Pistol brace news

[sndmn11]

Be very careful.
I believe I read that, even without a stock of any kind (i.e. just the buffer tube) it's still an NFA item

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I still need to read it, and more of other folks' insight.

Do you read anything that you view as disassembling upper and lower as being incomplete?

My initial plan was to take the braces off, because I have rifles purchased as complete rifles and those are back up parts for those rifles. The lowers my braces used to be attached to were purchased as lowers only, and how only been in pistol form. Those lowers are now bare carbine buffer tubes and complete lowers, but disassembled as back up lowers to my rifles. So now that leaves two uppers that have barrels under 16".

I'd much prefer to just take the braces off those pistols and continue being a law-abiding dude.

 

[Dos XX]

Interesting read.

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA...

www.atf.gov

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

Imagine being made a criminal for owning something you legally purchased by someone you never had a chance to vote for.

If I could type out a big wet fart noise I would do so RIGHT HERE.

You can't claim to be a free person if you are falling for this. This is clearly BS and I for one have had more than my fill. Same goes for other gun laws I won't get into here.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I still need to read it, and more of other folks' insight.

Do you read anything that you view as disassembling upper and lower as being incomplete?

My initial plan was to take the braces off, because I have rifles purchased as complete rifles and those are back up parts for those rifles. The lowers my braces used to be attached to were purchased as lowers only, and how only been in pistol form. Those lowers are now bare carbine buffer tubes and complete lowers, but disassembled as back up lowers to my rifles. So now that leaves two uppers that have barrels under 16".

I'd much prefer to just take the braces off those pistols and continue being a law-abiding dude.

I would separate the lower and upper, until the ubarrel is swapped to 16 plus.
I would not have a short barreled upper attached to a lower, even it if the lower was bare buffer.

It seem as though the words your allowed to have the parts. Just not assembled.

But with the case of an auto sear you are not allowed to have the part in any way shape or form unless you have a registered machine gun.

 

[Bluefish]

Be very careful.
I believe I read that, even without a stock of any kind (i.e. just the buffer tube) it's still an NFA item

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I will be honest, I have not read every page. They do talk about buffer tubes and if they are needed or not for operation. If a buffer of any sort was now a sbr, I would reason that it would not be discussed as needed or not, but instead, presence constitutes a sbr. Could be wrong on this and as I dont have any braces, I probably won’t read every page.
I do want a SBR but will go a normal form 1 to avoid the potential problems of this fiasco.

 

[mi650]

Serious question... For all the non-compliers, haven't you already complied by putting a brace on and not a regular rifle stock? If anyone is being honest with themselves, braces are uncomfortable as hell to shoot and offer really nothing, other than compliance.

In the case of my P556, I bought it that way from my LGS, as a factory built pistol. Keeping in mind that MI has handgun registration, (UGH!!) it is a compromise, but 1 that I can throw in my truck or car and carry concealed.

MI considers any firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle to be concealed, even on the dash in plain view. Since rifles, even SBRs, basically have to be transported in the trunk, and the P556 is registered with the MSP as a pistol, it was a pretty appealing option.

 

[Crowmangler]

Looks like an organization is fighting this head on.

Mock v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule

Mock v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule

www.firearmspolicy.org

"With no time wasted, FPC has filed a challenge to the ATF Pistol Brace Rule, Mock v. Garland. The challenge makes not only an APA claim but a 1A and 2A claim, as well We will not sit idle while petty tyrants attempt to usurp power and terrorize peaceable people."

 

[southLA]

Apparently there was an ATF workshop I believe yesterday and what was stated was that a buffer tube alone is fine to use, as it is necessary for function of the...pistol. Just can't put anything to increase surface area.

 

[TK161BOONER]

Following…

 

[mtnwrunner]

The whole thing and ruling is obviously confusing as hell being there are already various interpretations.
The first clue should be.....
"We're from the government and we're here to help you."

I'm hoping it gets challenged to death.

Randy

 

[sndmn11]

The whole thing and ruling is obviously confusing as hell being there are already various interpretations.


Randy

The moronic part is that the words of something being a pistol, rifle, or short barreled rifle does nothing whatsoever to make something more or less safe/lethal.

It's the equivalent of the taco or sandwich debate.

 

[FlyGuy]

The moronic part is that the words of something being a pistol, rifle, or short barreled rifle does nothing whatsoever to make something more or less safe/lethal.

It's the equivalent of the taco or sandwich debate.

A hotdog is NOT a sandwich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[justin davis]

I got an AR pistol. I’ll probably wait and see how it plays out. I don’t want to register it as the limitations of the SBR make it a pain for traveling to other states.

I see it as a way for their to want you to register your guns. Something I don’t want to do. But I own suppressors so I’m already on their list had having those.

 

[Weldor]

I don't if anyone seen the video from the shot 2023, ATF admitted they can't process the app's in time. That will make alot people criminal's because they will be way over 120 days. There is a rule about 88 days? anyone know more about this?

 

[Bluefish]

I don't if anyone seen the video from the shot 2023, ATF admitted they can't process the app's in time. That will make alot people criminal's because they will be way over 120 days. There is a rule about 88 days? anyone know more about this?

The 88 days is with a background check. Once they start the check it has to be completed in 88 days or it’s an automatic denial. I don’t think the clock starts on submission, but once they actually start your check. So maybe not that big of an issue.
Imho the main problem with the “free” stamp is that you have to admit to having a sbr, thus saying you are a felon, before getting the stamp. Imho Would be better off to use a normal form 1, pay $200 and get a stamp before assembling your sbr. Besides once it’s an sbr why use a brace when you can use any stock.

 

[wesfromky]

I don't if anyone seen the video from the shot 2023, ATF admitted they can't process the app's in time. That will make alot people criminal's because they will be way over 120 days. There is a rule about 88 days? anyone know more about this?

More info here -

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/11f3you

From the mega approval thread, approvals for the "free" stamps have been all over the place, as have the normal form 1 waits. I have seen 20's in to the 50's. I am at 42 days for a paid stamp, so hopefully in the next week or so.

 

[Will_m]

A hotdog is NOT a sandwich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What about if you disconnect the bun so that it is two distinct pieces and then eat it with one slice on top, one on bottom, with your processed meat in the middle? That sounds like a sandwich, no?

 

[Defiant 1]

Justice Department announces new rule to regulate pistol-stabilizing braces | CNN Politics

Attorney General Merrick Garland and Steve Dettelbach, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), announced new regulations Friday that would subject pistol-stabilizing braces to additional regulations, including higher taxes, longer waiting periods and...

www.cnn.com

I wonder if they really understand the nuance of this statement:

“According to the Justice Department, manufacturers, dealers and individual gun owners have 120 days to register tax-free any existing short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. They can also remove the stabilizing brace or surrender covered short-barreled rifles to the ATF, the department said.”

The ATF is abusing their authority, or a more accurate statement is that they’re trying to use authority that they were never meant to possess. They are law enforcement, not lawmakers. If people don’t wake up, our liberties will be taken from us. Joe Biden has weaponized the willing ATF to push his feeble agenda. I have not and I will not register mine. This is a back door way of having a federal gun registry. Some things are worth making a stand for.

 

[BjornF16]

Update: 5th Circuit places temporary injunction against ATF implementing the pistol brace rule:

Federal Court Delivers Setback To Biden ATF’s Far-Reaching Pistol Brace Rule

A federal court has blocked a Biden administration rule that would regulate braced pistols as short barrel rifles.

dailycaller.com

 

[Dos XX]

From the article posted above:

"Former George W. Bush appointee Judge Catharina Haynes and former President Donald Trump appointees Judge Kurt Engelhardt and Judge Andrew Oldham issued the injunction."

Class, what did we learn about elections today?