols and will also be going after your FFL for unrelated(?) gun "trafficking."
More AFT (sic) agents in the field, surely not more to approve all those mandatory AR-15 pistol form 4's.
Where can I get F-15s and nuclear weapons?
"Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government," Biden said. "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-crime-prevention-strategy-gun-control
Where can I get F-15s and nuclear weapons?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-crime-prevention-strategy-gun-control
Yeah, the dumb shit says you can't buy a cannon either. Am I a felon now?
Rucker61
06-24-2021, 08:41
Yeah, the dumb shit says you can't buy a cannon either. Am I a felon now?
Not until convicted.
Where can I get F-15s and nuclear weapons?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-crime-prevention-strategy-gun-control
F15's are C&R right?
Great-Kazoo
06-24-2021, 09:48
"Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government," Biden said. "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
Excuse me. Mr. President? Can you tell me. How long have we been in Afghanistan? They seem to be doing a good job with out either, Same with ISIS and the Taliban.
Or how about the Soviet-Afghan war being a prime example of not needing F-15s and nuclear weapons to hold off a bigger and better outfitted military force.
https://i.imgur.com/0q9yBOf.png
"Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government," Biden said. "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
Excuse me. Mr. President? Can you tell me. How long have we been in Afghanistan? They seem to be doing a good job with out either, Same with ISIS and the Taliban.
I don't know of any US soldiers willing to nuke or bomb a US city.
Maybe that's Skynet's mission. Step in when humans refuse to follow orders.
Also wasn't there privately owned warships 200 years ago?
And the only people denied arms 200 years ago were colored folk.
Biden is an idiot.
Also wasn't there privately owned warships 200 years ago?
Privateers. It's part of our American heritage, like long range marksmanship.
https://i.imgur.com/0q9yBOf.png
Why buy? We learned from Obamacare that the government is required to provide us with things that are our rights. I just need to know if I show up at the Air Force base to collect mine or will they deliver it?
Great-Kazoo
06-24-2021, 12:10
I don't know of any US soldiers willing to nuke or bomb a US city.
Maybe that's Skynet's mission. Step in when humans refuse to follow orders.
Also wasn't there privately owned warships 200 years ago?
And the only people denied arms 200 years ago were colored folk.
Biden is an idiot.
One doesn't need to know of any. However The name Hassan ring a bell. While not a nuke / bomb attack. it was still (regardless what obama said) a terrorist attack.
I believe there are a few sympathizers, in the .mil, who dislike America. How far one of them is willing to go. Hopefully we never find out. Then again the antifa/blm attacks & riots are what appear to be a pre cursor for things to come.
"Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we?re gonna have to move against the government," Biden said. "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
Excuse me. Mr. President? Can you tell me. How long have we been in Afghanistan? They seem to be doing a good job with out either, Same with ISIS and the Taliban.
And the supply / manufacturing infrastructure is a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. The soldiers families are a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked (in general). The main training bases a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. US supply lines are a long ways a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. In general, the difference between a US soldier and an Afghani is pretty easy to spot. The US soldiers are willing to attack Afghanistan\.
A true civil war in the USA would be much different than Biden is saying.
But read what he DID say.
He said he is willing to use nuclear weapons and airstrikes against the US population to keep us under control. That was very clear in what he said.
Bailey Guns
06-24-2021, 13:27
F-15s and nukes? Wait a minute... Didn't a bunch of unarmed people pretty much take over the capital building without any violence? From the way the dems talked those few people all but took control of the gov't that day and some dems barely escaped with their lives. Pretty sure none of those people had nukes and fighters.
Come on, man. They get to have it both ways.
Great-Kazoo
06-24-2021, 15:02
And the supply / manufacturing infrastructure is a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. The soldiers families are a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked (in general). The main training bases a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. US supply lines are a long ways a long ways from Afghanistan and not being attacked. In general, the difference between a US soldier and an Afghani is pretty easy to spot. The US soldiers are willing to attack Afghanistan\.
A true civil war in the USA would be much different than Biden is saying.
But read what he DID say.
He said he is willing to use nuclear weapons and airstrikes against the US population to keep us under control. That was very clear in what he said.
Since 09 there have been 4 high profile attacks on mainland .mil bases. The first was called "workplace violence's" by obama. The others eh, grudge against another worker, mental issues. Either way. Mainland bases are potential targets for terrorist attack.
With that said. If this administration believes the threat of a small nuclear attack, or one from air power. Will be something that could stop an actual uprising, of the masses. He's high as a kite. Which ask the question. Why are democrats so intent on disarming the U.S citizen?
Bailey Guns
06-24-2021, 15:56
I'm watching for a "Daily Deal" email from PSA for blem nukes and F-15s...with free shipping.
JohnnyDrama
06-24-2021, 16:58
I'm watching for a "Daily Deal" email from PSA for blem nukes and F-15s...with free shipping.
I'd think twice about buying a blem F-15....
I'd think twice about buying a blem F-15....
Coward. Live a little.
Great-Kazoo
06-24-2021, 18:08
I'd think twice about buying a blem F-15....
What's a few missing rivets, and instruments?
Bailey Guns
06-24-2021, 18:36
That stuff is purely cosmetic...
Great-Kazoo
06-24-2021, 21:00
That stuff is purely cosmetic...
2:56 mark. - 3:23 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI
An Israeli pilot flew and landed an F-15 with only one wing. Don?t think a blem or couple of scratches would hold one back.
JohnnyDrama
06-25-2021, 07:19
2:56 mark. - 3:23 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElJxTCIsJI
Woo! Hoo! Saturday morning came early!
QUOTE=Great-Kazoo;2333635]What's a few missing rivets, and instruments?[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of the safety reports. " There were seven reports of things falling off aircraft this week."
Bailey Guns
06-25-2021, 07:25
An Israeli pilot flew and landed an F-15 with only one wing. Don?t think a blem or couple of scratches would hold one back.
It's got two wings. On an F-15 the second wing is just a backup.
[Coffee]
Today is the last day for comment
Say SOMETHING
Today is the last day for comment
Say SOMETHING
DoooEtttttttt........
Bailey Guns
09-08-2021, 17:50
I made my comments. I seriously doubt anyone at the AFT cares. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure they've already made their decision. Just going thru the motions at this point.
Even if it passes court battles ahead.
I made my comments. I seriously doubt anyone at the AFT cares. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure they've already made their decision. Just going thru the motions at this point.
Agreed
This administration is continuing to provide eviction protection to renters (while screwing over landlords) in spite of SCOTUS ruling that it is illegal. Laws/Rules do not apply to them. Why would this be any different?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.