The more I look at this, the more I wonder if we don't have a bigger fifth column in Tech Branch than I thought. I mean, if I were going to try to get the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA torpedoed, this is pretty much how I'd start going about it.
The more I look at this, the more I wonder if we don't have a bigger fifth column in Tech Branch than I thought. I mean, if I were going to try to get the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA torpedoed, this is pretty much how I'd start going about it.
How? While the new "open letter" is pretty weak as far as statutory interpretation goes, what facial challenge to the SBR/SBS portions of the NFA do you think would be likely to succeed in federal court?Originally Posted by Tamara
I think BATFE was really looking for a way to walk-back the private letter from last spring without simply saying they were wrong in their original interpretation and braces, cheek things, and other stock-like devices are intended to be fired from the shoulder. This would have drawn serious heat from Congress, so they needed a way to stop the NFA end run without making a whole lot of otherwise law-abiding people into felons overnight.
The more "Mare's Legs" and SIG brace pistols on the market, combined with the surge in popularity of Form 1 SBRs... Could something not be done leveraging off the "common use" language of Heller, especially given the legislative background regarding why short rifles and shotguns are "firearms" under NFA '34 in the first place but handguns are not?
The numbers are still extremely small compared to the numbers of "AWs", and we are having a very difficult time winning on the AW issue in federal court. The other problem is that the NFA is not a ban, it's a tax. The way most court's are applying Heller is using a burden analysis, which makes it much more difficult to win on things that are shy of an outright ban.
I'd trade the Feds new machine guns and DDs, with a $1000 tax stamp, for turning SBRs and SBSs into just being rifles and shotguns and be rather happy about it.
There are things like the old "Game Getter" that are REALLY useful to own, but retarded rules get in the way.
Ugh. So it's back to long-shot legislative remedies for the nonce, then?
At least the national organization is getting behind us on SB 433 here in Indiana (although they're also supporting the constitutional amendment for the right to hunt and fish, while leaving the state organization swinging on HB 1143, HB 1144, and HB 1244. I understand that hunting and fishing is under such extreme peril here in the heartland that the national organization would be moved to spend their limited capital on it at the expense of Constitutional Carry, carry on state property, and civil remedies against businesses who ban carry, but dang, it stings a bit at that.)
Looking for clarification on what you can and can not do with an AR pistol. Consider the example of an AAC .300 complete AR pistol, no more Sig brace, with an Aimpoint and BUIS, and just a foam cover on the tube.
To aim it, you look through the Aimpoint, which requires your face to be in a similar position as with a stock. You try to push forward with your support hand to keep the tube from hitting your shoulder -- as the tube is uncomfortable in recoil. Your intention is to aim, while not inflicting pain on your shoulder. All OK considering the latest BATF letter?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
The snarky answer, of course, would be that if you accidentally let the receiver extension touch your shoulder, you've made an SBR, and so the BATFEIEIO should arrest you.
This further, of course, opens up the possibility of a BATFEIEIO agent walking up to a regular Type 01's table at a gun show, picking up an AR pistol with a SIG brace on it, touching it to his shoulder (which, according to law, or at least regulation, is where the philosopher's stone that transmutes items from Title 1 to Title 2 resides) and then arresting the dealer for not having an SOT stamp.
Conversely, by the black letter of what is written, I guess it's still okay to shoot a SIG brace pistol (or Mare's Leg or regular AR pistol) off your centerline so long as it doesn't touch your shoulder. Not sure of the specific legal definition of "shoulder", though.
See? To my lay perspective, the whole thing's a frustratingly vague soup sandwich in dire need of reform.
I agree, Tamara. Taking your point further, would shouldering a Glock turn it permanently into an SBR?
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Prior to the new ruling I used use this line on my customers that were interested in brace-equipped ARs that were nervous about shouldering it...
"I could take a Glock and press the back of the grip into my shoulder and pull the trigger... it would make me stupid, but it wouldn't make my Glock an SBR."
Sadly, this is apparently no longer true.
Reply With Quote