They are attempting to force registration/ban an accessory they previously deemed kosher. You can wordsmith it all you want, it comes down to de facto legislation by an agency.What law did atf create?
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
They are attempting to force registration/ban an accessory they previously deemed kosher. You can wordsmith it all you want, it comes down to de facto legislation by an agency.What law did atf create?
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
But they'd never take anyone's guns, right?DHS sent federal police to protest to protect their property, they pulled citizens off the street unmirandized and without pc. When pressed they refused to identify themselves and were indistinguishable wearing multicam. No I'd, no badge, no identity patches of any sort. Nameless, faceless masked cowards that violated american citizens civil rights.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
So as long as you are provided a clear way to remain legal it should all be fine and dandy?This would make no one a felon there is no felony since there is a clear path to remaining legal.
1- keep your pistol and remove the brace
2- register the pistol as a sbr, the tax stamp fee is Waived(no retroactive tax)
I agree we as gun owners shouldn't yield one single inch in gun legislation. This isnt legislation, its merely a new interpretation on a product based upon it's intended use and its actual use.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
I'm curious, did you actually read the guidance?I'm curious as to how many people read the guidance? It did not eliminate braces and it was clear that incidental shouldering of a brace was still legal. Rather it defined a method for differentiating a brace from a buttstock. It was the result of manufactures pushing the limits of credibility with braces that did not even function as a brace due to the angle of the bore when the "brace" was placed on the forearm making it impossible to aim.
While I personally think the SBR and suppressor portion of the NFA should be repealed, it is hard for me to see this guidance in the light that so many paint it. Personally, I would prefer clearly defined and published definitions I can fall back on to being at the mercy of an individual officer's interpretation, then having to escalate it to the interpretation of a judge.
You have accused me of lying by implying that I did not do something that I strongly implied I did. To be clear, before my first post I read every word of it up to section "C. Submitting Comments." You are free to disagree with my interpretation and I will take no offence, however, I do take offence at being called a liar or stupid (your first two sentences).I'm curious, did you actually read the guidance?
If you did, you would have realized they didn't give any specifications in their proposed "guidance" that was clearly definitive.
It was anything but clear and definitive...so depending upon how they felt that day, they could interpret it any way they wanted.
That is tyranny...
I concur the entire NFA should be done away with.
BUT, if they are going to issue "guidance", it needs to be clearly defined and not subject to interpretation. They need to give specific measurements along with their definitions.
Rest assured, there will be another attempt to regulate pistol braces (and AR-15s...and semi-auto weapons).
Edit: Link to good article on Ammoland:
Here They Come Again… President Trump Should Shut Down the ATF
Whatever BATFE’s motives for their current assaults on gun owners, President Trump should take immediate action to rein in the agency and shut down their attacks on our rights.www.ammoland.com
OMG!You have accused me of lying by implying that I did not do something that I strongly implied I did. To be clear, before my first post I read every word of it up to section "C. Submitting Comments." You are free to disagree with my interpretation and I will take no offence, however, I do take offence at being called a liar or stupid (your first two sentences).
Did I use the word "clear" in the context of how they defined a brace? I reread my post and must be missing it. I stand by the fact that they where crystal clear that incidental shouldering of a brace did not make it a buttstock. I quote "This is far from the “incidental” use of an arm brace as a shouldering device as described in ATF's 2017 guidance (see footnote 8)."
Would you prefer they define it as "anything with a LOP over 4 inches is a buttstock?" The guidance provided (it was withdrawn, hence the past tense) a list of factors that influence the decision and recognized that an individual items design would need to be evaluated in full rather than pinning it on a few superficial factors. To quote the defunct guidance "These factors are based on known stabilizing braces and similar attachments. No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis. Because of changes in design or configuration of a weapon or Start Printed Page 82519attachment, as well as future changes in technology, this list is not exhaustive and other factors may become relevant to a weapon's classification."
Did you miss this section that stated "ATF recognizes that before issuance of this notice, there was a misunderstanding by some that a pistol assembled with any item purported to be a stabilizing brace still would be considered a “pistol” regardless of other characteristics. The objective factors discussed here make clear that while some stabilizing braces may lawfully be used on pistols without bringing the firearm within the purview of the NFA, that is not necessarily the case for every “pistol” because some firearms are configured or have characteristics such that they meet the statutory definition of “rifle or shotgun” (hereafter, “affected stabilizer-equipped firearms”). ATF understands that most individuals who acquired affected stabilizer-equipped firearms did so in good-faith reliance on representations, made by those selling the stabilizing braces or the firearms, that those firearms were not subject to the NFA.
"Consequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith. This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16” or greater for a rifle, or 18” or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm.Start Printed Page 82520
"Until that process is separately implemented, and absent a substantial public safety concern, ATF will exercise its enforcement discretion not to enforce the registration provisions of the NFA against any person who, before publication of this notice, in good faith acquired, transferred, made, manufactured, or possessed an affected stabilizer-equipped firearms." Emphases mine.
Life is rarely clearly defined, there is a reason we have judges and a long standing tradition of officers discretion in the US. There is also a reason case law plays an important part in our legal system, because laws cannot cover every eventuality. If recognition of the facts of life is "tyranny" well I guess I'm a tyrant as I try to understand the context in which my toddler acts rather than giving blanket punishments.
The Ammoland article you linked is borderline ridiculous in its clear attempt to misunderstand legal rule making and equates to click bate and it could be argued even intentional obscuration of what was actually stated.
OMG?OMG!
Really?
LOL...
If at first you don't succeed...The Commies are rite back at it.
Americans told you we didn't want it.
New comment period opens today.
Comments from the last proposal do not carry over.
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...www.atf.gov