Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 145

Thread: Proposed Criteria for Braces

  1. #131
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Seems like a multi step response is in order.

    1) comment on problems with the proposed language.

    2) look for Congressional support.

    3) support advocacy groups.

    4) try to make something that works with the proposed point system.

    6) get some pistol buffer tube lowers.

    7) SBR more lowers.

    8) buy more 1301 shotguns.
    Agree with all of the above, but if you are trying to make something compliant, pay close attention to the details. One mistake would give you 4 points when you think you only have 3. Being 100% certain would mean using a simple pistol buffer tube with nothing else.

  2. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    This is why we keep losing ground inch by inch. They propose new regulations and gun owners who won't be affected shrug their shoulders and start pointing out how we are the ones in the wrong. That's not a personal attack, just statement of how these things go down every single time. I didn't own a bumpstock but I damn sure emailed elected representatives and voiced my opposition to them banning them. Same with M855. I don't own any revolvers or 1911s but if Slippy Joe and the ATF came after them you can bet your ass I'd be lighting up their inbox letting my opinion be known. As far as gun rights, we do not have bigger things to worry about right now. They will not stop at pistol braces. They want America disarmed.
    I've let my reps know how I feel on the issues you mentioned. And I'm sure we both had the same message, although I don't think my reps needed any nudges.

    However, regarding losing ground inch by inch, I guess it depends on the metric you use. We've been most recently battered by the [/I] [IBrady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[/I] in 1993. and the Federal AWB in 1994.

    Let's look at the lay of the land in 1994: there were 12 states in which it was not possible to get a concealed carry license; 17 states were MAY issue states; 20 states were SHALL issue states; and 1 state was UNRESTRICTED (Constitutional Carry).

    By comparison in 2020: there are zero NO issue states; only 8 remaining MAY issue states; 22 SHALL issue states; and 20 UNRESTRICTED states.

    That doesn't seem to be a loss of ground. In addition, let us not forget the AWB was not renewed and I believe it will be a hard sell in today's world, even under the current administration.

    Look at this article about the timeline of Federal gun control measures. Several of them seem to strengthen gun owners rights: https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-cont...tory-timeline/

    More folks own guns today than at any other time in our history. That means it is less likely that our 2A rights will be further abridged. I don't think that tightening up on what is an AR pistol and what is an SBR by looking at braces is further abridgement of our rights, SBR's have been illegal since 1934.

    BTW, in case I haven't mentioned it, I 'pistol' rifles I am SBR'ing, to ensure everything works with the lower, and I fully understand folks who want the pistol to negate the problem of transporting SBR's. The way I read it a bare pistol tube doesn't get you onto the checklist, only a brace.
    Last edited by Dan Lehr; 06-12-2021 at 12:00 AM.
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  3. #133
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    Seems like a multi step response is in order.

    8) buy more 1301 shotguns.

    Why the 1301 shotguns?

  4. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    Why the 1301 shotguns?
    406 pages of why:

    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-1301-Tactical
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  5. #135
    Why is this thread in the rifles/carbines subforum?

    We’re talking about pistols with braces.

    Mods!

  6. #136
    Site Supporter Giving Back's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    In the back of beyond
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    Don't forget about dogs!
    Having had to work with ATF’s tactical teams in a previous life, I’m putting my money on my dog…….. she’s smarter, faster, and much better trained. She also has no hesitation or decision making problems.

    Can’t say that about the BATFE.
    You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.

  7. #137
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Dan's post is a good one. I don't think a Federal AWB could pass unless there is a moral panic (which certainly could happen - again the Las Vega story). There is a threat of creeping weapons ban in blue and purple states with moral panics. There is the threat of Federal regulations to take out the work arounds as I mentioned before.

    On the other hand, I don't see much chance of a decisive Scotus decision as they won't act or will get lost in the weeds, leaving states with myriad options for bans. Heller like blather will seen yet again. Nor will the progun legislators actually do anything. One should bombard representatives not only with don't pass this bad thing but pass positive things like reciprocity (details, details, I know) and things like the SAGA, HPA, etc. Tell Mitch that your support is contingent on that. It has to be a legislative priority equal to his tax protections of the elites.

  8. #138
    Site Supporter Cory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Florida
    I submitted the following comment.

    It is not as technical as many, and maybe not as well thought out as many. I don't own an AR pistol, but this arbitrary shit has to stop.

    I expect it to be completely unread and have zero impact. Hopefully enough people will chime in that it is somehow seen as verboten to screw with... for now. That's about the most I think is possible.

    The proposed regulation allows to much interpretation. Many of the proposed criteria are vague, and allow the ATF to choose at a whim what is and is not subject to the new regulation. It is up the individual doing the assessment if the rear surface is "useful for shouldering". The regulation is also designed to specifically assess points regardless of the design being evaluated, assigning points for "Rifle type back-up/flip-up sights/or no sights" So regardless of what type of sights you have on your pistol you are getting additional points.

    That leads to the crux of the regulation. This regulation change is designed entirely to target AR pistols with braces that have been legally purchased by non criminals in incredibly large numbers. This regulation seeks to create criminals our of those who have complied with the law.

    This regulation intends to make these braced rifles subject to the NFA. However, they are already present in very large numbers within our country. They pose no additional threat to the public, and are not in anyway more lethal. There isn't an outcry against the millions of these weapons in the possession of our citizenry. This regulation therefore won't stop any crime, it will only create crime de jure without crime de facto.

    In much the same way it showcases the uselessness of the NFA itself. If these AR pistols with brace are claimed to be so especially dangerous as to be on par with NFA regulated items, yet are owned by many and have been purchased for years... doesn't that show that NFA items and their regulation is pointless?

    The ATF at this point serves no useful purpose beyond government bloat. It constantly changes regulations making them difficult for our citizenry to understand, and acts at a whim to do so. It invents crime to prosecute otherwise lawful citizens. The enforcement of whatever gun regulation can be thought up, whenever the ATF wants, against whomever it wants, to push whatever agenda it wants serves no purpose to the governed.

  9. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    I've let my reps know how I feel on the issues you mentioned. And I'm sure we both had the same message, although I don't think my reps needed any nudges.

    However, regarding losing ground inch by inch, I guess it depends on the metric you use. We've been most recently battered by the [/I] [IBrady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[/I] in 1993. and the Federal AWB in 1994.

    Let's look at the lay of the land in 1994: there were 12 states in which it was not possible to get a concealed carry license; 17 states were MAY issue states; 20 states were SHALL issue states; and 1 state was UNRESTRICTED (Constitutional Carry).

    By comparison in 2020: there are zero NO issue states; only 8 remaining MAY issue states; 22 SHALL issue states; and 20 UNRESTRICTED states.
    Let me explain this once again. Concealed/open/constitutional carry are states rights issues and therefore are handled at the state level. It's done so largely be the people electing representatives that work to change and amend the law of their state. When did we get to vote on the people hired by the ATF to set regulations? The arbitrary regulations that the ATF is able to enact are done so by unelected bureaucrats. And they affect everyone in all 50 states.

    That doesn't seem to be a loss of ground. In addition, let us not forget the AWB was not renewed and I believe it will be a hard sell in today's world, even under the current administration.
    We will have to agree to disagree on it being a hard sell. When the sun set on the 94 AWB, it was a much different political climate than it is today.

    Look at this article about the timeline of Federal gun control measures. Several of them seem to strengthen gun owners rights: https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-cont...tory-timeline/
    If you're able to read that list and come away thinking that "several" of them strengthened gun rights, you and I have diametrically opposed viewpoints on what strengthening gun rights would look like.

    More folks own guns today than at any other time in our history. That means it is less likely that our 2A rights will be further abridged.
    More folks owned guns in 1993 than they did in 1934 and it didn't stop the AWB. Sure, many of those politicians got their asses kicked in the next election be we were stuck with it for 10 years. I also don't believe more gun owners means more people standing up for gun rights. There are many who believe they should own guns but that people like me should not.

    I don't think that tightening up on what is an AR pistol and what is an SBR by looking at braces is further abridgement of our rights, SBR's have been illegal since 1934.
    Again, if that's your take on what's happening here, that the ATF is simply "tightening up" on what an AR pistol is and what a SBR is, you and I are looking at this from totally different perspectives.

    BTW, in case I haven't mentioned it, I 'pistol' rifles I am SBR'ing, to ensure everything works with the lower, and I fully understand folks who want the pistol to negate the problem of transporting SBR's.
    For me, it was never about avoiding the $200 stamp or the registration. I'm 40. If I don't have $200 to spare at this point in my life, I've made some serious mistakes in my lifetime and a reshuffling of priorities is in order.

    The way I read it a bare pistol tube doesn't get you onto the checklist, only a brace.
    Are you okay with that? A govt agency providing the people with a checklist, that they state that even if you pass it they can still deem it to be illegal and throw you in jail? Besides, even without a brace, it's possible to score a 4 or higher in the different columns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke View Post
    I love a sub second aiwb A zone hit so much that my hands twitch when the microwave goes off.

  10. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    Are you okay with that? A govt agency providing the people with a checklist, that they state that even if you pass it they can still deem it to be illegal and throw you in jail? Besides, even without a brace, it's possible to score a 4 or higher in the different columns.
    My understanding of this document is that the chart doesn’t apply if your pistol doesn’t have a brace. That’s why one of the options at the end for how to comply with the new rules is to just get rid of your brace. If you’re running a bare pistol receiver extension, you don’t have to worry about this stuff at all. A big problem, in my opinion, is that the document basically says that even if you have a braced pistol which doesn’t fail the new point system from the chart, the ATF can determine that it is still an SBR and not a pistol. The whole thing is arbitrary and capricious. If the whole point of this was to set up objective standards to differentiate a braced pistol from an SBR, how can they justify deciding some braced pistols that passed their “objective” standards are still SBRs?
    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.

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
  •