BIDENS STABILIZER BAN
- Thread starter summitsitter
- Start date
You can't just use a old school buffer tube. They specifically say if anything COULD BE shouldered it is a sbr.
Just remember, until it goes all the way to the SC and overturned, it will still be illegal to have one. This is all a big test on how far this atf bs can be pushed.
Just remember, until it goes all the way to the SC and overturned, it will still be illegal to have one. This is all a big test on how far this atf bs can be pushed.
Man get out of here with that. You can try to walk it back, and you should just delete it, because we ALL know that the founders wrote what they wrote for specific reasons. They argued over the language and down to each and every word. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ". This is where it says "you cannot regulate firearms ".
They didn't say " shall not overly regulate" or "shall not be overly restricted" , or some other word. They said "shall not be infringed" for a reason, because they didn't want anyone down the line to start whittling away at our rights.
This garbage about "well if people weren't using them like SBR's, the ATF wouldn't be "clamping down"".... needs to go too. People doing legal things with legal items, that are CONSTITIONALLY PROTECTED , is not a reason for some UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT to make new law.
You need to get away from the liberals in your life, they are poisoning your mind bro.
Actually a pistol can go to rifle form with a 16 inch plus barrel. And back to a pistol again. It just can never have been registered as a rifle.
This. The pistol to rifle and back again conundrum only applies to how it was originally manufactured. If it was manufactured as a rifle, it cannot be configured as a pistol. However, if it was originally manufactured as a pistol, it can be made into a rifle, then back into a pistol. This was confirmed by the TC Contender case a few decades ago…
United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. - Wikipedia
Regulated militia.
I cant have surface to air missiles, F-15 with weapons, a nuke. But but but the constitution...
Their is a ton of regulation on what you can have as a civilian. These “unelected burocrats” as you call them are granted power through “elected” officials. They have and are doing it, you saying they cant... its happening, regardless.
Your arguments don't hold water... lots Reeee!
You need to refine your argument if you are going to make real progress.
Right to Bear arms
Ask your self this. Are you okay with any one, with no regulation having the ability to possess a Nuclear warhead? Like Billy the town meth cook having canned sunshine?
Ask your self this. Are you okay with any one, with no regulation having the ability to possess a Nuclear warhead? Like Billy the town meth cook having canned sunshine?
Did Billy the town methhead acquire said weapon with his own money & labor, and also without the protection of your gov overlords?
Edit: And will he also be able to truly be held accountable if he hurts innocent people?
Edit: And will he also be able to truly be held accountable if he hurts innocent people?
The terminology "well regulated" has already been correctly defined ITT, as it was used at the time of the writing, and you know this.
So because there is a ton of regulation on things, the constitution doesn't matter? That's one hell of a take.
Look I know you lean to the left by your comments on other things, but I would think someone who claims to be pro 2A would not excuse agencies making law and ignoring the constitution. The SupreaM Court has already ruled on this same issue so that "congress delegated it to the unelected agencies men" is flatly wrong as well.
Like I said, get the liberal nonsense out of your life, it's making your mind weak and submissive.
I see you ignored my response to your “regulated militia” nonsense. I wonder why?
And sure, the Leviathan does lots of things it shouldn’t be allowed to do under a plain reading of the law. But knowing that, I find it better to choose to fight it (politically and in the courts, and by educating others) than to lie down and accept the overreach.
You seem to prefer something different.
Hey Brandon, your elitism is showing.
Ever heard the term “straw man argument,” ‘cause that’s what you’re doing here. The 2A is about ensuring the people have access to infantry small arms. Not nukes or fighter jets.
It almost sounds like you’ll happily go along with restrictions on firearms ownership (and probably other rights) as long as it makes you feel safe from those you see as beneath you.
Last edited:
If you cant make a convincing argument to some one playing the devils advocate... you will never win over someone who truly disagrees with you.
The point is, i bet you dont want billy the meth cook make nukes in his “lab”.
Highlighting that you are not a pure 2A supporter, As you yourself would likely want to regulate billy
Deep in the final rule document I saw a picture of an AR pistol with the old school pistol buffer tube that’s like 6” being used as an example of a “non-shoulderable” pistol, so I think the old pistol buffer tube would be ok, but who knows. I would not leave a carbine style tube on it if I were worried about it. None of this is exactly logical.
The 2nd amendment very clearly states that the Government has no power to infringe, regulate, control, or influence on. Yet the "conservative" justices have slapped down the government yet, have they?
If they did, background checks would be ruled unconstitutional, as well as, NFA 1932, GCA of 1968, and all state laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment.
If they did, background checks would be ruled unconstitutional, as well as, NFA 1932, GCA of 1968, and all state laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment.
That would be here:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Wow, just wow this govt we have.
Yup, clear as mud on purpose so it’s up to their discretion.
Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the "Abolish the ATF Act" on Tuesday following a controversial ruling by the agency that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.
www.foxnews.com
I eagerly await the resurgence of the original MP5 sling so users with pistols can “punch out” their firearms and use sling tension as stability instead of a shouldered brace.
-Stan
-Stan
Exactly the reason I have PinKoJuan, blocked.
Last edited:
I have made the argument and proven it true already.
We have a method for addressing such concerns as nuclear weapons in citizens hands, IF.... that is a concern.
Do you think the laws (and these are real laws, not a rogue agency making rules they don't have the authority to make), stop Mr meth head from making meth in his moms out building?????
Do laws stop terrorist from getting dirty bombs and rockets and anything else they can get their hands on????
Cost (be that monetary, politically, or socially) is what keeps bad things bad. Laws against legal God fearing law abiding Americans having this or that type of weapon doesn't do anything but take rights away.
Yes, I'm very pro 2A!
Thats a lot of words to avoid a direct answer. Answering a question with multiple questions. I aint your wife...
Yes/no are you okay with citizens owning nuclear arms?
The point is you are avoiding the fact that I bet you don't, meaning only support 2A when it benefits you.
Right to bear arms...
Which is not just guns.
My billy example is pointing out your hypocrisy on the matter.
I'm not avoiding anything. Like I said, we have a method to allow for our constitution to be altered. We've done it before (surprise surprise). If something is that important, then we have a way to do it. Your talking in circles isn't making any point or doing anything other than making you look more foolish.
Rogue agencies making law is bogus. PERIOD.
Yep... avoiding a direct yes/no answer. I would assume you do in-fact support arms regulation. As you have multplie times avoided answering... So screamming Reeee the 2A gives me the right to have x... is a weak argument, especially when you do infact support regulation. But thats seemingly not something you are willing to admit!
Some would see the 2A as giving government the right to regulate. A well regulated milita...
The power the ATF, DoJ is using to regulate arms is derived from congressional and presidential power, elected officials who have appointed these people. There are in fact “elected” officials that are allowing this and pushing, under the umbrella of their interpretation of the law.
Hows it feel to infringe on billys right to possess arms???
The ATF isn't going to be coming to your door, nor will your local police to collect your guns.
This is death by a thousand cuts... Police will be called because your neighbor is tired of hearing your shit and call in a noise complaint, pd will show up, see you have one of "those" stocks and issue a court appearance, collecting the firearm for evidence with the promise of returning firearm pending out come.
Substitute whatever reason you want for police contact above and you will now have how it will go down.
This is death by a thousand cuts... Police will be called because your neighbor is tired of hearing your shit and call in a noise complaint, pd will show up, see you have one of "those" stocks and issue a court appearance, collecting the firearm for evidence with the promise of returning firearm pending out come.
Substitute whatever reason you want for police contact above and you will now have how it will go down.
Ok, sorry I said anything
You aren't capable. I've addressed everything and you keep acting like I'm ignoring something. Let me spell this out for you and then be done with this, as you are clearly a liberal, who's content to make excuses and talk in circles when proven wrong.
IF THERE IS NEED TO HAVE SOME REGULATION ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, (such as nuclear weapons in your example ) WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD TO DO SO. THAT METHOD IS NOT A ROGUE AGENCY MAKING ARBITRARY RULES.
NO, THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE ANY POWER TO REGULATE THE BEARING OF ARMS. THAT IS FALSE, AND SOMETHING MADE UP BY YOU AND THE LIBERALS LIKE YOU. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED ITT.
THE 2ND EXPRESSLY FORBIDS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM REGULATING ARMS. THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY FORBIDS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FEOM DOING ANYTHING THAT ISNT EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Now I am done with you, but I will say again. You need to get away from the OBVIOUS liberal influence in your life, it's making your brain weak.
You still haven't answered yes/no. Because you are a hypocrite, who would regulate billy’s access to arms.
Sad you fail to see your own hipocracy.
Awe... Cancal culture. Having your opinions challeged.
Do you know what the term devils advocate means... Look up the definition
Here. I will post it for you.
This whole thread is about the removal of the rights to a specific arm. Braced pistols.
Something I vehemently oppose
But if progress is going to be made on this matter these things must be considered on how to get that progress, opinions challenged.
Or you can put your fingers in your ears and Reee and attempted scarlet letter me a liberal.... And watch you rights disappear.
With these kinda of attitude no wonder rights are eroding...
This whole thread is about the removal of the rights to a specific arm. Braced pistols.
Something I vehemently oppose
But if progress is going to be made on this matter these things must be considered on how to get that progress, opinions challenged.
Or you can put your fingers in your ears and Reee and attempted scarlet letter me a liberal.... And watch you rights disappear.
With these kinda of attitude no wonder rights are eroding...
So does this rule essentially reclassify AR/Ak pistols to SBRs?
Only reason I ask is because states like IL, SBRs and silencers are illegal. So if in a state where SBRs are already banned but pistols were legal, if you registered it as a free NFA item you would in theory get a knock on the door from a 3 letter agency or state police for possession of an SBR right?
I doubt many people will comply with this rule to begin with, just curious.
Only reason I ask is because states like IL, SBRs and silencers are illegal. So if in a state where SBRs are already banned but pistols were legal, if you registered it as a free NFA item you would in theory get a knock on the door from a 3 letter agency or state police for possession of an SBR right?
I doubt many people will comply with this rule to begin with, just curious.
This would a one point he makes in the video I posted above. It’ll be a trap for some.
Probably more like this. Big data. The feds will have a list of almost everyone with a brace. And almost everyone with an AR. How did they get this list? By seeing that you bought an AR accessory on Amazon. By hacking SB's shipping list. By looking thru 50 million 4473 scans. And the cherry on top, by looking at the NFA list of morons who registered their SBRs in 2023. So what will they do with this info?
One day, they will promulgate a rule saying something like AR-15s are machine guns. (Recall the bumpstock?) Because they can't be registered, they must be turned in. This rule will be posted in the congressional record and most of these people will get a letter telling them how to turn in their "machine gun".
So no, the ATF is not coming to your house. But until you turn your Ar-15 in, certain things will happen. Your CDL will be suspended. Your nursing license will be suspended. Your 1040 won't be accepted. Your credit card will be turned off. Your EBT card will be dead. Your pilot's ATP rating will be suspended. Your medical license will be suspended. Your smart phone won't work. Your kids won't be able to register for school.
That's how they will do it.
A lot of folks will have sold their ARs at gun shows, or lost them in boating accidents. Their cans will have been stolen, the night before they received notice turn them over.
The path to victory is through several battles. Many of those, post-Bruen, will now be working their way through the courts. I for one, look forward to that fight. It's been too long.
The real fight on this issue is via the NFA and SBR's in particular. If an SBR is in common use, and nothing in the history and tradition supports the abrogation of its use, then why is it being taxed, registered and unduly regulated? Why are the ATF and Anti's focused on weapon parts? Furthermore, why is an administrative agency trying to write or obfuscate the law?
The real fight on this issue is via the NFA and SBR's in particular. If an SBR is in common use, and nothing in the history and tradition supports the abrogation of its use, then why is it being taxed, registered and unduly regulated? Why are the ATF and Anti's focused on weapon parts? Furthermore, why is an administrative agency trying to write or obfuscate the law?
"manufactured". does that apply to factory lowers that were purchased as a receiver only and then built into either rifles or pistols?This. The pistol to rifle and back again conundrum only applies to how it was originally manufactured. If it was manufactured as a rifle, it cannot be configured as a pistol. However, if it was originally manufactured as a pistol, it can be made into a rifle, then back into a pistol. This was confirmed by the TC Contender case a few decades ago…
United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
exactly. they are a soulless federal agency. It's like the line from Mel Brooks.
do not implore him for compassion; do not beg him for forgiveness; do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't [Torquemada] anything!
and the technology is already patented for the biometric data and the cryptocurrency idea they are trying to push. Patent 666, of all things.
I’m all for GOA, but I’m confused on why they’re assuming anyone’s background check will take longer than 88 days. I’m not putting anything past the ATF with all of this new nonsense, they may try to pull something, but traditionally, wait time is not due to the background check itself taking that long. Otherwise all of us that have waited 1 yr + for a suppressor would’ve gotten a knock at the door. For the record, I don’t think there should be a NFA, but looking at this video I think (I hope) some communication wires might’ve gotten crossed somewhere.
BAFTE has already stated they will not approve Form 1 submittals from applicants in states where SBRs are illegal.
For anyone keeping track the final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. The 120 days has not yet started.
I think the concern is that the volume of applications may overwhelm ATF's ability to complete background checks within the 88 day window (from when the check is initiated, not when the application is submitted). Something they're now having to do themselves instead of handing off to the FBI.
And also that some folks may have issues with the check that either cause them to fail it, or be delayed to the point of the check timing out (both happen sometimes with NICS, for instance when they get someone confused with a felon with a similar name, DOB, etc.).
This would be an inconvenience and irritation with a normal Form 1 or Form 4, as you wait until the form is approved before making or transferring an item, and so don't possess anything, and haven't committed a crime, Clearing up the confusion (or having your attorney or congressman do it for you) is a PITA, but there's nothing for ATF to charge you with.
But with the pistol brace rule, ATF is starting from the assumption that, as soon as the rule is published, everyone who owns one is already guilty of felony possession of an unregistered SBR. They are promising not to prosecute anyone for at least 60 days, or for as long as you have a pending form 1, but are requiring that you implicate yourself in the felony first (which may be why they are refusing to allow registration via trust, so that they have an individual to investigate and prosecute).
And according to the GOA attorney in the video, the ATF person he spoke with said that if you apply and then for some reason fail the background check (even through the fault of ATF), SOP is to begin enforcement action for the crime you admitted to committing to when you filed the form.
Which suggests that either ATF hasn't completely thought this thing through, or that it's a giant trap intentionally set by the antigun activists who are now running ATF, DOJ, and the Whitehouse. Or maybe a bit of both.
Personally I think it's probably incompetence, but that doesn't mean it won't also be used to collect some scalps and pad some resumes.
When the Constitution was written, flintlocks were the firearms of the day for civilians and military alike. Since the 2nd A protects flintlocks and they were military firearms, the 2nd A protects the right of the people to own military weapons
Last edited:
I saw the ATF is waiving the tax stamp for anybody who wishes to file a Form 1 for an SBR who previously had a brace. It states they can only be filed under a trust if the rifle was owned by the trust prior to the date the Final Rule is published in the Federal Register.
Any idea on the timeline for this?
Similar threads
