Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:27 pm


Email

Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar




Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 ATF's Final Rule On Pistol Braces 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Faxon, OK
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 17275
Real Name: Chuck
TechnoWeenie wrote:
PAPISJEEP wrote:
This shit is confusing as hell


Clear as mud. No doubt, intentionally.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

_________________
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
"Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux


Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:59 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: In my Cave (Elma)
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013
Posts: 6497
Real Name: Jim Sr.
AR15L wrote:
One more thing.
For those that have never been in the military, there is a very old saying:
Quote:
NEVER VOLUNTEER

Luckily my dad taught me that before I went in. :bigsmile:


I didn’t volunteer in basic or AIT but when I got to my permanent duty station I would volunteer to go down range with the grunts.
I was a mechanic in a mechanized unit and I got to shoot automatic weapons as much as I ever wanted. :thumbsup2:

_________________
"You are either with us...as Americans. Or, You are against us. There is no IN BETWEEN." ???

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'" JFK

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

-Ben Franklin

MadPick wrote:
I don't think you beat your children enough. :ROFLMAO:


Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:36 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: AZ
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018
Posts: 6024
If this scheise is not challenged in court and is not halted or void, I simply get rid of braces and install smooth tubes on both my AR pistols to keep them pistols.


Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:45 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood and at large
Joined: Wed May 1, 2013
Posts: 18574
Real Name: jim
This is the guy (one of the guys) who pointed out that if for some reason your Form 1 drags out past 88 days you are wide open for prosecution.

In this vid, with a GOA lawyer, he makes the case that "immunities" granted in the language of the bill offer protection against prosecution for possessing an unregistered SBR for the time previous to the rule and up until the time you submit your application. But the language offers no protections for the period of time past submission of the form.

Another thing to note is the AFT is promising they won't come charging after you during the 'grace' period, but that there is no guarantee that State or local, i.e. the chief, LEO, prosecution won't occur and you've just submitted evidence of your "crime".


_________________
"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~ Samuel Adams

“A return to First Principles in a Republic is sometimes caused by simple virtues of a single man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example. Before all else, be armed!” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Láodòng zhèng zhūwèi zìyóu

FJB


Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:49 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tri -Cities
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013
Posts: 2733
Real Name: David
This guy breaks down the issues and dispelled a lot of my concerns about these issues. He is a lawyer (for whatever that's worth) and has a popular podcast (again, for what its worth) that discusses gun/industry news. The AFT still sucks and are evil incarnate, but maybe, just maybe these particular concerns aren't valid.

TLDR:
The 922(r) issue has no legal ramifications (there are no penalties for a violation) and the "must destroy" was taken out of context.
The 88 day thing is only in play if your background check is delayed due to possible adverse info and there is Supreme Court case law prohibiting LE from prosecuting with info from an NFA application (you don't submit CLEO notice until you get your form approved)

https://youtu.be/iGdjQ4Iylzo


Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:03 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma :(
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011
Posts: 2219
The whole Q&A change on it being illegal for anyone but the responsible person on the tax stamp to touch or even be left in the same room as the item, assembled or not, is worrying. They're making lots of rule changes that are putting people in an impossible situation all around. A government alphabet agency shouldn't be in charge of limiting our constitutional rights. Wheres the ministry of truth for the 1st ammendment? Oh, right, that's big tech... in any case, its worrying all around.

Also, so we're supposed to go through a 4473 for assigning property to our trusts now too?

Bout ready to just unplug, ignore it all, and hope I don't cross paths with the law any more than I have so far in life.

_________________
"A nation grown free in a single day is a child born with the limbs and the vigour of a man, who would take a drawn sword for his rattle, and set the house in a blaze that he might chuckle over the splendour." Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
Spoiler: show
NOW YOU DID IT...
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:26 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Nampa, Idaho
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 18347
Real Name: Rick
A.O. wrote:
...just unplug, ignore it all, and hope I don't cross paths with the law any more than I have so far in life.


And have a tall cold one. :thumbsup2:

_________________
'LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT THIS' IF JOE BIDEN WAS A DOG, YOU'D PUT HIM DOWN.
Rob Schneider


Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:47 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: AZ
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018
Posts: 6024
No one rules if no one obeys.


Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Nampa, Idaho
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 18347
Real Name: Rick
surevaliance wrote:
No one rules if no one obeys.

Image

_________________
'LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT THIS' IF JOE BIDEN WAS A DOG, YOU'D PUT HIM DOWN.
Rob Schneider


Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:41 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: no longer in a van down by the river (... at least anywhere near South King County)
Joined: Mon Mar 6, 2017
Posts: 984
AR15L wrote:
surevaliance wrote:
No one rules if no one obeys.

Image


Image


Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:46 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Kentucky
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 10079
jukk0u wrote:
This is the guy (one of the guys) who pointed out that if for some reason your Form 1 drags out past 88 days you are wide open for prosecution.

In this vid, with a GOA lawyer, he makes the case that "immunities" granted in the language of the bill offer protection against prosecution for possessing an unregistered SBR for the time previous to the rule and up until the time you submit your application. But the language offers no protections for the period of time past submission of the form.

Another thing to note is the AFT is promising they won't come charging after you during the 'grace' period, but that there is no guarantee that State or local, i.e. the chief, LEO, prosecution won't occur and you've just submitted evidence of your "crime".



His shit is really getting tiresome, and that the GOA is going along with it is concerning. I would have expected better from them

The 88 day rule has been pretty well explained now. 88 days only applies to the background check portion of the process, not the entire Form 1 process. He's completely wrong about that

The 922r issue is not as clear cut, but the one thing to keep in mind is that the violation occurs with assembly, not possesion. So an importer who put braces on pistols without regard to 922r compliance would be in violation, not the owner of said pistol after it's transfered. My WAG about what the AFT said in the FAQ is that they were thinking about importers and distributers that are sitting on inventory. It's not for certain, but I seriously doubt they are going to show up at your door and ask to count parts. They may just flat deny an application for something that they know is in violation of 922r though. I guess time will tell. Don't be the first to go would be my advice

As far as state or local prosecussion occuring: The only thing that has changed is the ATF rule (or will change when the rule is published). Federal law didn't change, state law didn't change, local law didn't change. Yet somehow all the Barney Fifes are going to go after illegal SBRs? My guess would be no. According to the RCW my braced scorpion was a pistol before the rule change, after the rule change it's still going to be a pistol. As far as local/state cops are concerned, the AFT rule change does nothing for them

Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just some guy on the internet, objects in mirror are larger than they appear, this advice is known to cause cancer in California, see a physician if your erection lasts longer than 4 hours...

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:12 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Kentucky
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 10079
Looks like they updated the FAQ to address the 922r issue...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-updated12523pdf/download

Quote:
9. I possess a pistol, which was imported and then subsequently equipped with a stabilizing
brace. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) apply to my firearm?


No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a
semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the
GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using
more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As
discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is
for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm
would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a
person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will
have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to
register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:08 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lynnwood and at large
Joined: Wed May 1, 2013
Posts: 18574
Real Name: jim
RocketScott wrote:
Looks like they updated the FAQ to address the 922r issue...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-updated12523pdf/download

Quote:
9. I possess a pistol, which was imported and then subsequently equipped with a stabilizing
brace. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) apply to my firearm?


No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a
semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the
GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using
more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As
discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is
for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm
would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a
person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will
have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to
register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.


Which in their vague definition does not clearly state whether a Zastava MPAP, or Krink etc., with no brace, satisfies their criteria for remaining a pistol.

Because the sights, because the weight...?

_________________
"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~ Samuel Adams

“A return to First Principles in a Republic is sometimes caused by simple virtues of a single man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example. Before all else, be armed!” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Láodòng zhèng zhūwèi zìyóu

FJB


Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:22 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Mount Vernon
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012
Posts: 1449
jukk0u wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
Looks like they updated the FAQ to address the 922r issue...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-updated12523pdf/download

Quote:
9. I possess a pistol, which was imported and then subsequently equipped with a stabilizing
brace. Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) apply to my firearm?


No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a
semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the
GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using
more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As
discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is
for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm
would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a
person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will
have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to
register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.



Because the sights, because the weight...?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Which is the better: a good friend, a good heart, a good eye, a good neighbor, a good wife, or the understanding of consequences? It is none of these. A warm and senitive soul which knows the worth of fellowship and the price of the individual dignity, this is best.


Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:52 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Kentucky
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 10079
jukk0u wrote:

Which in their vague definition does not clearly state whether a Zastava MPAP, or Krink etc., with no brace, satisfies their criteria for remaining a pistol.

Because the sights, because the weight...?


The clue is in the title:

FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED “STABILIZING BRACES”

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:02 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arisaka, SporkBoy, TechnoWeenie and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.656s | 19 Queries | GZIP : Off ]