What an honest post. I love this place.Originally Posted by JRB
What an honest post. I love this place.
#RESIST
Looking into it… AFT would have people break the law by doing a Form 1 on a factory braced pistol.
If you bought a braced pistol, you aren’t manufacturing an SBR. It came that way. Did not install a stock/brace, as it really was a legal pistol at time of purchase. But we will forget about that, because it’s been debated for years… but let’s say my PSA AK-P is a braced SBR. If this were starting from the beginning in a normal circumstance, you’d Form 4 it (transfer, as in you bought instead of made it). That didn’t happen because it was purchased as a pistol. For me to do that on a Form 1, I’m technically lying on a Federal application. This is on the instructions part of a Form 1…
Granted, we don’t have the specifics on what they are planning… and maybe they have an answer for these situations, but this is what happens when you have an agency start making the rules by themselves.9. Penalties. Any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of the NFA shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. Any firearm involved in a violation of the NFA shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. It is unlawful for any person to make or cause the making of a false entry on any application or record required by the NFA knowing such entry to be false.
True, but Ray Charles could see this coming since braces began. I'm only surprised it took this long and that there will be an amnesty.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Would this be met with lawsuits immediately? If so would that stall any new ATF demands until it’s sorted out in court?
212
Highly likely.
Unlike say bump stocks or FRTs which are being compared to an existing statutory definition the whole pistol brace thing is a giant gray area created via litigation and regulation by SIG and ATF. Be that as it may, there is a decade of precedent now for pistol braces and having been “suffered and permitted” long enough for over 4 million of them to be in circulation
they now certainly would be considered to be in “common use.”
Legal and 2A philosophy arguments aside, in addition to the normal 2A NGO groups, 4 million braces means there are multiple businesses with a real financial incentive to litigate this
Your logic of off here.
The Biden administration’s argument is essentially that “braced pistols” are something that never properly existed.
Their arguments is you either take the brace off to restore it to pistol configuration or do a form 1 to legitimize what they consider to be an illegitimate SBR.
They are saying S&W, PSA etc illegally sold you an SBR labeled as a pistol and either because it was a “good faith” error or because there’s no way they could prosecute 4 million people (more likely the latter) their “solution” is amnesty.
I don’t agree with their interpretation, I think at this point pistol braces are established enough via past practice /precedent that it would take specific legislation via congress to get rid of them.
From your keyboard, to the minds of our legal system. What is the threshold of numbers, popularity, and years of established precedent where the argument grows in persuasiveness?
I liked braced pistols, but I never bought any, partly because I've always been underwater on my gun projects, and they never rose to the top, but also partly because of wanting to stay away from this headache. 4 Million?! How could ATF possibly process enough, and even small bits of noncompliance can snowball into really weird compliance structures.
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
Concur.
#RESIST
That’s up to the courts and prior precedent but 4 million seems pretty common to me
The “common use” language derived from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
Common use precedent discussion here: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/c...e-protections/
1. He knew he was in violation of the NFA.
2. He discussed selling the illegal weapon to the informant.
3. He signed a plea agreement acknowledging the above facts.
3. It’s noteworthy that a JTTF was working this, not a Violent Crimes Squad or Safe Streets Task Force.
4. He was sentenced at the bottom of the guideline range.
5. Like it or not, informants are how many cases are made.
I’m not a fan of the NFA either. But I’m also not dumb enough to knowingly violate it.
Reply With Quote