Well there go the pistol braces.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,778
    Baltimore County
    They say when you are going to eat an elephant, which seems impossible,, you take one bite at a time 'till its gone. Unlike the big tex steak challenge, its not timed,,, they got time!

    The only way to stop someone from eating an elephant is to punch them in the throat.

    Paying the mortgage of a lobbyist won't stop a hungry eater.
    Writing letters won't stop the next bite.
    Calling will only let you find outt if you can go over unlimited minutes.
    Lawyers and courts will only benefit those who get paid by that system.

    How do you stop someone from eating the elephant?
     
    Last edited:

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    Only the ATF could write something that makes less sense than something written by the MDGA


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,778
    Baltimore County
    The comment period is also in violation of Federal law which requires 90 days for comments prior to implementing a proposed rule.

    Tell that to a group of armed government employees as they take your stuff and arrest you. I bet they would not care. But you will have justice because once you pay for a lawyer you can explain it to a government paid judge . That is a win right there.
     

    MaxVO2

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    That reads like it can be purposefully judged any way they want

    What defines large caliber?.

    ****I don't know the formal definition, but to many people I know in my area who seem deathly afraid of firearms I would surmise anything over .177 coming out of a pellet gun would be considered large caliber.

    The whole caliber thing is just ***** footing around the fact that some people just want ALL the guns banned. The "sensible" restrictions are just a stop gap before the final solution so to speak... The whole 2nd amendment thing is just another hurdle to slowly chip away at.

    Some of what we read is purposely written in such a way that it can be interpreted in several ways so they can shop for friendly judges on board with their "Interpretation".

    Seriously, they just want to ban civilian ownership of firearms - it's just not doable in one fell swoop.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Alito and Thomas concurred in Caetano by saying "hundreds of thousands" of tazers were sufficient to warrant "in common use" protection from Heller.

    That was before Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Court. I wonder what 500,000 SBR registrations in the grace period would do when someone sues saying they paid the $200 tax after the grace period ended, and they want their $200 back.
     

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    So here it is in black and white. Everybody with a pistol brace bend over and pound sand like the bumpstock people. Brought to you by the same folks.
     

    Combloc

    Stop Negassing me!!!!!
    Nov 10, 2010
    7,216
    In a House
    The comment period is also in violation of Federal law which requires 90 days for comments prior to implementing a proposed rule.

    HAHAHA!!!!!! Like "federal law" even matters anymore! Your own government ignores "federal law". I recommend that you do too. You cannot defeat an enemy that won't play by the rules........by playing by the rules.
     

    jeff g

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Jul 7, 2020
    39
    We need a coat hanger BAN not a pistol brace BAN dawg gone IT!!!

    Coat Hanger Machine Gun DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear) it is a coat hanger and will fail 200-500 rounds then your itch of full auto has been solved. I think the rear shelf of your receiver has to be lowered not sure what U have to fit the piece.



    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/04/coat-hanger-machine-gun-dias-drop-in-auto-sear/

    48417796_797297233937181_2115440125365190656_n.jpg
     
    Last edited:

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    I just took 2 hours to read, highlight, underline & note through this newly published "Objective Factors" drivel. Just as the guy from Guns and Gadgets said yesterday, This publication underscores the contradictory rules and guidelines that the ATF sort of follows. There are so many gray areas in this. This publication not only contradicts previous decisions and rulings, it contradicts itself in many areas. On top of that... it states that "This document is intended only to provide CLARITY to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or department policies". This thing did not clear up SH!T. It makes things muddier than hell. They just made another category of firearms by definition - "affected stabilizer equipped firearms". This publishing also creates a new category of criminals that has absolutely no idea that they are breaking the law due to the extremely under-defined terminology that has been outlined. Kind of outlined is a better way of saying it.

    Oh, and as long as you bought a "stablizing brace" before this PUBLISHED DATE and IF it falls into this NEWLY UNDEFINED category which MAY OR MAY NOT make you a criminal, then you are considered a person that has "previously purchased this item in good faith". That sounds like it was meant to be an important category of people. Gee, throw me a bone for a free SBR so that I can register it with the feds and have THEM come knocking at my door because the crazy cat lady neighbor doesn't like me. Thank goodness for those red flag laws.

    So everyone (that wishes) gets to submit their now legally owned pistol with a stabilizing brace to the ATF to see whether or not it is an SBR?! In order to see whether or not they are officially a criminal in the muddy eyes of this agency that you can lock you up because they can't stay in their own lane? We are not the ones doing the reckless driving but we are the ones that are going to pay the price by getting hit by the drunk driver.

    I am going to start crumbling garbage like this up and throwing it away. This drivel has already been crafted by the powers that be and it is going to be passed through the back door in 17 days. I am coming off of a fresh read so pardon my sarcasm.
     

    slsc98

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2012
    6,746
    Escaped MD-stan to WNC Smokies
    ...So everyone (that wishes) gets to submit their now legally owned pistol with a stabilizing brace to the ATF to see whether or not it is an SBR?! ....

    No sweeter music to ATF bureaucratic ears; it would mean they’re swelling their ranks by 25-50% a rubber stamp ... they’re already like one of those movie alien forms which, every time you cut it in half it replicates itself two-fold! :mad54:
     

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    No sweeter music to ATF bureaucratic ears; it would mean they’re swelling their ranks by 25-50% a rubber stamp ... they’re already like one of those movie alien forms which, every time you cut it in half it replicates itself two-fold! :mad54:

    Good analogy. The incoming administration must have promised them a lot of money if they get their way.
     

    CodeWarrior1241

    Active Member
    Sep 23, 2013
    827
    Lutherville
    I honestly read through the previous 96 posts, and the ATF document requesting comment. Still not sure what ATF actually intends to do.

    If there is a hypothetical PSA 10.5" upper on a dedicated 9mm lower (AR-V, accepts CZ EVO magazines only) with a brace, what happens? Say it was bought months ago, vs today.

    Edit:
    Read again, see it now:

    "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."

    So prior to 12/18, using an expedited NFA process, without the $200. Will we get a stamp?
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I bet "expedited NFA process" means using the E-File portal. Right now they're running about 20-30 days. You don't get a physical stamp, just a PDF emailed to you.
     

    Riley26

    Member
    Mar 12, 2013
    52
    Odenton, Maryland
    Finally, this notice previews ATF's and the Department of Justice's plan to subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA, including an expedited application process and the retroactive exemption of such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes.

    Simple enough, choose not to
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,470
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom