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

GymB said:
A felon is literally someone convicted of a felony. Moreover, it’s downright un-American of you to say that someone becomes a felon without due process.
Click to expand...

🤔🤔🤔🤔
GymB said:
We’re probably all felons, some of us just don’t know.
Click to expand...

IMG_1571.jpeg
 
Can we have a rule for the site? If you're going to post an information type video you have to type a synopsis of the content for people who can't watch the video or don't want to give G&G another click.
 
Me. said:
As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.

Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.

This one has it all.
Click to expand...
I haven't see anyone destroyed yet. That word gets confused with annoyed.
This is destroyed

Screenshot_20231003_172542_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Me. said:
As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.

Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.

This one has it all.
Click to expand...

Temporary injunctions by low level judges. The ATF could care less. Historically they only bend when SCOTUS weighs in.
 
Timfoilhat said:
I haven't see anyone destroyed yet. That word gets confused with annoyed.
This is destroyed

View attachment 679515
Click to expand...
I must be an optimist 'cause I see an opportunity for some scavenging and light LARPing in that pic.. 🥴 😁
To the subject matter after 35 years of "paying attention" it's hard to get too excited about any of it. Both the Right and left howl for attention.
My GAFF-ometer where the praetorian and their handlers are concerned has been busted for a while now. :cool:
 
Did Mr Gunsngear say enjoined in perpetuity?

In other words, it stands until a different ruling is made, as in court case?
 
Last edited:
I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.

What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
 
Sasquatch said:
I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.

What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
Click to expand...
Yea. In reality, the distinction between a pistol and a rifle is pretty blurry. Seems like the judge is observing the incongruity between the law and reality.
 
Sasquatch said:
I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.

What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
Click to expand...
In that case the judge seems to be ruling on a point of common sense instead of a point of law. I have a hard time seeing that standing at the circuit level given the NFA is settled law after Miller . It would be nice but none of this is how courts usually work.
 
wired said:
In that case the judge seems to be ruling on a point of common sense instead of a point of law. I have a hard time seeing that standing at the circuit level given the NFA is settled law after Miller . It would be nice but none of this is how courts usually work.
Click to expand...
Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.
Rem 870 MCS 18", 14" and 10". My son and I were both issued these in Iraq/Afghanistan
3a5b97efff468c19623ec8bd5b323520.jpg


M26
untitled-34455.jpg
 
Last edited:
Combat Diver said:
Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.
Rem 870 MCS 18", 14" and 10". My son and I were both issued these in Iraq/Afghanistan


M26
Click to expand...
So if Miller vs US were argued today with the same logic it would have to find SBS constitutional (and SBRs as also used by the military).

Although that said I think the court was just looking for a way to ban short-barreled-whatever and just needed a convenient excuse that sounded legit. The same court today would find some other reason to uphold the ban.
 
Last edited:
Me. said:
As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.

Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.

This one has it all.
Click to expand...

And "epic". Don't forget "epic".
 
Sasquatch said:
I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.

What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
Click to expand...

There should be absolutely no SBR laws which make them illegal in the first place. It's an effing rifle with a short barrel, not a Death Star. (Which, by the way, also should not be illegal for people to own if they want.)

It's a frickin' insane law whose purpose is nothing more than another infringement of people's RKBA.

What do I care if someone wants to cut down the barrel of their rifle to any length they want? Or add a stock to a pistol? And why should the government, which is after all armed with tanks, F-18s, and nuclear weapons, give a cr*p?
 
Last edited:
Combat Diver said:
Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.
Rem 870 MCS 18", 14" and 10". My son and I were both issued these in Iraq/Afghanistan
3a5b97efff468c19623ec8bd5b323520.jpg


M26
untitled-34455.jpg
Click to expand...
Depends how you look at it. If you look at the ruling on Miller and think it only has to do with shotguns then yeah, your'e right. If you look at it the way the courts and government have for the last 80 years it was an affirmation of the NFA's taxing ability.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that all you negative Nancys really need to knock it off with them negative waves.

ATF has been getting smacked around in the courts and y'all are more mopey than a post-surgery transsexual sharting blood and fecal matter. Quit being demoralized.
 
Slimer said:
I just want to say that all you negative Nancys really need to knock it off with them negative waves.

ATF has been getting smacked around in the courts and y'all are more mopey than a post-surgery transsexual sharting blood and fecal matter. Quit being demoralized.
Click to expand...
Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talk
 
wired said:
Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talk
Click to expand...

Demoralization is key to the Communist and there have been some great victories on our side. Jaded or not, the American people will prevail.

rmri8aangjza1.jpg
 
wired said:
Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talk
Click to expand...
It's not being a Debbie-downer, its more about the fact that it has yet to have enough weight for a nationwide injunction. That's an indicator that they have presented a poor case on anything with Constitutional merit, and that at best they will just re-propose the existing rule through the administrative procedures act a second time and move forward with it as-written. I feel like the one judge has made a more compelling argument than the legal teams at this point.
 
Supermatch said:
It's not being a Debbie-downer, its more about the fact that it has yet to have enough weight for a nationwide injunction. That's an indicator that they have presented a poor case on anything with Constitutional merit, and that at best they will just re-propose the existing rule through the administrative procedures act a second time and move forward with it as-written. I feel like the one judge has made a more compelling argument than the legal teams at this point.
Click to expand...

James Madison would say that government moving at a snail's pace is a good thing.... and he would be right.
 
the real problem seems to be that whenever one of theses rules/laws get activated then it never gets reversed, and seeing this makes a person feel jaded and pissed, i bought my AR9 with a brace as a legal purchase from PSA a few years back and now its no longer legal with a brace. A 10.5 inch AR9 is awkward as hell with a buffer tube, its to front heavy for my old arms and yes im jaded
 
The 9th Circuit is playing games with the CA Magazine ban case, no surprise really but it pisses me off, when the courts don’t follow the rule of law, the existing laws are null & void in my opinion.



While this doesn’t apply specifically to the pistol brace thread, it does demonstrate yet again that the elites will do anything to get what they want.

 
Slimer said:
I just want to say that all you negative Nancys really need to knock it off with them negative waves.

ATF has been getting smacked around in the courts and y'all are more mopey than a post-surgery transsexual sharting blood and fecal matter. Quit being demoralized.
Click to expand...
Ok Dad, but only because you told us to.
 
Tarowah said:
The 9th Circuit is playing games with the CA Magazine ban case, no surprise really but it pisses me off, when the courts don’t follow the rule of law, the existing laws are null & void in my opinion.



While this doesn’t apply specifically to the pistol brace thread, it does demonstrate yet again that the elites will do anything to get what they want.

Click to expand...

I thought it was within the rules of the court, just unusual.
 
specops56 said:
The government yes, the courts no. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Click to expand...
Judicial system is still part of the gubmint last I checked. You really want SCOTUS instant rubber stamps without legal debate? Besides the biggest issue with the judicial system is the (((legislative))) branch putting diversity hire judges like Jackson & Sotomayor or Big Pharma reps like Kagan.

concepthomes2 said:
Ok Dad, but only because you told us to.
Click to expand...
Son, take down the My Chemical Romance posters and remove the black nail polish from your fingers. Daddy will get you the Misfits Collections, and you can start beating up posers at the mall's arcade like a true American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom