ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing 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!
  • lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,679
    Roll back the regulatory rule making process and force Congress (House and Senate)to pass actual laws and not delegate its power to Executive branch.

    The problem is there has to be some delegation. If Congress had to write laws without any regulatory authority laws would be necessity need to be thousands of pages long. And Congress aren’t remotely experts in any field they are writing laws about.

    The issue isn’t regulation. The issue is the executive branch either exceeding the letter or intent of the law. Combined with judiciary deference to the executive branch (see Chevron defense). Should congress pass a law saying food and drugs have to be safe? Or do they need a hundred pages about how food and drugs need to be inspected? Because the later is going to end up worse if Congress has to write it, or it’ll never realistically happen.
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,736
    Socialist State of Maryland
    The problem is there has to be some delegation. If Congress had to write laws without any regulatory authority laws would be necessity need to be thousands of pages long. And Congress aren’t remotely experts in any field they are writing laws about.

    The issue isn’t regulation. The issue is the executive branch either exceeding the letter or intent of the law. Combined with judiciary deference to the executive branch (see Chevron defense). Should congress pass a law saying food and drugs have to be safe? Or do they need a hundred pages about how food and drugs need to be inspected? Because the later is going to end up worse if Congress has to write it, or it’ll never realistically happen.

    The big problem is that the politicians have succeeded in politicizing the Executive Branch of government by sneaking people into OPM jobs over the years. I remember before it was so and how much better government was then. Now, the fox is in the hen house and I don't know how to get him out. :sad20:
     

    PALYDIN11

    Member
    Jan 26, 2013
    44
    Ocean City, MD
    Yamato and Musashi were both named after Japanese provinces, like the two ships of the class that preceded them, Nagato and Mutsu. That was their naming convention. The documentary probably jumped to conclusions.

    Thanks for clearing that up. It was the History Channel Samurai documentary that Mark Dacascos narrated. I should have known the way he was spouting off quotes, that some of his stuff was probably not true.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    The problem is there has to be some delegation. If Congress had to write laws without any regulatory authority laws would be necessity need to be thousands of pages long. And Congress aren’t remotely experts in any field they are writing laws about.

    The issue isn’t regulation. The issue is the executive branch either exceeding the letter or intent of the law. Combined with judiciary deference to the executive branch (see Chevron defense). Should congress pass a law saying food and drugs have to be safe? Or do they need a hundred pages about how food and drugs need to be inspected? Because the later is going to end up worse if Congress has to write it, or it’ll never realistically happen.

    The issue is that Congress is passing the buck to unelected unremovable individuals, instead of doing their job.

    If a law is too complex for a simple congresscritter to write, it's probably an example of governmental overreach, or stupid elected officials, or both.

    That government is best, that governs least.

    .
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    “We want to treat pistols modified with stabilizing braces with the seriousness they deserve. A stabilizing brace … essentially, it makes that pistol a hell of a lot more accurate and a mini-rifle,” President Joe Biden said in April.

    “As a result, it’s more lethal, effectively turning into a short-barreled rifle. That’s what the alleged shooter in Boulder appears to have done.”

    The ATF only lists two crimes committed with the braces.

    Of course, the last thing we should want in our firearms is increased accuracy.


    You probably don't need a link about this, but whatthehell:
    https://www.westernjournal.com/bidens-gun-confiscation-scheme-millions-firearm-owners-may-soon-become-felons/

    .
     

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    The issue is that Congress is passing the buck to unelected unremovable individuals, instead of doing their job.

    If a law is too complex for a simple congresscritter to write, it's probably an example of governmental overreach, or stupid elected officials, or both.

    That government is best, that governs least.

    .

    Congress doesn't write laws. Special interest lawyers write the laws and get politicians in Congress to sponsor them..."we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" - Nancy Pelosi.
     

    Beancounter

    Active Member
    Jul 8, 2012
    145
    New legislative authority by the BATFE

    Why is anyone surprised? By presidential order, the BATFE said bumpstocks were machineguns, and so they are. I didn't see the outcry then.

    When Youtube "Richard Craniums" post videos of themselves shouldering "braced" pistols, what would a reasonable person think but, "that is a way around the law regarding SBR"? When people, especially those who proclaim to support 2A, continue to use the phrases "assault" weapon" and "high capacity magazine", you lend credibility to those would want to deprive you of them.

    Supposedly, Ben Franklin saw all this coming when he warned us that we would have the government we deserved. He was right. He has always been right. We have done this to ourselves. Some, by supporting candidates no matter their qualifications or level (or lack thereof) of personal integrity. Some by continuing to support laws to restrict others from exercising a right, they themselves don't choose to exercise. But most, by being silent.

    Some will do what ever they are told because of their desire to be a "good" citizen.

    These people are your neighbors, your family and your "friends".

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sometimes the history we should learn, is the history of other countries so it does not become the history of our country.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,635
    Sykesville, MD
    The fight should be against SBRs and the NFA instead of pistol braces.

    This right here.

    Why are we making the argument that a pistol brace should not make a weapon an "NFA item"? (<---it's a rhetorical question - I know why).

    If "Shall not be infringed" applies to a 16" AR, then why shouldn't it apply to a 9", 11" or 14.5" AR as well. WTF does having the "ability to shoulder" have to do with the right to bear arms?

    The point of the above quote is simply that by arguing for pistols we've defacto accepted the NFA as reasonable.

    And the frog continues to simmer.
     

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,818
    This right here.

    Why are we making the argument that a pistol brace should not make a weapon an "NFA item"? (<---it's a rhetorical question - I know why).

    If "Shall not be infringed" applies to a 16" AR, then why shouldn't it apply to a 9", 11" or 14.5" AR as well. WTF does having the "ability to shoulder" have to do with the right to bear arms?

    The point of the above quote is simply that by arguing for pistols we've defacto accepted the NFA as reasonable.

    And the frog continues to simmer.

    Wouldn't it be wiser to refight that war with a friendlier administration in the white house? Especially when the next war coming down the pike will likely involve the outright ban of the AR-15?
     

    Reezie

    Member
    Aug 18, 2020
    62
    Does anyone else feel like the left is doing things like this deliberately to start a civil war? I mean, it seems like they are really going out of their way to cause the collapse of this country.

    civil war among who gun owners and none gun owners? dont think that will work
     

    ed bernay

    Active Member
    Feb 18, 2011
    184
    This right here.

    Why are we making the argument that a pistol brace should not make a weapon an "NFA item"? (<---it's a rhetorical question - I know why).

    If "Shall not be infringed" applies to a 16" AR, then why shouldn't it apply to a 9", 11" or 14.5" AR as well. WTF does having the "ability to shoulder" have to do with the right to bear arms?

    The point of the above quote is simply that by arguing for pistols we've defacto accepted the NFA as reasonable.

    And the frog continues to simmer.

    How can they prove even under rational basis that two nearly identical AR15s (one with a 14.5 inch barrel and one with a 16 inch barrel purchased by the same law abiding citizen from a gun store at the same time) should be treated differently? How is the 14.5 inch version so much more dangerous that the law abiding citizen (who passed a NICS check) needs to pay the US Government $200, undergo another NICS check and wait one year in order to take that 14.5 inch rifle home? 1.5 inches less barrel is too dangerous? There are no adequate words to describe the level of stupidity displayed by the mainstream media and politicians.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,635
    Sykesville, MD
    Wouldn't it be wiser to refight that war with a friendlier administration in the white house? Especially when the next war coming down the pike will likely involve the outright ban of the AR-15?

    You're not wrong.

    But we arguably had a "friendlier" administration for the last four years and where did that get us? We gained ground on federal appointments, which we may not yet have seen the benefits of and could work to our advantage in the background, but we're no closer to "common sense" in the gun debate.

    You're question is also dependent on us trusting that the system is not now rigged such that we may not see a friendlier administration for the foreseeable future, or at least until the damage being done is irreversible without dire measures.

    The two sides in this country are fast becoming irreconcilable.
     

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,818
    You're not wrong.

    But we arguably had a "friendlier" administration for the last four years and where did that get us? We gained ground on federal appointments, which we may not yet have seen the benefits of and could work to our advantage in the background, but we're no closer to "common sense" in the gun debate.

    You're question is also dependent on us trusting that the system is not now rigged such that we may not see a friendlier administration for the foreseeable future, or at least until the damage being done is irreversible without dire measures.

    The two sides in this country are fast becoming irreconcilable.

    The "rigged" part, we'll find out soon enough. I just think we need to put all the effort we can towards the near future. I think we are that close to the precipice. We'll know more in a year and a half.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,679
    How can they prove even under rational basis that two nearly identical AR15s (one with a 14.5 inch barrel and one with a 16 inch barrel purchased by the same law abiding citizen from a gun store at the same time) should be treated differently? How is the 14.5 inch version so much more dangerous that the law abiding citizen (who passed a NICS check) needs to pay the US Government $200, undergo another NICS check and wait one year in order to take that 14.5 inch rifle home? 1.5 inches less barrel is too dangerous? There are no adequate words to describe the level of stupidity displayed by the mainstream media and politicians.

    They aren’t. Originally NFA was going to apply to ALL firearms with a short barrel. The plan was to make handguns available only to the rich and the government. But it got diluted because there was enough push back. But not enough to ban “unusual” firearms that were “particularly concealable”. It’s a gangland America law. Keep in mind what was occurring at the time.

    Context matters.

    Makes no sense today. Kind of didn’t then, but they didn’t mind trampling some rights in an attempt to make it harder for gangsters.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,679
    You're not wrong.

    But we arguably had a "friendlier" administration for the last four years and where did that get us? We gained ground on federal appointments, which we may not yet have seen the benefits of and could work to our advantage in the background, but we're no closer to "common sense" in the gun debate.

    You're question is also dependent on us trusting that the system is not now rigged such that we may not see a friendlier administration for the foreseeable future, or at least until the damage being done is irreversible without dire measures.

    The two sides in this country are fast becoming irreconcilable.

    I would argue we are closer. Public opinion favoring more gun control has dropped like 7-8 points in the last year or two. We’ve also gained about another 5-6% of American households that are now gun owners.

    That is certainly a move in the right direction. That plus judicial appointments. That stuff takes time to pay dividends. Plus a lot of the new gun owners are liberals. They aren’t going to suddenly vote Democrat. But they might make it real clear to democratic candidates where they need to stand on gun rights. And primaries do exist. I don’t think that’ll be a sea change there, but I bet you’ll see a bit more nibbling around the edges of gun control support even among democrat politicians.
     

    5cary

    On the spreading edge of the butter knife.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2007
    3,635
    Sykesville, MD
    I would argue we are closer. Public opinion favoring more gun control has dropped like 7-8 points in the last year or two. We’ve also gained about another 5-6% of American households that are now gun owners.

    That is certainly a move in the right direction. That plus judicial appointments. That stuff takes time to pay dividends. Plus a lot of the new gun owners are liberals. They aren’t going to suddenly vote Democrat. But they might make it real clear to democratic candidates where they need to stand on gun rights. And primaries do exist. I don’t think that’ll be a sea change there, but I bet you’ll see a bit more nibbling around the edges of gun control support even among democrat politicians.

    I certainly hope you are right, but I simply don't put much stock in those statistics. This particular thread is addressing AR's in one form or another, and many of those new gun owners are, as you mentioned, liberals that got caught up in the Pandemic Panic of '20. They have whatever cheap handgun/shotgun they could get and now they "have theirs". Don't think for a minute they won't vote to have your evil assault weapon taken away.

    Depending on sources, there are still up to 70% of the population that agrees in some form with controls on "Assault Weapons". That's the issue that will be the flash point for many.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,937
    Messages
    7,259,612
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom