Pistol brace news

[displacedtexan]

I think he means “the people”. As in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. “

That's part of what it says...

What is right before it?

 

[mtblackdog]

Looks like alot of people gonna be swapping braces on to guns the next couple months for picturesThe SBR stock sales are gonna soar. Hurry everybody time to panic buy a stock

 

[txjustin]

Will be struck down like trumps ATF bump stock rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dos XX]

IMO, unwarranted government over reach. Now many of these type firearms are involved with illegal
actions. There is a 2A, in which I cannot find any definition as to what "kind" of firearm is included or excluded from the "right to bear arms". How did "we" ever let this Amendment get diluted; if that is the correct word. I'm not a legal nor Constitutional scholar, but, it should be pretty straight forward. The government is not a friend of the legal law abiding U.S. citizen; on many fronts.

The 2nd amendment should be afforded the same broad interpretation as the 1st amendment, always leaning towards more liberty rather than less. You should not be allowed to interpret amendments according to whether you like them or not. The current Supreme Court is as 2nd amendment friendly as any I've seen in my lifetime. It's a good thing, too.

There is a way to amend the constitution. It is difficult to do, and it was made that way for a reason.

 

[307]

I didn’t expect to read people trying to get MORE of their guns registered with the government. Weird.

 

[gabenzeke]

That's part of what it says...

What is right before it?

A well balanced breakfast being a necessary start to your day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. Who has a right to bear food? A well balanced breakfast or the people?

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Wrench]

That's part of what it says...

What is right before it?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


Which is a true statement. Oranges are orange is also a true statement.

 

[Yoder]

Do not comply.

 

[dsotm]

Always amusing to see the fudds that support this kind of crap. Hurrduurr they won't come for muh huntin rifle!

 

[GunsAreFun]

So if I want to convert my “pistol” to an sbr, I should do now and I can skip the fee?

That’s what I’m wondering as I add a whole bunch of lowers and braces to my cart lol

 

[bnsafe]

I think the bigger issue for me is, a few NON ELECTED officials laying down law. Do we not realize how much "law" we are getting from gov entities like atf, epa, etc etc etc. That has to stop, is has to.
2nd, if they can just arbitrarily do this, how long before they decide to register the next thing, whatever that is.
Rather this gets struck down or not, I would urge everyone to realize if we dont draw a line in the sand and say no more it will never stop. I am not saying a war, not at all, but I am saying get involved. Dont just write your politicians, neither side gives a crap, get involved in local elections. Thats where this will get won or lost. But my gosh folks, if we dont say and do something what are our kids and grandkids gonna have for freedom.

 

[sndmn11]

I think the bigger issue for me is, a few NON ELECTED officials laying down law. Do we not realize how much "law" we are getting from gov entities like atf, epa, etc etc etc. That has to stop, is has to.
2nd, if they can just arbitrarily do this, how long before they decide to register the next thing, whatever that is.
Rather this gets struck down or not, I would urge everyone to realize if we dont draw a line in the sand and say no more it will never stop. I am not saying a war, not at all, but I am saying get involved. Dont just write your politicians, neither side gives a crap, get involved in local elections. Thats where this will get won or lost. But my gosh folks, if we dont say and do something what are our kids and grandkids gonna have for freedom.

This is where I am stuck. I have two pistols built from lowers, and they are intended to be my son's when he grows up. I know since their first iteration was a complete pistol, I can put a 16"+ upper and stock on them and go back and forth between pistol and rifle. Obviously cannot do that with purchases of complete rifles.

Colorado doesn't allow long guns chambered in a vehicle, they do allow pistols chambered in a vehicle.

1) If I jump on this to no cost register two pistols as SBRs, I believe they can never be converted to a "pistol".
2) If I don't and hope that this is overturned, I might be wrong.
3) if I change some things to conform to the new rules so they remain pistols, I loose the ability to go back and forth between 16"+ rifle and pistol.

 

[Eleven]

Just to clarify, the way I read this is that the BRACE is what is being deemed illegal by this proposed rule, not the pistol itself. So that means that if you take the brace off of the pistol you should be good to go. We‘ll see if the final version rules on whether possession of a brace (not installed) would be considered illegal or not. The way I understand it right now, if the rule were to become final, you would have three options 1) surrender the pistol and brace 2) register the pistol as an SBR and get a free tax stamp, 3) remove the brace (and maybe destroy the brace). You would have 120 days after the rule becomes final to come into compliance.

We all know that constitutionality and interpretation of rules can change over time, I’m not sure I’d bet on this rule surviving as written. However until it is ruled on and actually changed it would stand and being out of compliance on it would be a federal offense (read that as time in the pokey).

What I think: Keep your pistols for your kids without a brace. The rule could change in a short amount of time and you could be allowed to reattach the brace after that. Don’t register as an SBR. Unless you truly want an SBR.

 

[Jbehredt]

Surprised by the responses. People clambering to get in line to register their semi automatic weapons in exchange for a $200 ATF coupon. Expected more “cold dead hands” and “molon labe”. That SBR is cool until the next democratic sweep in Washington and you’re told to surrender your scary guns.

 

[Desk Jockey]

SBR designation complicates storage and and interstate travel a bit more.

Hearing from some guys plugged into the NRA that this is gonna be litigated like the bump stock thing.

 

[sndmn11]

Just to clarify, the way I read this is that the BRACE is what is being deemed illegal by this proposed rule, not the pistol itself. So that means that if you take the brace off of the pistol you should be good to go. We‘ll see if the final version rules on whether possession of a brace (not installed) would be considered illegal or not. The way I understand it right now, if the rule were to become final, you would have three options 1) surrender the pistol and brace 2) register the pistol as an SBR and get a free tax stamp, 3) remove the brace (and maybe destroy the brace). You would have 120 days after the rule becomes final to come into compliance.

We all know that constitutionality and interpretation of rules can change over time, I’m not sure I’d bet on this rule surviving as written. However until it is ruled on and actually changed it would stand and being out of compliance on it would be a federal offense (read that as time in the pokey).

What I think: Keep your pistols for your kids without a brace. The rule could change in a short amount of time and you could be allowed to reattach the brace after that. Don’t register as an SBR. Unless you truly want an SBR.

I also read it as the brace being the point of contention, but I also skimmed and didn't really "read" more than a few of the 90+ pages.

What did catch my eye was the focus on carbine extensions, and the vagueness of what's a brace now and what isn't as I have two very different braces on these.

 

[Eleven]

What did catch my eye was the focus on carbine extensions, and the vagueness of what's a brace now and what isn't as I have two very different braces on these.

Agreed. Interpretation and application of the law or rule by the respective agency is often more important than the actual law. in my opinion there is a clear intent from the BATF to come after AR style pistols.

The bump stock litigation took years, I’d expect just as long, if not longer, on this one too. But until the rule is challenged and deemed unconstitutional it would stand and be enforceable.

 

[sndmn11]

Agreed. Interpretation and application of the law or rule by the respective agency is often more important than the actual law. in my opinion there is a clear intent from the BATF to come after AR style pistols.

The bump stock litigation took years, I’d expect just as long, if not longer, on this one too. But until the rule is challenged and deemed unconstitutional it would stand and be enforceable.

I'd also wonder if one took a non-conforming brace off a pistol and put it the brace in a drawer or even on a different complete rifle they owned, if that would be frowned upon.

I have a feeling that person could get in trouble for having a brace on a rifle, put it on a pistol, and magically it would called a stock.

 

[Eleven]

I have a feeling that person could get in trouble for having a brace on a rifle, put it on a pistol, and magically it would called a stock.

Maybe. As it stands right now I can own an AR upper with a barrel less than 16” even if I don’t own an AR pistol or registered SBR. It only becomes illegal if I attach it to a lower that is not a register SBR or a pistol. The difference between that and this brace rule is that they’re purposely singling out the brace as being illegal. And they get to define what a brace is. It MAY be illegal to have possession of the brace even if not installed on anything. Need to figure out if they are talking about possession or installation. I haven’t gotten that far yet In the readings…. This really is a big pile of poop.

 

[robtattoo]