The DOJ and ATF are most definitely weaponized by the idiot in the white house, flip flopping how many times on *their* opinions on the rules, even a blind person can see that. Their agency's are to enforce not write or change the laws at their whim.
That machine was dubbed legal at least a couple of times. I'll see your scenario and raise you: I'm a criminal if I have an off-shore bank account to avoid US taxes. But the US government maintaining a torture facility at GITMO to circumvent constitutional constraints is legit. Forgive me if the spirit of the law doesn't mean much to me anymore. Reasonable discourse requires reasonable people.Originally Posted by Le Français
Well, to get back to the original topic, I had initially thought that I would want my DDM4 V7P, with a factory-installed LAW folder, to remain a legal pistol/handgun, which would, it seems, simply involve “altering” the rubber brace, which was long ago removed, anyway. I had originally wanted an AR/M4 that could be legally carried/possessed while loaded, in situations/jurisdictions where a rifle, loaded or unloaded, would be a legal problem. Texas having thrown long guns under the legal bus, in 2021, reinforced my desire to keep my DDM4 V7P in its pistol/handgun form. Recently, however, I have been leaning toward the idea of swapping uppers, to make the firearm a legal long gun, and store the original pistol/handgun upper at a separate location. One Colt 16”, mid-length gas tube upper, with an amazingly light-weight Centurion handguard, in particular, handles wonderfully, on my DDM4 V7P lower. Eventually, I could have the original Daniel Defense V7P pistol upper made long-gun compliant.
Why have I shifted from wanting to keep an AR/M4 pistol/handgun? Well, largely, I do not see an AR/M4 weapon as a reactive weapon, that I would need or want to keep loaded, anyway. I do like the “bag gun” concept, having occasionally toted bag guns since the early Eighties, but, a LAW-foldered, pistol-barreled AR/M4 is, realistically, for me, a backpack gun, not a sling-bag gun, much less a briefcase/computer-bag gun. I do not plan to add a backpack to my daily load.
Either way, handgun or long gun, I still do not find myself wanting to Form One my DDM4 V7P.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
This isn't my solution for everyone, but I have one registered SBR. It now has additional uppers from the pistols. I'll remove the braces, but I expect after the lawsuits, I'll replace them with stocks.
The suits are just waiting for the re-definition to actually be on the federal register. While we would never get Congress to legislatively repeal the NFA, I think the ATF has made a huge blunder. There are 3 seminal cases on the NFA. Miller, Heller and Bruen. Add to that the Standard Oil (?) case that said an agency didn't have the authority to redefine terms in a law written by Congress and signed by the President. If it didn't go further than that, SCOTUS would strike down the new definition. It's possible that Biden might make it an executive order, but I think that would still be struck down.
But here's the thing. The SCOTUS decision in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd Amendment because the types of firearms falling under 2A protection were those suitable for the militia. Because sawed off shotguns were not in use by the US Military, as a type, they weren't suitable for the militia and therefore, no protection.
Heller established that the 2A protected the rights of the individual, and didn't apply to the National Guard, etc. It was an individual right, not a collective right.
Bruen went back to what (generally) was restricted and what was in common use historically. Restrictions on what firearms could be owned came about fairly recently and most particularly, the NFA.
Under Miller, SBR's, SBS', Suppressors, and Full Auto are common in the military, and therefore suitable for the Militia (we are the unorganized militia, expected to bring our own arms).
Heller said that our 2A rights were an individual right and protected under the 2A.
Depending on how the lawsuits are written, they could gut the NFA just on these issues. It could result in the entire NFA being Unconstitutional, especially because of the tax. It isn't legal to require payment of a tax to exercise your constitutional rights. You can't be barred from exercising your rights because you don't have the money to pay the tax and the delays in apply, background checks, etc. are also Unconstitutional when it involves a Constitutional Right. That's been the basis for injunctive relief on multiple cases.
This is my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. If the ATF and the Democrats are lucky, SCOTUS (or most likely an Appeals Court) will grant injunctive relief under the Standard Oil (I think that's the one) on the basis that an agency can't redefine terms in a law, it has to go back to Congress. Then this whole thing will go away. Assuming there aren't enough spineless Republicans who join the Democrats in the house and Senate to amend the NFA. Biden would sign such a law.
Next worse case for them and beneficial to us, would be a narrow ruling that removed SBR's and SBS' from the NFA using Miller, Heller and Bruen. No more "pistols" if they have something that functions as a stock. They become rifles subject to all of the restrictions and freedoms of any other rifle. No special NFA registry, no special checks, no special paperwork.
Depending on the wording of the lawsuits and how they exploit the ATF changes, they could get the court to look at suppressors and machineguns as well. Under Miller, they are protected. They are in common use even in the civilian world, but the tax is restrictive, suppressors aren't firearms and were never regulated before the NFA and aren't regulated in most other countries. And the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA bill is clearly a restriction on a Constitutionally protected right. If you pull them out of the NFA, all that are left are destructive devices and explosives. And those were legally owned by civilians without federal regulation until the NFA. That would be the worst case for the ATF and the Democrats. A decision that the entire NFA was Unconstitutional. That would nullify the Hughes Amendment.
And all because of the ATF overreach. We can't win in Congress and get enough to repeal the NFA and have the sitting President sign it. So the ATF provides a veritable banquet of bad law that makes the whole thing a shoe-in for SCOTUS review and have it removed by the Court, not Congress.
I've said enough, certainly more than some want to read. Don't look at this as a disaster, look at it as a gift, a stupid attempt at overreach that gives us what we need to regain our freedoms. This overreach puts all of their worst restrictions under review. It won't affect most of the 1968 GCA. We'll still have to go through dealers, fill out 4473's and have background checks. But think about what we can get when the NFA is gutted or gone?
I agree, I still like the bag gun idea, but it is probably going to just live in my safe. People talk about TEOTWAWKI and there will be no rules, but the pistol (CHL) would be for the sketchy time before we are all wearing plate carriers, when rules are still rules. Instead of the LAW I went with the YHM pins with the knobs on them, and my 7.5" 300BO will fit into pretty much any little bag or lockbox. Maybe someday it might tag along on road trips, locked away somewhere safe unless it became needed. It is a fun little range toy, and a challenge to figure out how well it can be shot.
But I never got wrapped around the brace idea as a substitute for a SBR stamp. Probably since I do not have any cans, I do not even LIKE SBRs. And in reality I thought there was a high probability of what we are in the middle of.
When I first saw posts, pics and videos of guys shouldering their pistol brace and openly stating that it was an SBR without the tax stamp, I shook my head. It was thumbing the ATF's nose and daring them to do something. Then they issued a letter that shouldering the brace didn't change it's status and I shook my head again. In my mind, if it looks like a stock and is used as a stock, it's a stock. The ATF's problem is that they let it build for years and in the meantime, there have been several good decisions from SCOTUS. I truly think their words, the delay in the interpretation, etc. is probably going to dismantle parts of the NFA at a minimum. Specifically, removing SBR's and SBS' from the NFA. This rule change doesn't address suppressors and SCOTUS may limit their decision to just those firearms affected by the Pistol Brace Rule. The fact that ATF keeps making the point that the braces are stocks helps us.
Yeah, when they kept moving the cheese I figured I didn't want to build up a gun and become reliant on it. I like pushing out against a sling, and I think I am going to install some fixed loops on mine, and maybe a sling that doesn't quick-adjust, so it says in the right spot. And I am realistic that this is primarily a challenge to myself, do see what I might be able to do with a goofy setup.
Agreed. I think the only benefit to the whole “brace” farce is that lots of good folks will get a waived tax stamp. But the downsides are enormous. I don’t like the law, but wishing it away will not survive first contact with the handcuffs—and too many people do not even know enough to know the jeopardy they have unwittingly placed themselves in.
I am reading multiple posts in a few threads written by people who are either convinced that we will win or convinced that we will lose. There are arguments on both sides, and the actions of third party decision makers can never be predicted with 100% certainty. We simply do not know, and will not know for quite some time.
Braces existed in the first place because the government's own laws were used against them.
Regulatory agencies do not have the power to simply invent new laws, or to evade accountability to laws that are on the books. They don't get to tell handicapped people they can't shoot a particular type of firearm that they don't have the legal authority to ban or restrict.
"It's getting around the NFA!"
That's bullshit.
The BATFE doesn't get to expand their authority, their authority is set within the boundaries of federal law. They approved braces in the first place because they knew they likely wouldn't survive challenges from the ADA.
The BATFE showed up to a man's house and murdered his fucking family because a shotgun barrel was a couple of inches too short. They don't get to ignore technical restrictions when they're willing to literally kill people over those kinds of violations.
Fuck the BATFE, and fuck the notion that braces "get around" the NFA.
Dumbass government regulations are to be attacked, constrained, and litigated into paralyzing effect of the agency trying to foist them at every possible opportunity. Braces are braces, not stocks. Shockwaves are "firearms", not shotguns. We didn't ask for the idiocy of the laws, and they don't get to ignore the parts of it they don't like when we figure out a way to put baby in the fucking corner.
Live by the regulation, fucking die by it.
Last edited by TCinVA; 02-02-2023 at 08:55 AM.
3/15/2016
Reply With Quote