BIDENS STABILIZER BAN

[summitsitter]

What's you guys thoughts on the ATF banning pistol stabilizers on AR's. Do yall think it will hold up to the lawsuits.

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly...

www.justice.gov

 

[Dogtown]

I LOVE IT! I ALSO LOVE CANCER!

 

[The D]

I don’t see the word “law” anywhere in that tripe. Nor have I heard of any proposal being put through the proper procedures so the atf can eat a dick

 

[DIBBS]

FJB

 

[xciapup]

Couple of ways to approach this.

If you are already on the NFA registry, maybe another part does not make that much difference.

But if you are not yet on the registry, then I would think long and hard before getting on it. And I would make peace with yourself and have the conversation with your family on what you are going to do when you get the letter notifying you that your NFA item needs to be turned in. Of course that is the normal progression.

 

[candyx]

ATF 5410 agents , gun ownership running about 44% of the population . What are they stupid or do they have a death wish.

 

[Southernspeed]

I think there is 4 (?) law suits dropping this week. I can't see how they can possibly get away with so many unlawful aspects of the 'final rule'. There is so much wrong with it, even the loathsome Garland is going to struggle to make it stick.
Let's face it, if they get away with this, they can get away with anything they want next.

 

[GUNNER10]

What's you guys thoughts on the ATF banning pistol stabilizers on AR's. Do yall think it will hold up to the lawsuits.

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly...

www.justice.gov

I really don't think any of this really matters.

On one hand Based on recent court cases and bump stocks, and the EPA vs WV, I really don't see this holding up in court. On the other, I have been shooting SBR's for almost 20 years in PA, WV, MD, and VA at public ranges and have not been asked once, for my Form 1's so i really dont think it matters.

Ill probably send in a bunch of form 1's as i already have a bunch of NFA stuff and work overseas for the government so its not exactly like they don't know pretty much ever aspect about my life.

 

[John Glidewell]

It will get shot down. Supreme Court has already ruled on this type of thing. Look at "Major Questions" cases, most recently involving the EPA. Basically they said these type of administrative actions are far too sweeping and go beyond their scope / autority provided by Congress. Thus Congress needs to make these types of legal changes.

 

[GUNNER10]

Couple of ways to approach this.

If you are already on the NFA registry, maybe another part does not make that much difference.

But if you are not yet on the registry, then I would think long and hard before getting on it. And I would make peace with yourself and have the conversation with your family on what you are going to do when you get the letter notifying you that your NFA item needs to be turned in. Of course that is the normal progression.

This.

With that being said, After working with the federal government for many years at this point, they have no clue what they have, let alone what other people are supposed to have because of a list. If I would ever receive such a letter i would tell them that I sent it into them and its their problem now as I do for every other shipment i do to various gov organizations.

2600 special agents in no way can process such a massive activity that would aim to address millions of weapons dating back almost 90 years.

Not saying that anybody should break the law, just that I take a pragmatic approach to alot of this stuff. For example, I would be more comfortable carrying a full auto Glock in WV than I would be driving through NJ with a standard magazine and no gun.

Alot of this stuff really just depends.

 

[JS8588]

Within the 120 days, there will be an injunction. By the end of 2023, this rule will be struck down.

 

[Southernspeed]

Within the 120 days, there will be an injunction. By the end of 2023, this rule will be struck down.

Providing we don’t get a DoJ worshiping judge that rules by party politics instead of law as keeps happening in CA and now NY,, may take a lot longer in that case.
The SC really should have the power to strike off judges that blatantly ignore the law/ constitution. Same with ‘law makers’ who try to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws.

 

[lariat]

Providing we don’t get a DoJ worshiping judge that rules by party politics instead of law as keeps happening in CA and now NY,, may take a lot longer in that case.
The SC really should have the power to strike off judges that blatantly ignore the law/ constitution. Same with ‘law makers’ who try to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws.

This only works as long as the SC is filled with constitutionalists. If the court goes hard the other way it would be a very different story if they had that power.

 

[Southernspeed]

This only works as long as the SC is filled with constitutionalists. If the court goes hard the other way it would be a very different story if they had that power.

That is very true and a very scary thought. A few of the judges already have a totally perverted view of the Constitution ( if they’ve even read it)
God help us!

 

[Conqueror]

This is clearly a huge overreach by the ATF but don’t be overconfident about them losing in court. They lost the bump stock case because the NFA clearly defines “machine gun” as “more than one bullet per trigger pull.” It is a lot less clear on rifles because “designed to be fired from the shoulder” is a very vague statement and open to a lot of interpretation. They’ll easily be able to show things like braces with grippy texture on the shoulder side, and marketing materials from the manufacturers showing people shouldering braced weapons. Couple that with chevron deference and it is easily conceivable they will win in court.

 

[Southernspeed]

This is clearly a huge overreach by the ATF but don’t be overconfident about them losing in court. They lost the bump stock case because the NFA clearly defines “machine gun” as “more than one bullet per trigger pull.” It is a lot less clear on rifles because “designed to be fired from the shoulder” is a very vague statement and open to a lot of interpretation. They’ll easily be able to show things like braces with grippy texture on the shoulder side, and marketing materials from the manufacturers showing people shouldering braced weapons. Couple that with chevron deference and it is easily conceivable they will win in court.

It’s just so frustrating with the ATF. Their usual’no you can’t, yes you can, just kidding…you can’t’
If they said from the beginning that they can’t be shouldered and stuck to that, that’s one thing. But to actually say that they can be shouldered but then have to change the legal definition of a rifle to get themselves out of a hole is BS.
If anyone at the ATF had half a brain, when they originally said arm braces were acceptable to aid disabled people, they would have ruled that you have to be disabled to own one. But thankfully they’re not that smart!

 

[xciapup]

Within the 120 days, there will be an injunction. By the end of 2023, this rule will be struck down.

Cool. And the ATF will delete the Form 1s as if it never happened as opposed to keeping the free treasure trove of names and serial numbers.

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Who actually uses the brace as intended?

I have personally never seen anyone use it the way it was sold. As a brace to be shot like a pistol I have seen a ton of people shoulder them.

Braces always were a work around the SBR registry. As retarded as the NFA is and believe it should be abolished Da faq do you expect them to do? ATF gonna ATF...

The fight needs focus at the State level. Similar to how Texas is doing the suppressor thing, or they way marijuana is now legal in the majority of the states in the country. They don’t have the man power to enforce if the states pass laws that disallow their law enforcement.

With out help from local law enforcement... They dont have the manpower.

How many pistol braces are there out there in the world???

 

[Conqueror]

ATF claims 3-7 million because it makes their cost estimate lower. The congressional research service says 10-40 million.

 

[BearNaked]

Honestly, if they remove the $200 tax then I might as well SBR it. I am already on the registry for my suppressor and everyone elses list because of my CHL. so what am I losing by getting the SBR stamp? I don't travel outside of Texas and if I do, I will take something else not on the list. Mainly because i am hunting something that requires a bigger round than a slow 223.

i also 100% believe the NFA is unconstitutional but that is still the law as of today.

 

[AngryKoala]

Honestly, if they remove the $200 tax then I might as well SBR it. I am already on the registry for my suppressor and everyone elses list because of my CHL. so what am I losing by getting the SBR stamp? I don't travel outside of Texas and if I do, I will take something else not on the list. Mainly because i am hunting something that requires a bigger round than a slow 223.

i also 100% believe the NFA is unconstitutional but that is still the law as of today.

Oh so the ATF can remove tax requirements now?

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Oh so the ATF can remove tax requirements now?

They're calling it a tax deferment, meaning you still owe the tax but they are not going to collect it, instead of a tax waiver. Seems they're hoping the courts will decide this is within the scope of their authority, where waiving a tax required by statute is not.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Oh so the ATF can remove tax requirements now?

Yes, just more stuff they don't have the right to do. If the scotus has any sense at all, they will take this opportunity to go further onto what they've already done and rule concerning these agencies making law as a whole, as well as establish a ruling for atf/doj not to be able to go back and forth on common use items if their action restricts freedom.

 

[AngryKoala]

They're calling it a tax deferment, meaning you still owe the tax but they are not going to collect it, instead of a tax waiver. Seems they're hoping the courts will decide this is within the scope of their authority, where waiving a tax required by statute is not.

Yea I was being sarcastic in my post. It seems too many of our fellow 2A enthusiasts are happy about the "free" stamp and could care less about the brace ban.

I'm finding it increasingly irritating.

 

[stanley_white]

It is a reconnaissance by fire.

If they win, they win.

If they lose, they still add to their database.

To me, “designed to be shouldered” is a primary purpose test and braces were never primarily designed to be shouldered.

It probably doesn’t help that the gun community has been publicly dunking on ATF on this issue for years. Big symbols make big targets.

-Stan

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Yea I was being sarcastic in my post. It seems too many of our fellow 2A enthusiasts are happy about the "free" stamp and could care less about the brace ban.

I'm finding it increasingly irritating.

The braces were banned because people are shouldering them and using them as SBR’s.

Its pretty irritating people don't recognize that. They allowed a loop hole, people abused it... now its.

Had people not abused the braces... the ATF would not be doing this

Disclaimer- This is my opinion of what I see in the situation, it doesn’t necessarily reflect my personal opinions. Personally, the NFA should be repealed. The length of a barrel or the ability to shoulder has nothing to do with intentions of somebody using said tool...

 

[Tx_Aggie]

The braces were banned because people are shouldering them and using them as SBR’s.

Its pretty irritating people don't recognize that. They allowed a loop hole, people abused it... now its.

View attachment 8050016

Had people not abused the braces... the ATF would not be doing this

Disclaimer- This is my opinion of what I see in the situation, it doesn’t necessarily reflect my personal opinions. Personally, the NFA should be repealed. The length of a barrel or the ability to shoulder has nothing to do with intentions of somebody using said tool...

ATF themselves eventually said it was lawful to shoulder a stabilizing brace. At that point I can't see how doing so would be considered abuse.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Nobody can really be surprised. I've never known anyone to ever use a pistol brace as a pistol brace. Then they just just kept getting more and more resembling of a stock. It's quite clear what their intent was and IMO it was never as a brace, rather a way around SBR registration by a loophole.

I'm all for abolishing the NFA, but if people didn't see this coming before ATF introduced that point system thing then you must live under a rock.

 

[The D]

The braces were banned because people are shouldering them and using them as SBR’s.

Its pretty irritating people don't recognize that. They allowed a loop hole, people abused it... now its.

View attachment 8050016

Had people not abused the braces... the ATF would not be doing this

Disclaimer- This is my opinion of what I see in the situation, it doesn’t necessarily reflect my personal opinions. Personally, the NFA should be repealed. The length of a barrel or the ability to shoulder has nothing to do with intentions of somebody using said tool...

Can you show me in this document any mention of regulating firearms in any capacity

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

 

[thedude824]

The braces were banned because people are shouldering them and using them as SBR’s.

Its pretty irritating people don't recognize that. They allowed a loop hole, people abused it... now its.

View attachment 8050016

Had people not abused the braces... the ATF would not be doing this

Disclaimer- This is my opinion of what I see in the situation, it doesn’t necessarily reflect my personal opinions. Personally, the NFA should be repealed. The length of a barrel or the ability to shoulder has nothing to do with intentions of somebody using said tool...

Auto accidents kill more people in the US than nearly any other cause - usually attributed to improper driving. Should those be banned? What about alcohol? Improper use of alcohol is involved in 80% of traffic fatalities and domestic abuse. Why isn't it banned? To be clear... the ATF does not have the authority to pass laws. By its very definition it is unconstitutional.

 

[xciapup]

"rather a way around SBR registration by a loophole"

I have heard that line of reasoning my entire life. Whether on gun issues, or tax issues, or construction issues.

When soft-minded people can't see tyranny staring them in the face, they use the term "loophole" when they are describing compliance.

Using tax loss carry forward. Loophole.

Splitting admin and operations so neither is above 100 employees. Loophole.

Selling MSR without a bayonet lug. Loophole.

Attaching a brace and using it how it was formerly approved. Loophole.

Beware the use of the word, and those who use it.

 

[BLEE]

Auto accidents kill more people in the US than nearly any other cause - usually attributed to improper driving. Should those be banned? What about alcohol? Improper use of alcohol is involved in 80% of traffic fatalities and domestic abuse. Why isn't it banned? To be clear... the ATF does not have the authority to pass laws. By its very definition it is unconstitutional.

Right! I'm forced to wear a seat belt in my truck, but I can toodle about on my motorcycle, all day long, with no safety, but a helmet of questionable value. Government, as a unit, has never been logical, or even smart. Federal government functions for one purpose and that is to increase its own power and control. It is the nature of the beast, as the Founding Fathers warned us.

 

[AngryKoala]

The braces were banned because people are shouldering them and using them as SBR’s.

Its pretty irritating people don't recognize that. They allowed a loop hole, people abused it... now its.

View attachment 8050016

Had people not abused the braces... the ATF would not be doing this

Disclaimer- This is my opinion of what I see in the situation, it doesn’t necessarily reflect my personal opinions. Personally, the NFA should be repealed. The length of a barrel or the ability to shoulder has nothing to do with intentions of somebody using said tool...

They approved the design and had no issue with shouldering the brace initially (Open letter 2015). Braces have been around since 2012 and the ATF had no issue for a long period of time. Fuck them, their reasoning and anyone that tries to provide reasoning for their unconstitutional infringement.

 

[mi650]

They approved the design and had no issue with shouldering the brace initially (Open letter 2015). Braces have been around since 2012 and the ATF had no issue for a long period of time. Fuck them, their reasoning and anyone that tries to provide reasoning for their unconstitutional infringement.

Yep.

About 10 years ago, I bought a Sig P556. I saw it as Sig poking the FUATF in the eye, and it helped make me a Sig fan. Getting a copy of the approval letter when I later got a brace was just cream on top.

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Can you show me in this document any mention of regulating firearms in any capacity

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

Show me where it says you can’t regulate firearms.

Keep and bear arms... as far as I’m aware there’s zero mention of regulation.

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Auto accidents kill more people in the US than nearly any other cause - usually attributed to improper driving. Should those be banned? What about alcohol? Improper use of alcohol is involved in 80% of traffic fatalities and domestic abuse. Why isn't it banned? To be clear... the ATF does not have the authority to pass laws. By its very definition it is unconstitutional.

Is it the ATF or the DOJ writing the laws. Leaving it up to the ATF to enforce.

It’s not the ATF passing laws it’s the ATF enforcing laws that the department of justice Writes.

Reeeeeee!!!!

 

[xciapup]

"It’s not the ATF passing laws it’s the ATF enforcing laws that the department of justice Writes."

Is this your position?

 

[GreenGO Juan]

"It’s not the ATF passing laws it’s the ATF enforcing laws that the department of justice Writes."

Is this your position?

Not worded well on my part. I believe the DOJ has has the ability to regulate, write regulations. This registration being a regulation.

My position is Abolish the NFA.

 

[xciapup]

As I recall, Congress writes laws.

 

[jakelly]

Show me where it says you can’t regulate firearms.

Keep and bear arms... as far as I’m aware there’s zero mention of regulation.

Those are the powers given. All other powers are reserved for the state. The government is told what it can do, not what it can’t. Everything not named, is unlawful.

We the people operate under common law; if it’s not listed as illegal, it’s legal.
The Government is bound, similar to Napoleonic law, where, unless listed, it’s illegal. The default for Uncle Sam is no. The default for the people is yes.

With that said- you can now see your comment represents a disgusting heresy to American Liberty. It’s fundamentally completely perverse. This mindset is subtle, yet so powerful that certain groups have barred slaves (freed or not) from participating. The slaved or cuckolded mind/will is a real danger to free men.

 

[The D]

Show me where it says you can’t regulate firearms.

Keep and bear arms... as far as I’m aware there’s zero mention of regulation.

Do you believe that regulation is an infringement on someone’s ability to keep and bear arms?

 

[Darayavaus]

This is clearly a huge overreach by the ATF but don’t be overconfident about them losing in court. They lost the bump stock case because the NFA clearly defines “machine gun” as “more than one bullet per trigger pull.” It is a lot less clear on rifles because “designed to be fired from the shoulder” is a very vague statement and open to a lot of interpretation. They’ll easily be able to show things like braces with grippy texture on the shoulder side, and marketing materials from the manufacturers showing people shouldering braced weapons. Couple that with chevron deference and it is easily conceivable they will win in court.

unfortunately the "yes you can shoulder it" was a trap; and all the resultant pictures on the net of people putting short eye relief optics on their "pistol" makes the ATFs case that these were designed/intended to be used as SBRs.

 

[Darayavaus]

so, if the stabilizer is the "illegal aspect" of the pistol, here are my thoughts:

1) many people will take the easiest path - not selling, destroying, filing paperwork, or surrendering it, but rather turning it into a rifle. It is currently legal to change a lower from pistol to rifle, but not from a rifle to pistol.

therefore; if you turn your pistol into a rifle and then eventually this ruling is overturned, you cannot legally revert it back to it's original configuration. it must stay a rifle.

2) the other cheap and easy option: if the old-style pistol buffer tubes are not affected by this, since they are not designed to be shouldered, then an easy legal solution would be to put on an old style buffer tube for the duration of the injunction. Your pistol remains a legal pistol, and afterwards the tube can be replaced again with the pistol tube/stabilizer.

correct??? or am I wrong at any point?

and does retaining the stabilizer in the interim constitute constructive possession?

 

[J. W.]

and does retaining the stabilizer in the interim constitute constructive possession?

They say “could” be constructive possession.
Who knows.

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Do you believe that regulation is an infringement on someone’s ability to keep and bear arms?

A well regulated milita...

But yes I believe it is an infringement. But I also believe lots of things that are not current reality.

Personally, I believe Biden and Garland should be removed from power.

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[acudaowner]

there really needs to be a Biden air ban where he stays is in a room with a vacuum and all the air can be removed quickly , he's already living in a bubble

 

[Darayavaus]

They say “could” be constructive possession.
Who knows.

figures. most things in this country (now that the filthy Marxists have taken over) depend on *WHO* did it, not what was done.

 

[The D]

But yes I believe it is an infringement.

This should be the end of this discussion then. None of this, “well this is how the atf came to their conclusions”. That’s only justifying more and more gov overreach

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Do you believe that regulation is an infringement on someone’s ability to keep and bear arms?

A well regulated milita...

But yes its a hassle

Those are the powers given. All other powers are reserved for the state. The government is told what it can do not what it can’t. Everything not named is unlawful.

We the people operate under common law; if it’s not listed as illegal, it’s legal.
The Government is bound, similar to Napoleonic law, where, unless listed, it’s illegal. The default for Uncle Sam is no. The default for the people is yes.

With that said- you can now see your comment represents a disgusting heresy to American Liberty. It’s fundamentally completely perverse. This mindset is subtle, yet so powerful that certain groups have barred slaves (freed or not) from participating. The slaved or cuckolded mind will is a real danger to free men.

Cuckolded... Lol.

unfortunately the "yes you can shoulder it" was a trap; and all the resultant pictures on the net of people putting short eye relief optics on their "pistol" makes the ATFs case that these were designed/intended to be used as SBRs.

This kinda gets close to my point.

The brace was sold as a fore arm strap. But was not used this way. Then people with the “fuck you I do what I want attitude” went and made a bunch of noise. Now they are clamping down.

Its not something I agree with, but the loud mouth winers are the ones who ruined it for the people who quietly did their thing.

Its like the diesel crorwd bitch at the Epa after they wentin rolled cold Prius drivers. Had they not antagonized it they never would’ve clamped down

 

[Tx_Aggie]

A well regulated milita...

This phrase doesn’t mean what you think it means.

When the amendment was written, “regulated” meant in good working order.

As in a well regulated watch keeps time to the second.

Under the founders meaning, a “well regulated militia” is one that is correctly equipped and trained in the use of small arms and infantry tactics, and so is capable of acting in the defense of the people and the state.

In other words, the people should have unfettered access to military small arms and training.