ATF moving for Amnesty Period to register pistol braced guns as SBRs



Skip to 2:45 for the direct question of "what happens on May 31 to people who don't follow the rule."

Note...the use of the word "rule" over and over again. I'm no legal-ologist, but I didn't think you could be charged for breaking a "rule." Never seen a baseball player arrested for breaking a rule. Never been arrested for running around the pool deck.
 
9outof10mms said:


Skip to 2:45 for the direct question of "what happens on May 31 to people who don't follow the rule."

Note...the use of the word "rule" over and over again. I'm no legal-ologist, but I didn't think you could be charged for breaking a "rule." Never seen a baseball player arrested for breaking a rule. Never been arrested for running around the pool deck.
Click to expand...

LOL go to gun ranges, LOL
 
9outof10mms said:
I'm no legal-ologist, but I didn't think you could be charged for breaking a "rule."
Click to expand...
The rule interprets the law, ie is this particular firerm a pistol or an SBR. The rule also says when it’s effective, giving the impression that you’re being asked to comply with a rule, but in reality you just have to comply with the law.

Once it gets to court the judge will most often, but not always, accept the agency’s rule, making it an uphill fight for the defense.

Clear as mud?
 
GymB said:
The rule interprets the law, ie is this particular firerm a pistol or an SBR. The rule also says when it’s effective, giving the impression that you’re being asked to comply with a rule, but in reality you just have to comply with the law.

Once it gets to court the judge will most often, but not always, accept the agency’s rule, making it an uphill fight for the defense.

Clear as mud?
Click to expand...

no, because congress makes law not agencies

they can make rules all they want, but they need to go to congress and ask them to amend the law, thats how this works. otherwise they can stick this up their *^%
 
If you read the rule, they think they are following established law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me.
Catfish said:
If you read the rule, they think they are following established law.
Click to expand...
I won’t argue that. When they announced all the rulings on braces back in the day, followed by us gun folks pushing the issue to the max by asking for further explicit clarification/ruling, I was shocked that they allowed it without the gun being declared a SBR.

The jam they’ve worked themselves into is they allowed it. Not only allowed it, but doubled down on it by clarifying the allowance of shouldering braces.

I’m flogging a dead horse now—I’m not sharing anything new to us here.

If we all just assumed that using braces as stocks was cool, then shame on us. The fact that they baited us into it is unethical, at best.
 
Catfish said:
If you read the rule, they think they are following established law.
Click to expand...

**reads constitution**

seems to me that congress and atf are both breaking the law, all laws enacting gun restrictions have been passed in an illegal manner as the legislative branch cannot grant itself power over firearms--the 2A explicitly prohibits this. amending the constitution is the means to allow this, and it has not been done.

**gavel banging**

case dismissed
 
Catfish said:
If you read the rule, they think they are following established law.
Click to expand...

This is the only thing those rakes are reading and following.

Rules_for_Radicals.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question: If my freebie form1 is still being process at the end of May, should I remove the brace?
 
ATF could undo the NFA with this rule.

1: allow pistol braces
2: confirm pistol braces are OK
3: 10’s of millions pistol braces in use
4: classify braced pistols are SBR’s
5: SBR’s are now in common use
6: gov can’t regulate arms in common use

It’ll still take forever to get this in front of SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Jerzsubbie said:
ATF could undo the NFA with this rule.

1: allow pistol braces
2: confirm pistol braces are OK
3: 10’s of millions pistol braces in use
4: classify braced pistols are SBR’s
5: SBR’s are now in common use
6: gov can’t regulate arms in common use

It’ll still take forever to get this in front of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
If SCOTUS would even hear it. They don't seem to like to hear gun cases very often.
 
Me. said:
There are many ways to comply that don't involve registration.

I think the most common response to this will be "do nothing", though. I'll bet that well over half of the "braced pistol" owners don't even know this is a thing.
Click to expand...
Some "braced pistol" owners know it's a thing and have still done nothing. And don't intend to
 
Me. said:
I'll bet that well over half of the "braced pistol" owners don't even know this is a thing.
Click to expand...
This exactly. People who bought a factory equipped braced gun because it fit the form factor they wanted, but aren't gun type hobbists aren't paying any attention to this. Their braced gun is just sitting in a dusty corner somewhere waiting to cause them greif when they invite the man into their house for some unrelated emergency service.
 
Last edited:
Me. said:
Here's some non-scientific numbers.

Over the course of the 500 business days prior to the publishing of the rule, the ATF eForm ID numbers went up about 4,700 per business day.

In the 86 business days since the rule, the ID numbers have gone from 3,06x,xxx to 3,94x,xxx, an increase to 10,200 per business day.


That's a bit more than double the workload.



Assume that the "normal" workload would have stayed steady, and assume that the increase in ID numbers represent people who registered SBRs-formerly-known-as-pistols.

If that's the case, then 473,000 'pistols' are now in the NFA registry, that would not have been there without the rule.
Click to expand...

And everyone of them that hasn't been approved by the deadline is exhibit A of their confession to owning an illegal SBR. Better hide your dogs.

Terry
 
specops56 said:
And everyone of them that hasn't been approved by the deadline is exhibit A of their confession to owning an illegal SBR. Better hide your dogs.

Terry
Click to expand...
We've been down this road before, when the NFA was first passed and the first round of "we made your shit illegal, now register it or else" was going on. As a result, there's a SCOTUS decision from the 1950's or so that prohibits that sort of thing.
 
Catfish said:
We've been down this road before, when the NFA was first passed and the first round of "we made your shit illegal, now register it or else" was going on. As a result, there's a SCOTUS decision from the 1950's or so that prohibits that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

That worked real well for the bumpstock owners didn't it? And the FRT owners. And Matt Hoover. And.... Yeah, you go ahead and count on that.

Terry
 
specops56 said:
That worked real well for the bumpstock owners didn't it? And the FRT owners. And Matt Hoover. And.... Yeah, you go ahead and count on that.

Terry
Click to expand...
I'm not following you... I lost you at the left turn to Albuquerque. You started by talking about how an application to register something might be used against you then zig-zagged to other stuff that never had to be registered and never was. What did I miss?

.GOV has a long history of making stuff illegal that used to be legal. It's kind of their job now. And I agree, it sucks for those of us who own the now illegal stuff. But it's illegal for THEM to use NFA application data as probable cause or as evidence.
 
Then again... they put this right on the form:
The information from this application may only be disclosed to Federal authorities for purposes of prosecution for violation of the National Firearms Act
Click to expand...
I really don't trust them either, but I also don't want to go to federal FMITA prison over a range toy.
 
Curses!!! Foiled again by the GayTF that knew I was planning on putting a shoulder thing that goes up onto my pistol to turn it into a deadly fully semi-automatic military grade assault rifle 14 that shoots 10,000 lung blasting child seeking 9mm bullets a second
 
Catfish said:
Then again... they put this right on the form:

I really don't trust them either, but I also don't want to go to federal FMITA prison over a range toy.
Click to expand...
It’s federal PMITA, Peter.
 
jeepyjguy1987 said:
Soooooo where we at with this?
Click to expand...
Thank you for calling. Please listen carefully as we’ve recently changed our menu options:

Press 1 for becoming an open federal firearm felon.
Press 2 for remaining a closet federal firearm felon.
Press 3 for sh!tting in one hand and hoping in the other for the SCOTUS to make this thing go away, and report your findings on which hand weighs more.
 
Catfish said:
I'm not following you... I lost you at the left turn to Albuquerque. You started by talking about how an application to register something might be used against you then zig-zagged to other stuff that never had to be registered and never was. What did I miss?

.GOV has a long history of making stuff illegal that used to be legal. It's kind of their job now. And I agree, it sucks for those of us who own the now illegal stuff. But it's illegal for THEM to use NFA application data as probable cause or as evidence.
Click to expand...

My point is that the law has never stopped the ATF from doing anything. They violate the supreme law of the land by their very existence. You have a lot more trust in government than I do.

Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom