ATF crack down on Ghost Guns in June 2022 and braced pistols in Aug 2022
- Thread starter Alabamacoastie
- Start date
- Replies 152
- Views 8,490
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Identify as members of a Mexican drug cartel…they’ll let us have whatever we want and may even facilitate getting it to us.
FrankCastle762
Active Member
Wish they'd bust all the gangbangers showing off their glock switches on YouTube, but no they'd actually be targeting criminals.
3 Down, 4 to go.
Inspired by Reverend Niemoeller:
First, they came for the Bumpstocks. Since a Bumpstock is just a stupid gimmick, I didn’t fight for them.
Then they came for the Pistol braces. We all knew braces were a bad idea, so I didn’t fight for them.
Then they came for the 80% lowers. I didn’t have one, so I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the high capacity magazines. Since no one needs 30 rounds to hunt with, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the semi-automatic assault rifles. Since those are made only to kill people, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the high powered, scoped sniper rifles. Since you only need a shotgun to hunt and shoot sporting clays, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for all the other guns. Since they were now illegal and I’m a law abiding citizen, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for my children! Since I didn’t care about Bumpstocks, I had nothing left to fight with.
Terry
Inspired by Reverend Niemoeller:
First, they came for the Bumpstocks. Since a Bumpstock is just a stupid gimmick, I didn’t fight for them.
Then they came for the Pistol braces. We all knew braces were a bad idea, so I didn’t fight for them.
Then they came for the 80% lowers. I didn’t have one, so I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the high capacity magazines. Since no one needs 30 rounds to hunt with, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the semi-automatic assault rifles. Since those are made only to kill people, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for the high powered, scoped sniper rifles. Since you only need a shotgun to hunt and shoot sporting clays, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for all the other guns. Since they were now illegal and I’m a law abiding citizen, I didn’t fight for them.
Then, they came for my children! Since I didn’t care about Bumpstocks, I had nothing left to fight with.
Terry
No knocks. They'll just wait until you get picked up and then, 'oh, what's this??'. Then you get charged.
The age old saying... Not using is the same as confiscation.
Check this data point out.
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
And I quote
"DOJ—ATF
105. Factoring Criteria for Firearms With an Attached Stabilizing Brace
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C 921 to 931; 26 U.S.C 5812; 26 U.S.C 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to propose to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to set forth factors considered when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act and/or the Gun Control Act.
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify when a rifle is intended to be fired from the shoulder and to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with an attached purported stabilizing brace to determine whether these are rifles under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are firearms subject to the NFA. It amends the definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the amendments in this rule are expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.
Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to maximize benefits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is a significant regulatory action that is economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. This proposed rule would affect attempts by manufacturers and individuals to circumvent the requirements of the NFA and would affect the criminal use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan weapons with a purported stabilizing brace.
Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the criminal use of such firearms, which are easily concealable from the public and first responders.
Timetable:
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Denise Brown, Regulations Writer, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648–7070. RIN: 1140–AA55
So sometime in June, ATF’s new definitions and regulations will go into effect for the receivers, silencers, and other categories, and sometime in August the rules will go into effect for pistol stabilizing brace-equipped firearms.
On that note I’d like to make something clear, because there is a lot of confusion out there: these new rules will not make pistol braces illegal. It will not ban them. In fact, it doesn’t apply to the braces, themselves, at all.
As ATF cannot directly regulate this accessory, because for them its legality exists in how it is or isn’t used. As a stand-alone item, it’s completely legal to make, sell, and buy, then. These new regulations apply to the configuration of the complete firearm on which a brace is used. ATF can’t rule on the brace, but they can rule on a complete firearm.
What will be restricted here is how you can accessorize a pistol that’s equipped with a brace. That whole ridiculous point system related to optics, bipods, weight, length, caliber, and other factors. ATF will look at the gun as a complete, as-configured unit and through these guidelines and through that points system, will determine if it’s a pistol or if the manufacturer or end user configured it in such a way that it’s allegedly intended to be a rifle (and, therefore, a short barreled rifle or SBR and subject to the regulations of the National Firearm Act or NFA).
For this same reason, the ATF stopped providing technical rulings on braces and similar accessories. A complete firearm must be submitted to the Technical Branch if a user or manufacturer wants ATF’s opinion on whether or not it’s a pistol or a rifle. And, because it’s the specific configuration that matters, if a manufacturer were to design a new pistol stabilizing brace and submit that brace to ATF on firearm X with optic Y and accessory D, ATF’s technical ruling would apply solely and specifically to firearm X with optic Y and accessory D and literally no other firearm in the world nor that same firearm with any change in its configuration whatsoever.
Effectively, it’s the points-based worksheet or the highway."
BREAKING: Federal Register Publishes Schedule For ATF's Firearm, Silencer, and Pistol Brace Final Regulations - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ Set to publish tomorrow, but for some reason already public on govinfo (or download the PDF HERE), the January 31, 2022 Federal Register details ATF’s plans to finalize its rulemaking and regulations related to the definitions of firearm, firearm frame/receiver...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
And I quote
"DOJ—ATF
105. Factoring Criteria for Firearms With an Attached Stabilizing Brace
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C 921 to 931; 26 U.S.C 5812; 26 U.S.C 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to propose to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to set forth factors considered when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act and/or the Gun Control Act.
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify when a rifle is intended to be fired from the shoulder and to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with an attached purported stabilizing brace to determine whether these are rifles under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are firearms subject to the NFA. It amends the definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the amendments in this rule are expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.
Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to maximize benefits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is a significant regulatory action that is economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. This proposed rule would affect attempts by manufacturers and individuals to circumvent the requirements of the NFA and would affect the criminal use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan weapons with a purported stabilizing brace.
Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the criminal use of such firearms, which are easily concealable from the public and first responders.
Timetable:
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Denise Brown, Regulations Writer, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648–7070. RIN: 1140–AA55
So sometime in June, ATF’s new definitions and regulations will go into effect for the receivers, silencers, and other categories, and sometime in August the rules will go into effect for pistol stabilizing brace-equipped firearms.
On that note I’d like to make something clear, because there is a lot of confusion out there: these new rules will not make pistol braces illegal. It will not ban them. In fact, it doesn’t apply to the braces, themselves, at all.
As ATF cannot directly regulate this accessory, because for them its legality exists in how it is or isn’t used. As a stand-alone item, it’s completely legal to make, sell, and buy, then. These new regulations apply to the configuration of the complete firearm on which a brace is used. ATF can’t rule on the brace, but they can rule on a complete firearm.
What will be restricted here is how you can accessorize a pistol that’s equipped with a brace. That whole ridiculous point system related to optics, bipods, weight, length, caliber, and other factors. ATF will look at the gun as a complete, as-configured unit and through these guidelines and through that points system, will determine if it’s a pistol or if the manufacturer or end user configured it in such a way that it’s allegedly intended to be a rifle (and, therefore, a short barreled rifle or SBR and subject to the regulations of the National Firearm Act or NFA).
For this same reason, the ATF stopped providing technical rulings on braces and similar accessories. A complete firearm must be submitted to the Technical Branch if a user or manufacturer wants ATF’s opinion on whether or not it’s a pistol or a rifle. And, because it’s the specific configuration that matters, if a manufacturer were to design a new pistol stabilizing brace and submit that brace to ATF on firearm X with optic Y and accessory D, ATF’s technical ruling would apply solely and specifically to firearm X with optic Y and accessory D and literally no other firearm in the world nor that same firearm with any change in its configuration whatsoever.
Effectively, it’s the points-based worksheet or the highway."
OP
Alabamacoastie
Adiutor vicinorum
Puddle Pirate
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
The rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.Check this data point out.
BREAKING: Federal Register Publishes Schedule For ATF's Firearm, Silencer, and Pistol Brace Final Regulations - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ Set to publish tomorrow, but for some reason already public on govinfo (or download the PDF HERE), the January 31, 2022 Federal Register details ATF’s plans to finalize its rulemaking and regulations related to the definitions of firearm, firearm frame/receiver...
And I quote
"DOJ—ATF
105. Factoring Criteria for Firearms With an Attached Stabilizing Brace
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C 921 to 931; 26 U.S.C 5812; 26 U.S.C 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to propose to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to set forth factors considered when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act and/or the Gun Control Act.
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify when a rifle is intended to be fired from the shoulder and to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with an attached purported stabilizing brace to determine whether these are rifles under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are firearms subject to the NFA. It amends the definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the amendments in this rule are expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.
Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to maximize benefits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is a significant regulatory action that is economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. This proposed rule would affect attempts by manufacturers and individuals to circumvent the requirements of the NFA and would affect the criminal use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan weapons with a purported stabilizing brace.
Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the criminal use of such firearms, which are easily concealable from the public and first responders.
Timetable:
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Denise Brown, Regulations Writer, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648–7070. RIN: 1140–AA55
So sometime in June, ATF’s new definitions and regulations will go into effect for the receivers, silencers, and other categories, and sometime in August the rules will go into effect for pistol stabilizing brace-equipped firearms.
On that note I’d like to make something clear, because there is a lot of confusion out there: these new rules will not make pistol braces illegal. It will not ban them. In fact, it doesn’t apply to the braces, themselves, at all.
As ATF cannot directly regulate this accessory, because for them its legality exists in how it is or isn’t used. As a stand-alone item, it’s completely legal to make, sell, and buy, then. These new regulations apply to the configuration of the complete firearm on which a brace is used. ATF can’t rule on the brace, but they can rule on a complete firearm.
What will be restricted here is how you can accessorize a pistol that’s equipped with a brace. That whole ridiculous point system related to optics, bipods, weight, length, caliber, and other factors. ATF will look at the gun as a complete, as-configured unit and through these guidelines and through that points system, will determine if it’s a pistol or if the manufacturer or end user configured it in such a way that it’s allegedly intended to be a rifle (and, therefore, a short barreled rifle or SBR and subject to the regulations of the National Firearm Act or NFA).
For this same reason, the ATF stopped providing technical rulings on braces and similar accessories. A complete firearm must be submitted to the Technical Branch if a user or manufacturer wants ATF’s opinion on whether or not it’s a pistol or a rifle. And, because it’s the specific configuration that matters, if a manufacturer were to design a new pistol stabilizing brace and submit that brace to ATF on firearm X with optic Y and accessory D, ATF’s technical ruling would apply solely and specifically to firearm X with optic Y and accessory D and literally no other firearm in the world nor that same firearm with any change in its configuration whatsoever.
Effectively, it’s the points-based worksheet or the highway."
Good thing Chuck Schumer just started the process to double the ATFs budget!
Schumer seeks billion-dollar funding boost for ATF to help battle gun violence in New York | amNewYork
The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) plays a critical role in helping state and local governments stop illegal guns — and they need a big
www.google.com
cubrock
Swell guy
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
.
Don’t forget the verbiage at the end of the points system breakdown in the draft rule that is, essentially, no matter your points count, it is an SBR if we say it is.
Check this data point out.
BREAKING: Federal Register Publishes Schedule For ATF's Firearm, Silencer, and Pistol Brace Final Regulations - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ Set to publish tomorrow, but for some reason already public on govinfo (or download the PDF HERE), the January 31, 2022 Federal Register details ATF’s plans to finalize its rulemaking and regulations related to the definitions of firearm, firearm frame/receiver...
And I quote
"DOJ—ATF
105. Factoring Criteria for Firearms With an Attached Stabilizing Brace
Priority: Other Significant.
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C 921 to 931; 26 U.S.C 5812; 26 U.S.C 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805 CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478; 27 CFR 479.
Legal Deadline: None.
Abstract: The Department of Justice is planning to propose to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to set forth factors considered when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act and/or the Gun Control Act.
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify when a rifle is intended to be fired from the shoulder and to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with an attached purported stabilizing brace to determine whether these are rifles under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are firearms subject to the NFA. It amends the definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
Summary of Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of chapter 44, title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the amendments in this rule are expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.
Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to maximize benefits.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule is a significant regulatory action that is economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, because the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. This proposed rule would affect attempts by manufacturers and individuals to circumvent the requirements of the NFA and would affect the criminal use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 Jan 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP2.SGM 31JAP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5112 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Regulatory Plan weapons with a purported stabilizing brace.
Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the criminal use of such firearms, which are easily concealable from the public and first responders.
Timetable:
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
Government Levels Affected: None.
International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact: Denise Brown, Regulations Writer, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226, Phone: 202 648–7070. RIN: 1140–AA55
So sometime in June, ATF’s new definitions and regulations will go into effect for the receivers, silencers, and other categories, and sometime in August the rules will go into effect for pistol stabilizing brace-equipped firearms.
On that note I’d like to make something clear, because there is a lot of confusion out there: these new rules will not make pistol braces illegal. It will not ban them. In fact, it doesn’t apply to the braces, themselves, at all.
As ATF cannot directly regulate this accessory, because for them its legality exists in how it is or isn’t used. As a stand-alone item, it’s completely legal to make, sell, and buy, then. These new regulations apply to the configuration of the complete firearm on which a brace is used. ATF can’t rule on the brace, but they can rule on a complete firearm.
What will be restricted here is how you can accessorize a pistol that’s equipped with a brace. That whole ridiculous point system related to optics, bipods, weight, length, caliber, and other factors. ATF will look at the gun as a complete, as-configured unit and through these guidelines and through that points system, will determine if it’s a pistol or if the manufacturer or end user configured it in such a way that it’s allegedly intended to be a rifle (and, therefore, a short barreled rifle or SBR and subject to the regulations of the National Firearm Act or NFA).
For this same reason, the ATF stopped providing technical rulings on braces and similar accessories. A complete firearm must be submitted to the Technical Branch if a user or manufacturer wants ATF’s opinion on whether or not it’s a pistol or a rifle. And, because it’s the specific configuration that matters, if a manufacturer were to design a new pistol stabilizing brace and submit that brace to ATF on firearm X with optic Y and accessory D, ATF’s technical ruling would apply solely and specifically to firearm X with optic Y and accessory D and literally no other firearm in the world nor that same firearm with any change in its configuration whatsoever.
Effectively, it’s the points-based worksheet or the highway."
Don’t forget the verbiage at the end of the points system breakdown in the draft rule that is, essentially, no matter your points count, it is an SBR if we say it is.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Meckmeister
Member
The after discussion of the points-based worksheet included items like reflex sights worth two points, flip up iron sights worth one point, and a bare buffer tube with notches worth one point. As Forest Gump would say, the AR in its various forms and sizes is like a box of chocolates.
Last edited:
I, for one, highly recommend any shooters with ANY physical disability to sue the BATFE for violating the ADA by attacking accessories that help with their conditions for lawful sporting purposes.
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I found it interesting that "rifle sights" are 1 pt, but reflex sights that work on a pistol are 2 points.
It's ALMOST like they designed the checklist to make everything illegal....
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I'm pretty sure that's the point.
dannyj1992
Active Member
What gets me is how many crimes are committed with a pistol brace to convince them its a huge problem? Rhetorical question I know, it has nothing to do with concern for public safety. We all know the majority of gun crime is in bigger “gun free” cities and its hi points and lorcin and other throwaway guns
What good is the atf? Kill dogs and people they don’t like? Where is the benefit of having a ‘atf’? Tell law biden citizens what they can or can not have? Where is the justification of Ruby ridge or Waco? and can please explain to me about the the first 2 letters? If they are worried about untaxed sales of legal substance shouldn’t it have the irs on them, not the atf?
maybe this is a bad dream.....or as a Roman leader once said “ the closer to the end the crazier the laws”.
maybe this is a bad dream.....or as a Roman leader once said “ the closer to the end the crazier the laws”.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Most won’t and even if they do, .gov reserves the right to still consider it a SBR.
I was done with worksheets after grade school.
Last edited:
Meckmeister
Member
Like was said above, it's a game, and in this game there is only one winner. The loser of the game gets to pay the tax.
Can’t stop them from coming but can make them wish they hadn’t.
surgicaltool
Well-Known Member
Just read the worksheet. I can’t envision anything remotely functional for any/all legal activities without adding up to 4 points. I did comment and my comment along with all of yours was apparently ignored. Its a good thing I never bought one of those braced pistols, would have been hugely stressful to work within these regulations that seem designed to make criminals out of any law-abiding citizen they decide to make an example of…
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
4 points is a felony...
vague "Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s)" - 1pt
vague too much rear surface that isn't spikey or razor blades to discourage shouldering - 2pts
vague not enough rear surface - 1pt
so that's 50-75% of a felony right off the bat
cuff/fin brace has elastic on the strap to help hold it during your 1hand shooting? - 2pts. definitely into felony territory now
strap too shot for your arms, fin brace that doesn't need a strap, or you have removed the strap? 2-4 points
also, if you have big arms and the cuff doesn't go all the way around, 1-2pts
bipod like on a ruger charger- 2pts
rifle sights or no sights at all - 1 pt
reflex sight and magnifier with vague "limited eye relief" 2pts
handstop - tack on 2 more points
Amen brother. I won't be here to see the aftermath but it will I won't be alone.
OP
Alabamacoastie
Adiutor vicinorum
Puddle Pirate
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
The loser of the game didn't pay the tax, and goes to federal prison for 10yrs per unregistered AR pistol...
ronn47
Where's the Scotch?
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
It's their story and you're suppose to sit there, listen to it and buy into it.
CL2ALVR
Well-Known Member
I loved this "pistol styled" AR platform and had two of these configured like this in .300 BO, but knowing this was inevitable, even after the first round of push back in December of 2020, then a renewed effort again this past summer, 3x the comment as the first round,( which they backed off of originally ), seeing this large amount of comments and witnessing the ATF NOT pull the proposed rule from the register as they had the first go round, I sold one and put a 16" barrel on the other. Saddest part is I attempted to discuss this with 3 different local FFL's but none of them showed any type of interest nor understanding of what was obviously coming down the pike. So I took it upon myself to be proactive. However, none of this should have been necessary, the BATFE is a rogue bunch of unelected bureaucrats who believe THEY are the supreme authority of the Land and get to demand we little people surrender anything they believe we should not possess. Today, they have targeted firearms end users, firearms accessories manufacturers, firearms dealers, and enthusiast who have for literally hundreds of years had the Constitutional right to build their own firearms in the privacy of their own homes. Make no mistake these bureaucrats have every intention of taking any rights they decide to from us. These treasonous bastards must be reigned in and have their authority revoked before they start an all out war with the American firearms community. Their new BS definition of "frame/receiver" goes into effect this June, the even more BS rule concerning braced pistols is set to take effect this August. Both of these aforementioned actions are completely Unconstitutional as they are surely fully aware, however, they are continuing to move forward, regardless of the legality of their intentions/actions. My hope is that the American people will be as NONCOMPLIANT as they have been with the Bump stock ban, as there have only been a handful of these items which have been "turned in". These jokers at the BATFE and other unelected bureaucrats NEED to get the message, We Will Not Comply with Unconstitutional edicts by any political machine from the District of Criminals. The Trump admin and the Supreme Court screwed us on the Bumpstocks, and the SCOTUS dropped the ball again with the Healthcare Vax mandate, as allowing government entities to retain " Deference" is exactly how the BATFE is abusing their authority and stepping on OUR rights! Something major has to occur in order to reestablish our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! What is the answer? Do you all believe in the Convention of States movement? This could be one possible remedy, but it will take time, one thing we have little of at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
RussianPlant
They found me again.
I'm waiting for them to Crack down on all the illegal aows every one is using two hands on
Here I was thinking Ghost voters were the problem…glad corn pop and crew told me otherwise….a hearty cup of FJB to you all
Last edited:
I gotta think they’ll make the items more objective. I honestly believe that they posted something extra offensive so the real thing seems almost tolerable. Bottom line, they regret the statutory language, but they can’t do much about it.