Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 145

Thread: Proposed Criteria for Braces

  1. #81
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    That is a great point. I'm not saying the ATF is right or rational, just that the manufacturers knew that their braces were workarounds.

    The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

    Probably get the suppressors first - if there was a national ad campaign with commercials depicting the sound of a suppressed versus an un-suppressed rifle and pistol, most citizens would get the point that they don't actually silence the weapon.

    I think MG's are a bridge too far.

    I know many believe the NFA is unconstitutional on it's face, but at the present it is the law.
    Regardless of the weaknesses of the procedures or the competence or lack thereof of the agency, the manufacturers did what they could under the circumstances to ensure the legality of their actions.

    I agree with the rest of your post. A well-informed court guided only by constitutional principles would find the NFA to be unconstitutional, and could do so without overturning the original Supreme Court ruling upholding it. The current standard issue military rifle is selective fire and has a barrel length less than 16", which was not the case at that time.

    I agree that sound suppressors can effectively be pursued by demonstrating that they are not actual silencers, and do not even necessarily negate the need for hearing protection. They do, however, clearly mitigate hearing loss.

    I also agree that shoulder stocks on short barrel weapons can also be effectively pursued. Very few mass shootings have occurred with such weapons, and enhancing the accuracy of a lawfully used weapon benefits everyone - lawful defenders, bystanders, etc.

    Yes, full auto weapons are a bridge too far. From a purely constitutional standpoint, they should be allowed. However, the judges will not operate in a vacuum, and they are going to be thinking about being blamed for enabling the next Las Vegas event. As lawful defender who are accountable for each and every projectile we launch and who must pay for our own ammo, we have no real world use for full auto. If society totally collapses, we will need to preserve our ammo and use it effectively.

    We appear to be several months away from some favorable Second Amendment Supreme Court rulings, perhaps setting a standard of review. Those rulings will likely include some dicta that could form the basis for insulating at least some parts of the NFA - if not the entire NFA - from attack.

  2. #82
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    At least some of these manufacturers sought and received approval from BATFE for their AR braced pistols.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The good news is that the fact that ATF refuses to recognize that it is changing position will cause the agency real problems down the road. "To be sure, the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books." F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)

  3. #83
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    That is a great point. I'm not saying the ATF is right or rational, just that the manufacturers knew that their braces were workarounds.

    The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

    Probably get the suppressors first - if there was a national ad campaign with commercials depicting the sound of a suppressed versus an un-suppressed rifle and pistol, most citizens would get the point that they don't actually silence the weapon.

    I think MG's are a bridge too far.

    I know many believe the NFA is unconstitutional on it's face, but at the present it is the law.
    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.

  4. #84
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    The good news is that the fact that ATF refuses to recognize that it is changing position will cause the agency real problems down the road. "To be sure, the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books." F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)
    While I agree with your point, playing devil's advocate, the proposed rule includes the argument that braces changed over time to become less effective as braces and more effective as shoulder stocks. I have only recently started following the braced pistol issue, so I cannot say whether or not their position is correct.

  5. #85
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by BillSWPA View Post
    While I agree with your point, playing devil's advocate, the proposed rule includes the argument that braces changed over time to become less effective as braces and more effective as shoulder stocks. I have only recently started following the braced pistol issue, so I cannot say whether or not their position is correct.
    They aren't prohibited from changing their position, but federal law does require that they acknowledge that they are changing their position.

  6. #86
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    That is a great point. I'm not saying the ATF is right or rational, just that the manufacturers knew that their braces were workarounds.

    The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

    Probably get the suppressors first - if there was a national ad campaign with commercials depicting the sound of a suppressed versus an un-suppressed rifle and pistol, most citizens would get the point that they don't actually silence the weapon.

    I think MG's are a bridge too far.

    I know many believe the NFA is unconstitutional on it's face, but at the present it is the law.
    I think you have the clearest and most accurate take on this. The manufacturers knew it was a workaround and 99% of the consumers were pursuing a workaround. This was inevitable.
    As a man sows, so shall he reap.

  7. #87
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Regardless of what one might think of a "workaround" that complies with the letter of the law, the most critical task right now is developing strategies for public comment, for litigation if that fails, and for complying with the new regulations if they should take effect.

  8. #88
    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.
    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.

  9. #89
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lane 7, behind the gun.
    Couple of questions:

    Does this actually have a chance of becoming law?

    How would such a thing be enforced, meaning by both penalty, and personnel?

    At local ranges, I don't see anyone asking to see papers for NFA items. How would brace papers be any different?

    Ambiguous, unenforceable, and massive non compliance, I predict.
    SWYNTS
    Just because it "feels good", doesn't mean it's best.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by CCT125US View Post
    Couple of questions:

    Does this actually have a chance of becoming law?

    How would such a thing be enforced, meaning by both penalty, and personnel?

    At local ranges, I don't see anyone asking to see papers for NFA items. How would brace papers be any different?

    Ambiguous, unenforceable, and massive non compliance, I predict.
    There are reports of range masters checking SBR stamps historically.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comment...y_local_range/

    I think itís going to be buffer tube or SBR.

    But hey, maybe someone will sell a shooting shirt with a reinforced armpit neoprene band sewn in... so that a buffer tube will still be pleasant to shoulder?
    Pointing at cardboard things.... CO GM, working on PCC and Open

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
  •