ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[jcutonilli]

Apparently there are at least four lawsuits filed over the final rule. Three of them are in the Northern District of Texas and one in the Eastern District of Texas.

 

[outrider58]

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,
Page 511 of the opinion

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.

Once more, it was an opinion.

 

[workshop777]

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.

Is there a link to the video/webinar where a lot of this stuff was mentioned?

 

[RRomig]

Is there a link to the video/webinar where a lot of this stuff was mentioned?

It was Tuesday and Wednesday.
They said the ATF web site should have all the Q&A on it. Both days they answered the scope/ dot questions the same for what that’s worth.

 

[workshop777]

It was Tuesday and Wednesday.
They said the ATF web site should have all the Q&A on it. Both days they answered the scope/ dot questions the same for what that’s worth.

Great. Thank you for the info.

 

[jcutonilli]

Once more, it was an opinion.

View attachment 399450

Whether you can get prosecuted for constructive possession and what the TCA opinion says are facts not opinions

 

[outrider58]

Whether you can get prosecuted for constructive possession and what the TCA opinion says are facts not opinions

I referred to the video. Not the court docs.

 

[jcutonilli]

I referred to the video. Not the court docs.

And there are factual inaccuracies in the video. A video you seem to enthusiastically endorse.

A-fvcking-men!

 

[Bob A]

Whether you can get prosecuted for constructive possession and what the TCA opinion says are facts not opinions

I keep asking whether applying to make a braced AR pistol into an SBR is in effect waiving your 5th Amendment fight against self-incrimination?

The way the "rule" is written, the item in question is already illegal to possess without a tax stamp. Admitting you have one makes you a felon, and you're documenting that fact.

Am I misunderstanding the situation? Should I just trust the ATF to withhold charging and prosecuting me under these circumstances?

 

[outrider58]

And there are factual inaccuracies in the video. A video you seem to enthusiastically endorse.

Did I say these are the facts? No. Did I say his opinions were facts? No.

You're welcome to infer anything your little heart desires. That won't make it true. Your argument is based on my saying "A-fvcking-men"? What did I mean when I wrote that? Please opine. You circular arguments are tiresome.

 

[King Chicken]

And there are factual inaccuracies in the video. A video you seem to enthusiastically endorse.

He's endorsing it because he's the cameraman and that channel is his brother's channel. He not only endorses it, he is co-creator! I know...its sickening. Corruption at the highest level.

 

[King Chicken]

Should I just trust the ATF to withhold charging and prosecuting me under these circumstances?

I too would like to place my life in the hands of the ATF .
Not a lawyer but....i assume they have some clause in there somewhere for that?

 

[jcutonilli]

Did I say these are the facts? No. Did I say his opinions were facts? No.

You're welcome to infer anything your little heart desires. That won't make it true. Your argument is based on my saying "A-fvcking-men"? What did I mean when I wrote that? Please opine. You circular arguments are tiresome.

My argument is entirely based on the video. I never claimed you said anything was fact. You seem to claim everything in the video was opinion. Whether people get prosecuted for constructive possession and what the TCA opinion says are not opinions, they are facts and they are incorrectly stated in the video.

I have already stated what I believe "A-fvcking-men" seems to mean.

 

[jcutonilli]

I keep asking whether applying to make a braced AR pistol into an SBR is in effect waiving your 5th Amendment fight against self-incrimination?

The way the "rule" is written, the item in question is already illegal to possess without a tax stamp. Admitting you have one makes you a felon, and you're documenting that fact.

Am I misunderstanding the situation? Should I just trust the ATF to withhold charging and prosecuting me under these circumstances?

I believe he does a good job explaining the situation.

He is claiming that they cannot use that information to charge you with anything criminal.

 

[Bob A]

I believe he does a good job explaining the situation.

He is claiming that they cannot use that information to charge you with anything criminal.

The fellow in the video is talking about 922r, and being prosecuted if a NICS check isn't completed withing a certain time.

My question is different:

ATF has ruled that possession of a braced AR is, as of Jan 31 2023, illegal without a tax stamp.
(Whether they actually have the authority is of couse still open to contention.)

My concern is that admitting such possession, by virtue of applying for the tax stamp, is in fact an admission of guilt. Doing so, whether or not the ATF currently vows to abstain from prosecution, is forcing the admission is a violation of the possessor's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

It's the principle of the thing. Declaring the object, previously allowed to be legal, to be felonious if not taxed, prior to offering a solution, ought not to be countenanced.

The fact that laws are permitted to be promulgated before their adherence to the COTUS is determined is, of course, a sop to the legal profession, and a major source of its revenue. That it inconveniences and subjects the citizenry to the risk of prosecution and imprisonment is no doubt regrettable, and patently unfair, putting the individual against a huge taxpayer-supported legion of lawyers. But that's a far broader issue, worth discussing under its own topic.

 

[jcutonilli]

The fellow in the video is talking about 922r, and being prosecuted if a NICS check isn't completed withing a certain time.

My question is different:

ATF has ruled that possession of a braced AR is, as of Jan 31 2023, illegal without a tax stamp.
(Whether they actually have the authority is of couse still open to contention.)

My concern is that admitting such possession, by virtue of applying for the tax stamp, is in fact an admission of guilt. Doing so, whether or not the ATF currently vows to abstain from prosecution, is forcing the admission is a violation of the possessor's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

It's the principle of the thing. Declaring the object, previously allowed to be legal, to be felonious if not taxed, prior to offering a solution, ought not to be countenanced.

The fact that laws are permitted to be promulgated before their adherence to the COTUS is determined is, of course, a sop to the legal profession, and a major source of its revenue. That it inconveniences and subjects the citizenry to the risk of prosecution and imprisonment is no doubt regrettable, and patently unfair, putting the individual against a huge taxpayer-supported legion of lawyers. But that's a far broader issue, worth discussing under its own topic.

I do understand your question. He does address your issue after those other issues. The relevant section of the video has been demarked as Haynes v US and starts around 12:00 minutes into the video.

 

[LeadSled1]

ARIC, folding stock adapter (both from Law Tactical), and pistol ar lower cap. No buffer, gun works as normal and no buffer tube.

 

[jcutonilli]

Apparently there are at least four lawsuits filed over the final rule. Three of them are in the Northern District of Texas and one in the Eastern District of Texas.

Apparently another one has been filed in the Middle district of Florida.

 

[outrider58]

ARIC, folding stock adapter (both from Law Tactical), and pistol ar lower cap. No buffer, gun works as normal and no buffer tube.

Unfortunately, a lot of AR pistols will not work without a buffer tube. Especially pistol caliber guns.

 

[Wayne1one]

I believe in constructive intent, more as an add-on charge, etc. But here is my issue with it fundamentally, I have SBRs, I have pistols, I have stocks, and I have rifles. With all of that how can you prove that my stocks will be placed on my pistols versus my SBR or that my braces are for my pistols and not for my 16" rifle? That's my problem as a lot of these parts are interchangeable you would need to prove that my "take-off" stocks and braces that may be sitting in a bin is solely intended to construct an illegal version of a rifle etc.