ATF Pistol Brace Comments

[BytorJr]

Just send some money to the NRA, I'm sure they will be up to challenging this.

But first, Wayne needs a new suit, tie, belt, shoes, and handkerchief.....

 

[Romeo458]

The push should be to waive the 200 tax stamp fee if this goes

According to the case Murdoch V Pennsylvania it is unconstitutional to require a license, permit, or charge a fee for that which is a right. It was a case of Jehovah's witness peddling their watchtower magazine, but it wasn't specific to the right of religion. Funny however I can't get any 2A group to take up this case.

 

[RUTGERS95]

According to the case Murdoch V Pennsylvania it is unconstitutional to require a license, permit, or charge a fee for that which is a right. It was a case of Jehovah's witness peddling their watchtower magazine, but it wasn't specific to the right of religion. Funny however I can't get any 2A group to take up this case.

amazing right!!!!! how the fk is this settled case law and we have what we have with 2A???????????????

 

[SilentStalkr]

I bought an item that was "ATF approved" as sold. Now they're telling me they changed their mind and it is now illegal to possess as "approved". Ex post facto? Seems unconstitutional...

Exactly. If it were illegal, then why approve in the first place? Seems I could make the argument that perhaps they approved to entrap people into this scheme that they could later charge them for. That shit is just plain wrong. I remember pot being illegal at a time and now it’s being legalized in a good deal of places. Seems we are going backwards.

Well, you're in luck. This is not a new law, but merely a new interpretation of an existing law. If adopted, and this is the important part (because all of this was brought back to the surface by fear-mongering YouTubers that needed some additional clicks to keep them from having to get actual jobs), the new interpretation will be that braces were always illegal, thus skirting any ex post facto arguments...

See above! If illegal then why were they approved by the ATF?

The push should be to waive the 200 tax stamp fee if this goes

This! And they should push them on through. No waiting 2 years for approval.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Here's what was entered into the Federal Register:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12176/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces

"A. Current Unlicensed Possessors​

In order to comply with the provisions of the NFA, current unlicensed possessors of a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” and a barrel length of less than 16 inches that would qualify as a “short-barreled rifle” as indicated on the ATF Worksheet 4999 contained in this proposed rule would need to take one of the following actions before the effective date of a final rule.​

​

(1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.​

​

(2) Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.​

​

(3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.​

​

(4) Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.​

​

(5) Complete and submit an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (“Form 1”). As part of the submission, the $200 tax payment is required with the application. Pursuant to 27 CFR 479.102, the name, city, and state of the maker of the firearm must be properly marked on the firearm. All other markings, placed by the original manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof of submission of the Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors. Documentation establishing submission of Form 1 includes, but is not limited Start Printed Page 30844to, eForm submission acknowledgement, proof of payment, or copy of Form 1 submission with postmark documentation."​

The fact that destroying the firearm as a result of not being in compliance with some ruling as being an action is utter bullshit. Like people just gonna destroy $3000 guns just because. No this is the governments fuck up and they should make it right. Maybe use some resources on real criminals. Now if the government wants to pay for said items then maybe. Otherwise, waiving the $200 stamp fee seems like a much more reasonable option. Where is the NRA, the GOA, the 2AF and all these other orgs on this? I was afraid this was gonna happen when they were clearly screening and removing comments in the comment period.

 

[MadDuner]

It’s my contention that they may in fact wave the $200 tax stamp payment.... if you register with them.

Which would in fact give them their gun registration they want.

 

[earthquake]

So how's that work if you want to register it as an SBR? Do you lock the gun up at an FFL for a year until the stamp gets approved? Sounds like nothing more than a money grab and registration.

 

[Romeo458]

amazing right!!!!! how the fk is this settled case law and we have what we have with 2A???????????????

Because we have the government we deserve. And by that I mean we relied on other people to protect what is ours for long enough. Is many people who consider themselves patriots need to re learn a constitution bill of rights and all the founding documents is documents and start protecting their own damn rights, but that takes work and no one's willing to put in that work.

 

[SilentStalkr]

It’s my contention that they may in fact wave the $200 tax stamp payment.... if you register with them.

Which would in fact give them their gun registration they want.

Sort of. Not a complete one tho. If you own SBRs and Suppressors already then they already know some of what you own. And if you own those you likely own less controlled items as well. But if you live in a state that is free, they still don’t technically know what all you own at this time other than what they have on the books.

 

[MadDuner]

Sort of. Not a complete one tho. If you own SBRs and Suppressors already then they already know some of what you own. And if you own those you likely own less controlled items as well. But if you live in a state that is free, they still don’t technically know what all you own at this time other than what they have on the books.

I'm betting that people who own NFA items will fit some sort of "profile" that Homeland Security is paying attention to.

If they can get people to register their pistols while pretending they are somehow being "blessed" as OK for now with their pistol braces - those people will also get added to the "profile" list.

It's all about expanding the net, errrr, uhh, I mean list.

 

[hollowoutadime]

It's not about the $200.

 

[Not a Clue]

So how's that work if you want to register it as an SBR? Do you lock the gun up at an FFL for a year until the stamp gets approved?

It doesn't take a year to get a SBR approved that you build. Maybe 2-4 weeks on Form 1's.

 

[RUTGERS95]

GOA needs to sue per the above stated case

 

[TexPatriot]

So, a tax stamp is just the ATF's backdoor plan for gun registration/confiscation, right?

Relax the laws on shouldering pistol braces, let the dummies buy for a couple of years, IOW swallow the bait whole, and then change the laws thus setting the hook. Those that don't register and eventually turn them are instant armed terrorists.

 

[MadDuner]

So, a tax stamp is just the ATF's backdoor plan for gun registration/confiscation, right?

Relax the laws on shouldering pistol braces, let the dummies buy for a couple of years, IOW swallow the bait whole, and then change the laws thus setting the hook. Those that don't register and eventually turn them are instant armed terrorists.

It might not have been the plan from the start.... but with a "policy change" - all of a sudden it turns into that.

Not cool.

 

[TexPatriot]

It might not have been the plan from the start.... but with a "policy change" - all of a sudden it turns into that.

Not cool.

Oh, I bet it was. Relinquish an inch, in this case was the ATF's 'It's ok to shoulder a brace' letter, and then reverse direction and encroach two inches and outlaw braces.

Those people don't relinquish shit without an ulterior motive.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Yeah well, how many red necks that own these now do you think are going to comply? I believe mass non compliance is what got some of Canada’s stupid laws overturned.

 

[Longshot231]

 

[Romeo458]

There they go taking away more of our privileges to own weapons based on their new "final" definition of the rules we are supposed to consider as law.

 

[Milf Dots]

I'd consider it a win if the OP learns how to use paragraphs instead of Walls of Text. But he's not wrong on the topic.

 

[Blutroop]

If the gov doesn’t consider you a terrorist yet your not a true American.. or your working for them. Either way your not a true American.