Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 145

Thread: Proposed Criteria for Braces

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacafuego View Post
    No, the real victims are the hundreds of thousands? millions? of people who bought perfectly legal items, who will NEVER HEAR about this tyrannical jackassery, and will be walking around with (what the piece of shit ATF considers) NFA violations, completely unaware.

    This has nothing to do with crime or safety, or "getting around" the law. It's a fit of institutional pique.


    Sounds like the majority of California gun owners who donít constantly keep up with the ever changing laws. Not sure how many times Iíve heard someone unaware of their once legal firearm turning them into a criminal without knowing.
    I truly wish we were all on the same page when it came to defending our rights, now weíll be on the same page losing them...

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    I understand what you are saying but I can't see anyway in which the NFA gets altered to not include SBR, SBS and silencers. I would love to be wrong because it is a stupid and silly law. Why does it matter if a gun has a 16" 14" or 11" barrel?

    If the are concerned is how easy something is to conceal an AR SBR with a 8" barrel and a stock still exactly isn't something you can stuff into your pants.
    I wrote this so I agree. The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

    Eliminating barrel length and overall length provisions would make it a moot point as to what type of stock/brace/grip the thing wore.

    The reason I think sound suppression would be easier to attain is because it is easier to demonstrate effectively and relate to as a quality of life issue for most folks.

    OTOH, you start talking about barrel length and overall length and the average person is thinking sawed off shotguns and trench coats. Harder to demonstrate differently.
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  3. #103
    With a disclaimer that a) I understand that the braces were the NFA work-around from the beginning and b) I am not very familiar with the law I am about to mention, is it possible to challenge this new regulation on a basis of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

    Quote from the Act

    b) Purpose
    It is the purpose of this chapter
    (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
    ďWell," said Pooh, "what I like best," and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by WobblyPossum View Post
    Itís disappointing that the ATF has decided not to pursue a tax stamp fee exemption to allow everyone who wanted to do so to register their pistols as SBRs. The reasoning cited at the end of the document is that theyíre afraid people would use it as an opportunity to get numerous free SBRs that had never been braced pistols to begin with since the braces themselves arenít tracked or registered. So what? The government loses out on some revenue they were never guaranteed to generate in the first place? In the end theyíd have these guns registered as SBRs, which seems to be the entire premise of this rule change, so why not ask Congress to waive the $200 fee and guarantee way more people would actually be in compliance with the NFA?

    Iím hoping enough people comment about this to have the ATF reconsider asking Congress to waive the NFA fees. Realistically, I donít see us getting out of losing most configurations of braced pistols because the vast majority of them were put together in order to get around NFA requirements. I donít agree with the laws but itís difficult to argue that these things arenít a workaround for 99% of users. The dilemma now is whether to go with a naked pistol receiver extension or cough up the $200 tax and put a real buttstock on. The people living in jurisdictions that donít allow the ownership of SBRs are going to get screwed.
    It's not about the $200.00 stamp for me, it's about the pain in the ass. You ought to be able to SBR a rifle by filling out the paperwork, having a NICS done, and a stamp issued - screw fingerprints and photos.

    The government would get two things they want - more money, and a list of folks who own these evil weapons.
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  5. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Western US
    Fuck the ATF.

    That's all I have to say on this matter on a public forum.

  6. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sin City
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Hands View Post
    Sounds like the majority of California gun owners who donít constantly keep up with the ever changing laws. Not sure how many times Iíve heard someone unaware of their once legal firearm turning them into a criminal without knowing.
    Yeah, but they have it coming. After all, it's The Law.

    Right?

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    It's not about the $200.00 stamp for me, it's about the pain in the ass. You ought to be able to SBR a rifle by filling out the paperwork, having a NICS done, and a stamp issued - screw fingerprints and photos.

    The government would get two things they want - more money, and a list of folks who own these evil weapons.
    Iím with you. Fingerprints and photographs requirements are remnants of the law being old. Itís 2021 now and you can get a NICS background check done in minutes. If itís a good enough background check to buy an AR with a 16Ē barrel or an actual handgun, I donít know why it doesnít work for buying an AR with an 11.5Ē barrel or a suppressor. The whole thing was intended to be a huge pain in the ass from the start. From the $200 tax, which was the equivalent of $4,000 or so back then, to fingerprints, photographs, CLEO concurrence, etc. Make it as difficult as possible to acquire these weapons legally, and the law abiding people wonít acquire many of them. Never stopped some gangster from adding a stock to an AR pistol or an auto-switch to a Glock but it sure inconveniences us.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  8. #108
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    I wrote this so I agree. The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

    Eliminating barrel length and overall length provisions would make it a moot point as to what type of stock/brace/grip the thing wore.

    The reason I think sound suppression would be easier to attain is because it is easier to demonstrate effectively and relate to as a quality of life issue for most folks.

    OTOH, you start talking about barrel length and overall length and the average person is thinking sawed off shotguns and trench coats. Harder to demonstrate differently.
    Simply demonstrate how difficult it is to actually conceal a 10.5 inch barrel AR pistol with a 30 round magazine and brace - or even a simple buffer tube - in any way that provides meaningfully fast access. (Yes, a LAW folder simplifies concealment but also slows access.)

    Show how much easier checking a bump in the night becomes with a short barrel.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #109
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    With a disclaimer that a) I understand that the braces were the NFA work-around from the beginning and b) I am not very familiar with the law I am about to mention, is it possible to challenge this new regulation on a basis of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

    Quote from the Act

    b) Purpose
    It is the purpose of this chapter
    (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
    Possibly, and definitely worth some research time by the lawyers doing the challenge.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #110
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Lots of folks are missing the forest for the trees or the metapurpose of all of this. One offers little nitpicks on definitions or gun world rationales. So:

    1. The idea is to tighten the noose about evil guns. Evil guns are semis and variants there of. Legislation is need to ban them but regulations can take out some low hanging fruit.

    2. The antiguners need some wins as they probably can't pull off federal bans (they can at the state level - look at the NYS ghost gun law).

    3. They will go for the work arounds of gun bans or tough regulations:
    a. Can't have a full auto - get a bump stock - banned.
    b. Can't have an SBR - get a brace.
    c. Don't want a 'registered' gun, get a kit because you are a 'hobbyist'. Ghost guns are to avoid NICS for the most part.

    Nitpicks on the tubes, lengths, etc. - irrelevant arguments to the purpose.

    Schemes to ease up on the SBR rules with cheaper registration. Won't happen as the goal is to get rid of them. Even if they did - then the guns are 'registered' for the next round.

    Say braces are for disability. Easy fix - make it like disability parking stickers. Get a doctor to sign off. Hard to do, 'registered' yet again. Millions of folks won't qualify. Certainly not folks running them in carbine matches (not official) and them folks running around at speed.

    Make the case the the 'braced' pseudo-SBR is better for navigating at home. Well, you just said it was an SBR. Register it. Next, the anti folks don't give a crap about gun world blather about defending the home with an EBR of some sort. Folks shouldn't have guns period. 5 is enough. Get a shotgun! Shoot it into the air. The SBRs are easy for nuts to conceal - so you don't get one for your bedroom.

    I'm surprised the Shockwave guns made it. Wait till they show up at a rampage and Adios to them.

    We will not comply. Same old as we won't comply to an AWB. You get a gun useless for most usages for them in the present.

    The next wave will be a complete attack on any semi auto long gun. The Ruger Mini-14s and PCC have avoid bans but the smarter folks in the anti gun movement know this. Minis have been used in some rampages and other countries (Norway, Canada, IIRC) are after them. Now, taking them out can be done in two ways. Total bans - hard to do or mag bans to limit them. The state compliant ARs are weird little dodges but when someone uses one of them - as a NY compliant weird stocked AR with multiple 10 round mags - they will be gone. Just ban all mag fed guns. You can have a weird AR with top loading and wacky speed loaders in NY.

    To return to my old refrain, unless SCOTUS does a clear decision about gun bans and/or legislation to stop such (fat chance), we will see local bans and federal regulatory nibbles.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •