ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[Trumpet]

Provided you meet the 29inch OAL requirement if living in Maryland.

Only for centerfire. Rimfire should be GTG

 

[workshop777]

So if we add a .22LR conversion kit to it and chuck the original BCG we are ok? lolol

 

[TinCuda]

Dear (TinCuda),

Thank you for contacting me regarding rule 2021R-08F proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). I appreciate hearing from you, and you will be pleased to know I joined my colleagues in introducing a bill to block this rule.

On January 13th, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed a final rule amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designated, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Under the proposed rule, pistols with stabilizing braces would be treated like short-barreled rifles, which are much more heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act. Under this new rule, gun owners who utilize stabilizing braces would be forced to remove the brace, register the firearm, attach a longer rifled barrel, or turn it in to a local ATF office.

This proposed rule would turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight. Further, it is a blatant slap in the face of disabled veterans who often rely on stabilizing braces to use their firearms. Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and protect lawful Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights. Rest assured, I will continue to fight to promote North Texas values and protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans as I serve you in Congress.

(Join the mailing list propaganda here)

Sincerely,

Rep. Beth Van Duyne
Member of Congress

 

[Bob A]

Just leaving this here . . .

 

[Doctor_M]

I keep seeing, just remove the brace, as an option. Scrolling through the published rule, it's not gonna be that easy. You are going to have to remove your sights/optics as well.



Based on that little blurb, they are trying to qualify red dots and flipups/backups as sights that are intended for shoulder fire...

I believe that the ability to cheek-weld the buffer tube has never been in question and would still allow for use of the sights/optics.

 

[Jimgoespewpew]

Just leaving this here . . .

View attachment 399296

Now that's funny! The guy with the free candy is less evil than the guy in that van!!

 

[delaware_export]

A question to the lawyer/legal folks.

there was a lot of talk of the epa / scotus case in the last term, as related to deference to agencies.

what if any effect is that expected to this? If any?

i don’t recall the ruling, but recall reading that things could effect cases like this one.

thoughts?

 

[jcutonilli]

Here is your constructive intent argument:

A-fvcking-men!

Feel free to follow what ever unsubstantiated advice you would like.

It is unclear how he knows that "constructive intent and constructive possession prosecutions are virtually non existent" There is no charge of constructive intent or constructive possession. You are charged with possession. It does not matter whether you had actual possession or constructive possession.

He also gets the details of United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992) wrong. He quotes SCOTUS's summary of the lower court. What SCOTUS actually said was

We thus reject the broad language of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the extent that it would mean that a disassembled complete short-barreled rifle kit must be assembled before it has been "made" into a short-barreled rifle. at 511

Earlier they stated

Congress must, then, have understood "making" to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. at 510

The reason TCA won was because of lenity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity

Here are two other videos on the subject

 

[workshop777]

I believe that the ability to cheek-weld the buffer tube has never been in question and would still allow for use of the sights/optics.

I know that. You know that. Everyone on this site knows that.

I just don't want the presence of them on an AR pistol to immediately allow the ATF to rule that the firearm intends to be shouldered, even though it isn't.

 

[outrider58]

Feel free to follow what ever unsubstantiated advice you would like.

It is unclear how he knows that "constructive intent and constructive possession prosecutions are virtually non existent" There is no charge of constructive intent or constructive possession. You are charged with possession. It does not matter whether you had actual possession or constructive possession.

He also gets the details of United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992) wrong. He quotes SCOTUS's summary of the lower court. What SCOTUS actually said was Earlier they stated The reason TCA won was because of lenity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity

Here are two other videos on the subject

As far as following advice, my comment was a reaction to an opinion. I do my own thing. I try not to suggest to others what they should do. Neither did Mike.

Everyone has their own acceptable risk levels.

I know about the lenity decision in the US v TCA. I posted that somewhere in one of the half dozen threads on this subject.

Really, I see this whole SBR registration thing as their latest attempt at a back door towards confiscation in the future. When and if I decide to form 1 any of my pistols, it will be at my time and choosing. I am NOT panicking.

 

[RRomig]

I know that. You know that. Everyone on this site knows that.

I just don't want the presence of them on an AR pistol to immediately allow the ATF to rule that the firearm intends to be shouldered, even though it isn't.

They are saying optics that have no limited eye relief are good. Like a rifle scope with 3.5” of eye relief isn’t good but a red dot is ok. I’m just relaying info from the webinar.

 

[GuitarmanNick]

Using the large aperture of iron sights while also using a sling works well on a 10.5" AR pistol, braced or not.

Since most AR iron sights have two apertures, and most pop-up models open with it ready to use, they should be permitted on any AR pistol.

The entire rule is an overreach and intended to introduce confusion into as many situations as possible, IMO.

As such, I think most people with functioning brains will not comply in hope that the courts will save us from this tyranny.

The free SBR carrot does not appeal to me since it places more restrictions on transporting it, and apparently who is allowed to shoot it.

If I wanted an SBR, I would have built one.

The pistol braces that I used were specifically approved by the BATFE, and 10.5" barrels selected for improved ballistic performance, not to imitate an SBR. Care was taken to insure everything was in compliance with the rules, and applicable laws of the federal and state governments, at the time.

To comply without registering them as SBR's, they expect me to remove the braces(and destroy them), sights, and probably the AFGs. Not sure about the sling mounts, but would not be surprised to see that in there somewhere, too.

If constructive intent was actually a thing, I would also have to dispose of any unused parts for fear of prosecution.

 

[danimalw]

If constructive intent was actually a thing, I would also have to dispose of any unused parts for fear of prosecution.

And all male ATF agents should be charged with attempted rape.. because they have penises so it could happen.

 

[jcutonilli]

As far as following advice, my comment was a reaction to an opinion. I do my own thing. I try not to suggest to others what they should do. Neither did Mike.

Everyone has their own acceptable risk levels.

I know about the lenity decision in the US v TCA. I posted that somewhere in one of the half dozen threads on this subject.

Really, I see this whole SBR registration thing as their latest attempt at a back door towards confiscation in the future. When and if I decide to form 1 any of my pistols, it will be at my time and choosing. I am NOT panicking.

I would disagree with you about Mike not suggesting what others should do. He came out and said constructive possession is virtually impossible to prove and SCOTUS has essentially endorsed this position through the TCA case.

People do get convicted of possession without being in actual possession. The difficulty in demonstrating whether it is real or not is that there is no actual charge of "constructive possession" or "constructive intent" to search for.

The TCA case explicitly contradicts what Mike said about it.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

Using the large aperture of iron sights while also using a sling works well on a 10.5" AR pistol, braced or not.

Since most AR iron sights have two apertures, and most pop-up models open with it ready to use, they should be permitted on any AR pistol.

The entire rule is an overreach and intended to introduce confusion into as many situations as possible, IMO.

As such, I think most people with functioning brains will not comply in hope that the courts will save us from this tyranny.

The free SBR carrot does not appeal to me since it places more restrictions on transporting it, and apparently who is allowed to shoot it.

If I wanted an SBR, I would have built one.

The pistol braces that I used were specifically approved by the BATFE, and 10.5" barrels selected for improved ballistic performance, not to imitate an SBR. Care was taken to insure everything was in compliance with the rules, and applicable laws of the federal and state governments, at the time.

To comply without registering them as SBR's, they expect me to remove the braces(and destroy them), sights, and probably the AFGs. Not sure about the sling mounts, but would not be surprised to see that in there somewhere, too.

If constructive intent was actually a thing, I would also have to dispose of any unused parts for fear of prosecution.

So for INTERSTATE TRASPORT of a SBR, you fill out a 5320.20 and send it off to the ATF. You can fill one out for each SBR for a entire year at a time. The ATF will rubber stamp all 5320.20's that are submitted, unless local laws prohibit a specific type of NFA item in that state/ locality. I don't see how that is a restriction like you are implying, considering you had to do the 77r for any MD regulated firearm. I email a 5320.20 off in the first week of January to cover the entire year. They send me back approved paperwork in about 3 weeks. After I get the 5320.20 back I am free to transport at all for the entire year. No need to ask or beg like a dog.

As for restrictions on who can and can't shoot a SBR, your statement is factually incorrect. Anybody can shoot the SBR as long as the owner is there to maintain positive control over the item or a member of the trust is there with the person(s) to maintain positive control of the SBR. But the same also holds true for a suppressor, SBR, SBS, MG, anything that is a NFA item.

What else are you going to say about NFA items? That the ATF can come into your house and inspect your inventory to as if you actually have tax stamps?

The only way to see what NFA is all about is for you to get something that is NFA. NFA is not what you think it is or have been lied to about by FUDD's down at your local range/ gun shop.

 

[jcutonilli]

If constructive intent was actually a thing, I would also have to dispose of any unused parts for fear of prosecution.

And all male ATF agents should be charged with attempted rape.. because they have penises so it could happen.

It is real, but not in a way that either of you are articulating. I posted two videos that provide details. You both should watch them.

 

[danimalw]

It is real, but not in a way that either of you are articulating. I posted two videos that provide details. You both should watch them.

I understand what you are saying.. just trying to have a little fun since these boot licking, dog killing, fvcknuts are making other stuff up and changing the rules mid game and don't understand "shall not be infringed"..

 

[outrider58]

I would disagree with you about Mike not suggesting what others should do. He came out and said constructive possession is virtually impossible to prove and SCOTUS has essentially endorsed this position through the TCA case.

People do get convicted of possession without being in actual possession. The difficulty in demonstrating whether it is real or not is that there is no actual charge of "constructive possession" or "constructive intent" to search for.

The TCA case explicitly contradicts what Mike said about it.

(Italics) How is one convicted of possession without being in possession?

(Bold) Enter lenity, due to statutory ambiguity.

(Bold italics) He(Mike) said constructive possession and constructive intent are virtually impossible to prove. You, yourself, admitted as much in my bolded section above.

Mike merely posed the reasoning why the ATF is requiring braces to be removed and demilled as "in order to get ahead of the constructive intent" issues. An educated guess perhaps. Far from advice. All he's saying is he is taking a wait and see attitude. The same thing I have been saying I am doing all along. It was plainly an opinion piece. Nothing more.

Whenever I am trying to decide on an action, I am going to seek as many opinions and views I can. They have to be legitimately arrived at though, given by someone who has little to no skin in the game, vis-a-vis donation seeking entities.

For anyone interested in reading up on United States v. Thompson/Center

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)​

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

supreme.justia.com

 

[MD Shooter Envy]

I believe that the ability to cheek-weld the buffer tube has never been in question and would still allow for use of the sights/optics.

Cheek welding is specifically noted on page 27 of 98 of the new "rule". Mind you their photo is of an SB tactical brace and not a buffer tube with cheek weld riser. So their use is anyone's guess. ATF seems solely focused on "shouldering" of the weapon. "...the video also demonstrates shooters using a ‘‘cheek welding’’ firing technique where the objective design features of a rifle are also evident. Based on the rear surface area provided by the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ and the alignment of the sights, as seen in the video, the shooter can easily shoulder fire the weapon"

 

[jcutonilli]

(Italics) How is one convicted of possession without being in possession?

(Bold) Enter lenity, due to statutory ambiguity.

(Bold italics) He(Mike) said constructive possession and constructive intent are virtually impossible to prove. You, yourself, admitted as much in my bolded section above.

Mike merely posed the reasoning why the ATF is requiring braces to be removed and demilled as "in order to get ahead of the constructive intent" issues. An educated guess perhaps. Far from advice. All he's saying is he is taking a wait and see attitude. The same thing I have been saying I am doing all along. It was plainly an opinion piece. Nothing more.

Whenever I am trying to decide on an action, I am going to seek as many opinions and views I can. They have to be legitimately arrived at though, given by someone who has little to no skin in the game, vis-a-vis donation seeking entities.

For anyone interested in reading up on United States v. Thompson/Center

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)​

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

supreme.justia.com

One is convicted of possession without being in actual possession through the legal theory of constructive possession. Constructive possession is the reason why you can be found guilty of possession. It is not the underlying charge.

Mike said constructive possession and constructive intent are virtually impossible to prove, but what is the basis for that determination? When you look at conviction data you will not see the reason why people are convicted, just the charge under which they were convicted. I am claiming that it is difficult to determine why people are convicted of possession. Mike is not, he is baselessly claiming that he knows that all the possession convictions were not based on constructive possession (since it is virtually impossible to prove). If you want examples of the constructive possession of firearms, just read the TCA opinion.

Mike went beyond merely posing the reasoning why the ATF is requiring braces to be removed and demilled as "in order to get ahead of the constructive intent" issues. He baselessly stated that it (constructive intent/possession) was virtually impossible to prove and further misstated the conclusion of TCA by circling the word "assembled" in SCOTUS's summary of the Circuit Court's reasoning.

Page 510 of the opinion,

Congress must, then, have understood "making" to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included.

Page 511 of the opinion

We thus reject the broad language of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the extent that it would mean that a disassembled complete short-barreled rifle kit must be assembled before it has been "made" into a short-barreled rifle.

The wording of that opinion seems to directly contradict what he is trying to say.

Lenity only comes into play when there is ambiguity. If you are" dealing with an aggregation of parts that can serve no useful purpose except the assembly" ie constructive possession (TCA at 512) then there is no ambiguity. The only reason TCA won was because there was ambiguity over the aggregation of parts. Mike failed to mention anything about lenity.