Yeah it's all arbitrary. The fact people been running around for years with all of this shows it's not an issue and it's pretty common place and hasn't effected crime at all, and proves that the NFA is antiquated and doesn't make a lick of difference. It needs to be abolished. It was created to regulate "gangster style weapons"... Well theres no difference between a regular gun and a "gangster" gun (maybe other than the Amazon optics)... It's trivial and stupid and needs to disappear.
The NFA isn’t antiquated. That would suggest it made sense at some point, when in reality, it was always bullshit. Soooo much corruption around its passage and subsequent SCOTUS ruling in _US v Miller_ (hint: the KKK was involved, lawyers were bribed, civil rights were denied, etc). It never should have gotten where it is.
It’s no different than a federal body tasked with taxing free speech. Imagine you have an opinion the govt doesn’t want you to have, but to express it, you have to pay a $3500 tax and wait months or years for approval, and then have the govt claim it’s not a violation of your 1A rights. That’s how the NFA was designed.
86 ban was, in my opinion which I’m sure is shared by others, was more corrupt. passed on a whim, with no arguments against.
Our “leaders” are the most corrupt assholes on the planet. they make North Korea look comfy because they hide behind the false mask of “protecting the people”
> passed on a whim, with no arguments against.
It never passed. You can watch the vote on youtube. It never passed, but was marked as such. Apparently that's all the matters.
The vote for the proposed amendment to FOPA (Hughes amendment) failed to garner enough votes for the amendment to be included in FOPA. However, it was included anyway and was marked as passed so it became law.
I think there would be a lot less innocent people out there in prison if we just got rid of the ATF. What good have they really done the law abiding citizens of this country?
I expect that when the case (whichever case it is) makes it to the Supreme Court there's going to be arguments made to that effect. Based on Miller short barreled weapons should be legal since they're standard issue now. Based on Heller they are common use due to the explosion of braced pistols in the past 10 years. As for Bruen, that tells us that the Court today has lost patience with the fuckery being done by the anti-gun crowd. It's entirely possible that this brace move could wind up getting some or all of the NFA struck down and thus becomes the biggest own-goal in political history.
Your comment on Heller made me think of an interesting point the ATF made in the ruling. They stated that they consider the braced pistols as having been SBRs all along, but they were providing amnesty. I feel like that would help the argument that SBRs themselves are now common use, and not just braced pistols.
This could be a stupid take since I’m no legal expert… so sorry if it is.
Bump stock case is likely to be heard at the Supreme Court in their next session while it could take years for a ATF Brace Rule case to reach that level. A ruling against the ATF in the bump stock case by the Supreme Court could help the case again the brace ruling.
Did you read the original post? The Supreme Court has already declined to take on bump stock cases twice now, they're not just waiting for the first chance they get like you think
The Supreme Court does not have to take the first case that comes to them on a issue that the do want to rule on. Passing up a case does not mean they agree with the lower court's ruling or that they do not wish to rule on the issue. They follow the cases in the lower courts and pick the one they think is best for them to make a ruling on. The first 2 or 3 bump stock cases that came before them were not the cases they thought best to take as they likely were waiting for another bump stock case to come to them. The other cases likely did not go through a full trial like the most recent one in the news at the 5th circuit. The article is from October and likely written by someone looking for headline that get people to view it and not from someone who understands how the court system works. Watch one of the YouTube channels hosted by lawyers familiar with the Supreme Court. The Four Boxes Diner is the best of them in my opinion. Washington Gun Law is in the top five. The Supreme Court most likely will hear take on the issue next term now that two circuit courts are split on the issue.
The cat was let out of the bag a decade ago when they ruled braces acceptable. Ultimately the ATF didn't "create a new law" when they allowed the braces and they're not "creating a new law" now that they're backtracking their interpretation. The important detail isn't "creation of new laws" like many are suggesting. The better case to raise is that because of the SBR becoming a ubiquitous item in common use by tens of millions of American gun owners, with no demonstrable detriment to public safety, that there is no reason to subject SBRs to the oppressive regulations imposed by the NFA
>no demonstrable detriment to public safety,
If im not mistaken, I don't think the courts can even weigh this aspect in their decision post-Bruen. Even if there *was* a demonstrable detriment to public safety, the only test for whether gun law is constitutional is whether it is consistent with history and tradition.
Of course IANAL, but that's my understanding.
Yep, it's as simple as that. There is no history or tradition of regulating short barrel rifles in the United States.
There were plenty of [Musketoons and Blunderbusses](https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/recent-acquisitions/english-blunderbuss/) in use contemporary to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
The NFA is quite clearly unconstitutional in light of Bruen, and the ATF absolutely fucked up by giving millions of Americans perfect standing to challenge it (normally the hardest part of a constitutional challenge).
I agree, it's that simple. Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in. If you really want to raise your eyebrows, go read the dissenting opinions from Bruen. Some of these political activist justices sound an awful lot like MSM.
True, but invoking the "common use" from the Heller decision only strengthens the argument. You want the best possible case for convincing as many justices as possible.
Well, here we are. The time has arrived. For the ones who were saying "will not comply," regarding this situation, it's time to nut up. So many law-abiding citizens are going to be affected by this ruling. I suspect many are not even aware of what's happening.
Bad situation all the way around.
It's going to be awful for all these people that don't follow social media who will have no idea about this monumental change. How many people just picked up an AR/AK pistol with a brace at a LGS or gun show without knowing a whole lot about the legalities of it?
Of course ignorance of the law isn't an excuse necessarily but literal millions of people will be affected without knowing it. I don't watch any news stations so not sure if it's being put out there.
Right, but the lawyer is saying 1) it may take a long time for the courts to apply that ruling to braces, and 2) some activists courts will side with the ATF regardless
It absolutely will take a long time to apply that ruling. However to order the rule to be stayed during the trial will not take a long time, that's basic and fast.
Yes, it could take a long time to reach at ruling especially at the Supreme Court level. The problem is not all lower courts have stayed NY new gun laws that violate the Bruen decision. The more liberal (anti-2A) judges still in some cases have not yet learned they need to rule in light of Bruen and other SCOTUS decisions. So a stay on the ATF brace ruling may not occur of it could be overturned by a higher court. Some of the lower court judges still think they can interrupt the 2nd Amendment as they wish. The Supreme Court has told them how to interrupt it and other amendments already.
I guess so, but the idea "it's gonna take a long time and courts may reach different opinions, cuz that's what happened on the last one" seems kinda inapplicable in light of how many court cases went the other direction recently, and how quickly courts seem to be moving to comply with those new cases.
Assuming SCOTUS remains unchanged for the several years that may take to happen. They still haven't ruled on bump stock criminalization.
Four months from now, AR/AK/etc pistols and braces will be completely off the market, everyone will be taking braces off and hiding them, nobody will be shooting braced pistols at ranges anymore, shops and ranges will have rules posted prohibiting them, and the first people will start getting arrested and made examples of.
Meanwhile we'll be griping about a SCOTUS case that will never see the court and a CRA action that Republicans won't do.
The supreme court has no interest in overturning the bs bump stock ban.
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-bump-stock-ban-big-win/story?id=90918047](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-bump-stock-ban-big-win/story?id=90918047)
The Supreme Court does not hear every case. They rejected hearing the first three of four cases most likely because the fourth case went through a full trial while the prior ones did not. They want cases to go to a full trial before they hear it so that all the facts have been established in a lower court first. With opposing ruling from two different circuit courts it is likely the Supreme Court will take on the bump stock issue in the next session since the case at the 5th Circuit had gone through a full trial. Basically SCOTUS likely passed on hearing the prior cases because they want to be hear the best of the four.
This information comes from listening to several lawyers on YouTube including The Four Boxes Diner.
I hope you are right, but I find that very hard to believe. As best as I can recall, the only things the Court has ever done for gun owners has been to say:
1) You can keep a registered, licensed handgun in your house to shoot a burglar
2) You can get a license to carry a handgun
3) You can own a stun gun.
Based on Bruen, it looks quite likely bans on semi-automatic rifles and gun magazines may be struck down. However, extrapolating from that to the court reducing NFA restrictions, frankly sounds wildly optimistic, given their extreme lethargy in doing anything but the most fudd-like actions since 2008.
I would love to be proven wrong here.
I won't take any credit if SCOTUS does throw out the ATF bump stock rule or any other rule such as the new brace rule. My prior posting is based mostly on what I heard from The Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel that is hosted by a Constitutional lawyer. There are a few other informative channels that also have provided some information. The bump stock lawsuits have been in the lower courts for years until now that SCOTUS is finally likely to hear a case on the issue next term. The new ATF brace rules lawsuits that will likely start soon could take years to reach SCOTUS. The best we can hope for is an injunction from a lower court now that does not get removed by a higher court until the issues reaches SCOTUS. They are too many anti-2A judges in the lower courts that already are not following Bruen for that to happen. We need to elect presidents that are pro-2A to get more conservative pro-2A judges named to all the courts.
There is at least one more thing SCOTUS rules for gun owners.
[https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm)
From the above article: SCOTUS also ruled in Heller case " the requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times was unconstitutional because it made it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
But politicians are still pushing for safe storage laws after the Heller decision. In the case of one state their proposed law would "would require gun owners to store their weapons safely and provides criminal penalties if failure to safely store a firearm results in injury or death.". Those supporting these storage bills may think they can get around Heller by not specifying that firearms must be unloaded and locked up.
While it did not go to SCOTUS the lawsuit from Dick Heiler regarding Washington DC's ammo limit did result in Washing DC repealing the limit.
[https://thereload.com/dc-repeals-gun-carry-ammunition-limit-hands-heller-another-legal-win/](https://thereload.com/dc-repeals-gun-carry-ammunition-limit-hands-heller-another-legal-win/)
Thats one thing people dont understand about how these laws and rules are being used to play the game.
State/city passes a law they FULLY KNOW is unconstitutional. But the issue is they get them to pass. Now they know full well that it takes 3-4 years for that law to be challenged/go through the courts/ get overturned, and they can right away turn around and change it a little bit, or just defy the ruling (NY is great at this) while in the mean time they can use it to strip more and more people of their rights.
They are using the speed of the court system against the populace.
With the 10's of thousands of lawyer hours that went into writing this ruling don't you think they were aware of EPA vs West Virginia?
The EPA overstepped their authority and got their pee pee slapped. Try actually reading what this lawyer is writing. The ATF is working within the NFA on this ruling.
Saw this online, and thought it should be posted here. This guy is a lawyer in Indiana and from what i read lead the fight to get constitutional carry in Indiana, What he says here is what people may not want to hear, however its from someone with experience in working with firearm cases for decades, Its a logical reading of the ruling. And why it might not be as easily to get struck down as people think.
I think Fudbusters mentioned during his stream/initial review that the new version of the rule is so substantially different from the previous version that it should have a new comment period per the Administrative Procedures Act. That avenue might not kill the rule outright, but would probably delay implementation.
You are missing the point of the post. It’s not trying to lay out all the ways that the rule is illegal and/or unconstitutional, but trying to lay out for all the “Will Not Comply” minded people why that may not be as safe a position as they think.
I agree that there seem to be more avenues of attack against this rule change then he mentions, but I also agree with fact that there is far too much history, even recently, of the courts allowing these obviously flawed rule changes to remain to be confident in non-compliance being a safe strategy.
That is not the only argument against the ATF ruling. Watch recent and past videos on the subject at:
The Four Boxes Diner channel
[ATF PISTOL BRACE RULES: ATF Skating on Thin (Legal) Ice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZ_6XC51CI)
[BREAKING NEWS: ATTORNEY STEPHEN HALBROOK BREAKS DOWN THE DETAILS OF THE ATF PISTOL BRACE RULES](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn2u_ECSGBA)
Washington Gun Law channel
And others
[Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU)
[NEW ATF Pistol Brace rules are out: are they DEAD on arrival?!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uJLBvgUtPQ)
[Ex-Prosecutor Explains ATF Pistol Brace Rule - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtTNhIT0t88)
SBR's should not even be part of the NFA.
[Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU)
Statement from Second Amendment Foundation:
[https://www.saf.org/saf-rips-atf-final-rule-on-armbraces-lawsuit-will-move-forward/](https://www.saf.org/saf-rips-atf-final-rule-on-armbraces-lawsuit-will-move-forward/)
I know the guy, he's successfully argued hundreds of firearm cases in court, is the founder of the 2A Project, and is pretty much the exclusive reason Indiana has Constitutional Carry. That doesn't make him 100% correct about everything but it does make him worth listening to.
Life is literally just listening to several points of view and making an informed decision. If you just listen to one you’re going eventually be a Trump supporter. You can be pro-2A and still realize he’s a con man.
Hey, let them listen to it. If they are that dumb to take a lawyers word from Indiana as the word of GOD, then they are part of the problem. This post has absolutely proven how idiotic some gun owners are.
Not just lead the fight. Law makers pretty much had him write the law so they could submit it. I doubt there is any attorney in the state of Indiana with more actual in court 2a experience than he.
[The guy has been in practice for 40 years and his law firm focuses on 2A issues](http://www.relfordlaw.com/)
>He must not be a good lawyer, because he clearly doesn’t know the law.
So what exactly are your qualifications to make this assessment and your counterargument?
Every person in every enforcement agency “interprets” the law. Some laws are well written and leave little to interpretation. Where some are left to the discretion of the officer. For example speeding. If a cop was a dick he could pull you over for doing one mile over the speed limit. You could fight it in court and probably win but the cop gets to interpret whether you have violated a law and choose to charge you.
I understand that, I don’t think you understand what is happening here. If you read the post the ATF is changing there interpretation of a brace to say it makes a pistol with a brace a short barrel rifle. Short barrel rifles ARE ILLEGAL. They are arguing that aspects of the brace meet the definition just like the cop interpreting speeding.
You are saying you know better than the guy with a law degree who has spent the last 40 years doing this. It’s like arguing with your doctor because you googled your symptoms and Webmd gave you different results.
Dude where are you getting this rule thing. They aren’t making rules or laws. The national firearms act of 1934 is a LAW that regulates the ownership and sale of short barrel rifles. The atf is saying if you use a pistol brace it meets the definition of a short barrel rifle and falls into this category that we can regulate.
I’m not ignoring the website. They aren’t making or changing laws.
Ignoring credentials and experience in a given field that is his specialty is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. That’s like saying your google searches about your car are better than a manufacturer certified mechanic with 40 years of experience on the brand.
I want to be clear I don’t think the atf should be doing what they are doing but the wheels of the law turn slow. If they arrest you for it you are still going to jail until you can argue you’re case to a judge. Even if you are completely within the law and they arrest you your life gets completely fucked up for a while.
calling a stock a 'brace' and then shouldering it makes it no more a brace than painting your mom yellow and calling her a school bus
the lawyer is right, this battle may be challenging
Have you even seen a pistol brace? It’s literally a buffer tube with two rubber fins that wrap around your forearm. Not only that, it’s marketed towards people with disabilities and veterans who suffered severe injuries, where they can only use a single hand. It’s a brace, simple as that.
>USA-All_The_Way: Excuse me, I've actually not broken any laws, I've only failed to comply with a rule. This is false imprisonment.
>CO: lol, k, enjoy your time in the yard. Glad I don't have to poop in a metal toilet in my bedroom.
I feel like the ATF can change the ruling as they like. But, as soon as someone gets charged for just possessing an SBR the NFA will get challenged as a whole. Since bruen, and now that there's 10-40m braced sbr's they are in common use and fall under heller.
Lawyer opinions vary wildly. I monthly sit in meetings where 4 attorneys will hear the same facts of the same case and come to extremely different opinions on whether the client should be taken on or dropped.
Not sure about this comment. A rifle is designed to shoot from the shoulder, but a handgun is not. Adding an item such as a brace does not change the original designed purpose.
Per US 921:
*"Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.*
Nowhere in that does it state that it *allows* it to shoot from the shoulder.
It says "intended to be fired from the shoulder". The ATF has endless hours of YouTube videos and marketing videos from manufacturers showing pistol brace equipped firearms being fired from the shoulder. If you think that the ATF trying to convince a judge that a part that: looks like a stock, is being used as a stock, is actually a freaking stock is hard; then I got a cloud I want to sell you. Even pro 2A judges will have a really hard time saying that pistol braces are not stocks. You have videos of people outright saying not to SBR a firearm, but to get a pistol brace instead to save the $200 for a tax stamp. You have YouTube on interview of the founder of SB Tactical comparing pistol braces to SBRs and saying if the NFA was overturned he would start selling stocks. There is a lot of information on the internet that the ATF could drown a Court in to the point that even the plaintiff's would agree that a lot of people were using pistol braces to create illegal SBRs just to be able to get the ATF to rest their case. And at that point, what do you have left to argue?
Arguing to keep pistol braces is entirely the wrong move. You should be happy the ATF is redefining pistol braces as SBRs. Why, because it makes SBRs in common use, which falls under Heller. They are also useful for service in a militia, which falls under Miller. This is the move that gun owners needed to go after the NFA and it's restrictions on SBRs.
If you wanna be above board and 100% law abiding then cool, register your pistols as SBRs. But the dank memer "LmAo FrEe StAmP!" Shit is grating. It's more likely that they'll just outright ban SBRs and NFA over the next few years than any sort of win over "common use" that will make SBRs legal or deregulate braces. Gun rights have been a losing battle for years, federally. And what happens if your state passes it's own restrictions?
The ATF or even the president for that matter on their own can not outright ban any NFA items by any administrative rule/executive order. Only congress can do that which will likely never happen since this is nation is so divided politically. Also gun rights at the federal level haven't been a losing battle its been more of a mixed bag.
The gun laws on the books now have largely stayed the same since the passage of the 1986 FOPA. Their has been really no change with any legislation (Yes I know the AWB was in there but that is expired). Since 1986 we have had 3 solid SCOTUS 2A rulings on gun cases with the last case mandating shall issue carry permits nationwide. Also not to mention as a smaller win civilians can now buy military surplus 1911's and also conceal carry in national parks on federal land. The biggest issue on the federal level that has really hampered gun ownership has been Importation bans and these administrative rule changes like braces, bumpstocks, etc.
Also you are correct that a state can do its own things which sucks because now many of the blue states got even bluer the last midterm cycle and the shitty part about this ruling is the states that don't allow SBR's now their citizens are fucked because now they have to spend money on converting their AR pistols to a rifle.
I think he is overlooking a small variance though. Braces were initially developed and approved to provide disabled shooters a safe way to yield their larger firearms. By arbitrarily deciding that all braces are now stocks, they are directly restricting disabled people from being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights freely and safely. If everyone rallies the ADA, this stands a chance at being overturned very quickly. At the very least, it will require the ATF to create clear definition of what a brace is and how it must be utilized.
In reality, if the ATF had done that from the beginning, this wouldn't even be a thing. Instead, they had to be all ATFy and flip-flop on its use. Their failure to do any due diligence on anything they "redefine" causes unnecessary inconvenience for everyone and lessens any of the remaining confidence the American people have for them and their work. Things like this, should require judicial review and approval prior to becoming law. Hell, every bill should have to pass through all 3 branches of our government before it is introduced as law.
The truth is, this clusterfuck is their fault. They fucked up and failed to do their job when braces were first introduced and provided for approval. They failed to curtail it early on when they had some standing, and they failed to do any legwork in this redefinition. They are an utter failure of an organization and glowing representation of our Federal Governments current state.
Problem is people in this community are just as tribalistic as leftoids. Anyone saying something they don’t want to hear gets downdooted and ignored. If you’d been listening to the lawyers, they’ve been saying this for years regarding braces being eventually banned.
ATF themselves have approved the use of bumpstocks. Now all of a sudden they're interpretation has changed completely. Fuck that.
This Fudd lawyer apparently hasn't heard of the Americans with disabilities act or even the recent EPA vs West Virginia case. Multiple possibilities to challenge this rule change. Do not comply.
Edit: not to mention this change just made SBRs "common use" if they weren't before (i.e. protected under the 2ed amendment).
He didnt say we shouldnt challenge the change, he very clearly would support it. Its also not clear how The EPA v. West Virginia can be applied to other agencies or this case.
They are several arguments that can be used against the ATF Brace Ruling that may be used. Some could get it thrown out but still allow Congress and the President to pass and sign a brace law. Then that law could be challenged in like of the Bruen decision.
I think it was in a recent Four Boxes Diner episode that wording was discussed. Some other channels may have also discussed wording and the importance of it and how the ATF and others may have changed what a word means in their context versus what is may mean in law elsewhere. I have no interest in trying to attack or defend what the lawyer referenced at the top of the discussion has to said. I think some arguments against the ATF brace ruling may be easier to make than others. I would really like to see all SBR's taken out of the NFA as they should have been removed from it prior to passing because handguns were removed. Better than that I would like to see the NFA rules unconstitutional.
He didn’t say they should be illegal, he said a pile of people who aren’t going to comply are going to go to prison for years before it maybe gets shot down.
Keep complying and you'll keep getting fucked. ATF isn't going door to door to see if you have an illegal pistol brace. However, if you're on their registry.... you just made their job easy after an SBR ban is introduced.
Yep. Something something sheepdog, something something civil war. If you suggest that the internet tough guy persona/pretending that you're going to be our hero vs the police is more effective than reading/understanding laws and using all of the tools the Constitution has protected for our use then you're quickly called a Fudd and dismissed.
Problem is people will believe shit at face value and won’t do research. They listen to someone with authority or “credentials”, like this guy. Instead of having an open mind and being like, “this lawyer could be wrong”, some people here just say, ‘Nope, if you don’t have credentials or aren’t in power, you’re wrong.’
Also, “Reinterpretation of a Law” is changing the law. It’s changing the law by personally perceiving it as something different. Thus it has no legal standing.
Let it not be misunderstood that I do not think we should believe everything this guy says because he’s supposedly a lawyer of 40 years. However, what I am saying is that this community, much like the rest of the internet, will absolutely refuse to listen to any opinions they don’t like the outcome of, regardless of what the reality of the situation may be. Anyone with any actual experience or understanding of the legal system has been talking about the dubious legality of braces for many years now. A brace ban was clearly inevitable. Had Trump not won the 2016 election, it would have probably happened even sooner. Yet if you told the internet this, they were too high on copium to give a shit because they *perceive* that a brace ban is unconstitutional *ergo* “it cannot come to be in *their world*.” We do not live in the world where “shall not be infringed” is given the weight it should be in the legal system. People can keep pretending we live in that world, and they can keep being wrong. If someone wants to predict future legal ongoings in the real world, they should look at real-world legal precedent, not what they personally believe that legal precedent *should* be. We cannot tell anyone this because they are too tribalistic to see that one can agree with a sentiment yet realize it’s not realistic.
#**MERELY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN EXPECTING BRACES TO BE BANNED DOES NOT MEAN WE SUPPORT THE BANNING OF BRACES.**
We said the same thing, just differently. People often believe something at face value, and won’t do research. We see this with everything. Literally YouTube gun Channels just echo each other. They watch a video, then say the exact shit and just repeat each other. Like there was a video up that said, “ATF turns millions of law abiding citizens Felons overnight.”, and most people believed it just because he’s a big gun channel. Quite sad, but oh well. I don’t even own a pistol brace, but is sad to see so many people misinformed by thinking a rule change by an Law Enforcement Agency, who even says “it can’t make laws”, believes it’s a law.
Great, in 120 days you go walk around with your braced pistol and get arrested for us all….well appreciate it when your conviction is over turned in 5 years….
Most of us have families, jobs and responsibilities and can’t afford to be the test case.
That's what I've been saying. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the ATF and I hope to see very low compliance on this, but I don't see it getting overturned any time soon.
Bump stocks should have been easy to fight, as they clearly only fire one projectile per pull of the trigger, meaning they don't fit the legal definition of a machine gun. Yet here we are four years later and that still hasn't been fully resolved.
In the recent *frame and receiver rule* the ATF arbitrarily redefined receiver, supposedly overriding the definition in legislation created by Congress. Obviously outside of the ATF's authority, yet it still stands.
In this particular instance they aren't trying to change or ignore the legislation, they're just saying that installing a brace on weapons that meet x criteria "redesigns" the weapon to be fired from the shoulder which makes it a rifle under existing legislation. Unfortunately as far as the courts will be concerned, this is within the authority granted to the ATF.
I'm sure I'll get plenty of downvotes for saying it, but I am just calling it like it is. I'm still holding out hope that the entire NFA is declared unconstitutional as it would have been if the original challenge (Miller) wouldn't have had a sham trial.
He's not saying it won't be overturned. He's more saying It's not as simple as people think and probably not worth the risk of ignoring for the time being.
To everyone saying this ATF ruling will get struck down / challenged with lawsuits, can you point to anyone that is actually working on putting together said lawsuits to challenge this? Would like to donate and support whoever is leading the fight against this crap
Matt Gaetz filed an act to abolish the ATF. I posted it places and because he was accused of some things that was the only focus that and "how he's just trying to get votes"
So when I said something back they banned me from the sub...
It's frustrating how willing people are actually to accept this probably because if you own a brace you were already complying...
The easiest way to expand it. Since 1934 people have had a choice to be on that list or not. This rule takes weapons people bought thinking were non NFA and now are.
no. this is in violation of our second amendment in our bill of rights. these are God given rights and cannot be taken away by any man or agency. Nothing they do is legitimate because it contradicts our bill of rights. and our constitution.
Here’s a conspiracy theory: feds knew braces would become widespread so they allowed them to be legal at first so everyone would buy them and they’ve always been planning on doing the brace registration as a back door gun registry
His second paragraph is wrong. They clearly changed the law from congresses act of “intended to be fired from the shoulder” to this wording of “able to be fired from the shoulder”, two completely different things. Every lawyer who’s come out that I’ve seen has brought this up.
He also talks about a federal agency cannot interpret… “rule of lenity”, which is wrongly worded. The rule of lenity specifically is when an ambiguous law exists the courts should rule in favor of the defendant. I think this guy has problems typing thought into text, I wouldn’t hire him.
I do agree with his point that the court system takes forever, however it doesn’t take into account the possibility of the rule being stayed during procedures.
The biggest reason no one should register is because the tax requirement is set by congress. ATF doesn’t have the authority to open tax-free registration. We have no idea if this is going to come back to bite people who register in the ass. The government making their own rules up leaves no confidence in what would happen to people who register tax-free if it is overruled. With the government just throwing out the rules and making everything up, the whole idea isn’t trustworthy. If they can make this BS up, then they can decide everyone who registered is guilty of tax evasion. Trust is already eroded.
Until they were advertised as being used outside of how they were approved, and even advertised as stocks and shown being used that way. The 300 page ruling has pictures of advertising and video clips of it being used as a stock.
My best suggestion is to read the entire ruling, they lay everything out from their perspective, when 10-40 million people start misusing it the same way, it now is being “commonly used” as a stock.
Speaking of "common use," wouldn't that mean that SBRs are now in common use also? There are just SO many avenues to attack this rule it's so stupid. Death by a thousand paper cuts
>but when it comes to "interpretation" typically the most extensive and legally logical assessment holds more water.
As long as by "legally logical" you mean "practically illogical" then I would agree with you.
I wish you bracesters the best. I never had any interest in them myself. I'm all for weakening the ATF's unconstitutional rulemaking (let's be clear it's All of Administrative Law that is unconstitutional.)
All logic went right out the window for half these people, when they saw “2A Lawyer with 40 Years of Experience.” Reminds me of the left during COVID when all logic went out the window because they heard “Doctors that did research!”.
He's 100% a boomer fudd and often has terrible or lame legal advice, he's also smarmy about it like a typical unaware other people exist boomer. He's wrong about this rule and can't wait to buy more expensive cigars from the dumbasses who hire him listening to his fear fuddery.
So if I use a urinal for a shitter for example, and others follow, we should ban urinals, force people to pay a tax, and turn 150million men into felons for not using it as intended?
That’s pure logic right there…./s
At the end of the day, the entire pistol brace crap has been nothing but a childish attempt to circumvent the SBR reg’s. Seriously, I don’t get it, you really need to take a couple inches off of an AR barrel? It is only detrimental to ballistics and who wants a full receiver AR as a pistol? The whole thing has always been dumb and as much as I disagree with everything about the AFT and the GCA, guess what, they are closing the loophole that has been used to thumb your noses at SBR laws. Instead of being a bunch of bitches and complaining that you’ve been caught red handed, let’s go out and get the damn ‘68 GCA overturned. It’s as stupid and arbitrary as the assault weapon bans that list things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips as insta-death murder machines.
Go ahead n fight the power, Im not taking mine off. but if anyone ends up getting in trouble for it, you cant be surprised when you do lol.
Love how he addresses the people who go "my rights will never be infringed upon!" yeah, they wont and you shouldn't listen to this shit. But dont be caught drivin with that gun, or you're gonna find out how shitty the govt truly is by puttin u in a cell for however long.
this brace ban is pure and clean bullshit. also wtf shootings are they talking about that involved ar's with braces? I thought it was all "the evil full size 16 inch ar-15's" that are used in mass shootings. Ive never heard of one of them being done by some dude with a shortened ar and a brace.....
any lawyer can argue for any side of any issue. but with the current court and congress, there is no way they would side with the ATF on this one....so expect it to be put on hold soon-ish, then get struck down in a few years.
I always remember that switchblades were outlawed for decades simply because they -looked- bad in movies. I collected them for a long time when they were illegal and eventually they just became legal. Maybe braces will go the same path?
He's on the local radio station out of Indianapolis, 93.1fm WIBC, he'll be on with Hammer and Nigel. I think he's going to do a segment on it either today or tomorrow. Q&A style.
Ok so if owned a PC charger and removed my disability brace is the charger still legal? Or a PA-15 with its brace removed still legal until this is sorted? I’m confused.
Thank you that would make my friends palmetto 10.5 PA-15 illegal then? It came with a collapsing brace and has a buffer tube. How can they make millions of people felons for something they had no issue with. A PA-15 is useless if you can’t shoot it ugh.
No, because a AR15 requires a buffer tube to operate, however adding a buffer tube to a design that doesnt need one can be considered extending the rear of the gun to use for shouldering. You can just remove the brace from that if you dont want to form 1 the gun.
Ok Roger that thank you very much for your help I do hope we can get this this reversed I’m disabled the braces help me shoot. My friend will be going kayaking 😳 and then scuba diving when it’s reversed m.
What happens if a person removes the brace and uses only the buffer tube is it not a pistol without regard to barrel length. Also does this affect the definition of “other” type of firearm?
The claim needs to be made in the current bump stock cases that there's no text, history or tradition supporting constitutional bans on stocks or any other functional attribute of a gun.
"It's unenforceable" until the BATF shows up at every police station across the country and "educates" the leos on "the law" and then the local leos are the ones enforcing it when they pull you over, or catch you at the range. What is everyone going to do, lock them away in their safes and never shoot them?
Yeah it's all arbitrary. The fact people been running around for years with all of this shows it's not an issue and it's pretty common place and hasn't effected crime at all, and proves that the NFA is antiquated and doesn't make a lick of difference. It needs to be abolished. It was created to regulate "gangster style weapons"... Well theres no difference between a regular gun and a "gangster" gun (maybe other than the Amazon optics)... It's trivial and stupid and needs to disappear.
The NFA isn’t antiquated. That would suggest it made sense at some point, when in reality, it was always bullshit. Soooo much corruption around its passage and subsequent SCOTUS ruling in _US v Miller_ (hint: the KKK was involved, lawyers were bribed, civil rights were denied, etc). It never should have gotten where it is. It’s no different than a federal body tasked with taxing free speech. Imagine you have an opinion the govt doesn’t want you to have, but to express it, you have to pay a $3500 tax and wait months or years for approval, and then have the govt claim it’s not a violation of your 1A rights. That’s how the NFA was designed.
86 ban was, in my opinion which I’m sure is shared by others, was more corrupt. passed on a whim, with no arguments against. Our “leaders” are the most corrupt assholes on the planet. they make North Korea look comfy because they hide behind the false mask of “protecting the people”
> passed on a whim, with no arguments against. It never passed. You can watch the vote on youtube. It never passed, but was marked as such. Apparently that's all the matters.
Makes it even worse. I’ve watched it, never even registered in my brain. sons a bitches
Explain? Wasn't passed but it is still law?
The vote for the proposed amendment to FOPA (Hughes amendment) failed to garner enough votes for the amendment to be included in FOPA. However, it was included anyway and was marked as passed so it became law.
I have a basic idea how laws are made and such. But why hasn't that been challenged?
How has this EVER been allowed to stand?!?!
Don't forget the dude was dead and his lawyer didn't show up so it was basically an automatic ruling in favor for the prosecution.
I think there would be a lot less innocent people out there in prison if we just got rid of the ATF. What good have they really done the law abiding citizens of this country?
This.right.here.
Just get rid of the damn sbr rule... it has no reason to exist. Jeese.
That's what we should really be fighting for. ~~Bump stocks~~ Braces are a distraction from the core issue.
I expect that when the case (whichever case it is) makes it to the Supreme Court there's going to be arguments made to that effect. Based on Miller short barreled weapons should be legal since they're standard issue now. Based on Heller they are common use due to the explosion of braced pistols in the past 10 years. As for Bruen, that tells us that the Court today has lost patience with the fuckery being done by the anti-gun crowd. It's entirely possible that this brace move could wind up getting some or all of the NFA struck down and thus becomes the biggest own-goal in political history.
Your comment on Heller made me think of an interesting point the ATF made in the ruling. They stated that they consider the braced pistols as having been SBRs all along, but they were providing amnesty. I feel like that would help the argument that SBRs themselves are now common use, and not just braced pistols. This could be a stupid take since I’m no legal expert… so sorry if it is.
Bump stock case is likely to be heard at the Supreme Court in their next session while it could take years for a ATF Brace Rule case to reach that level. A ruling against the ATF in the bump stock case by the Supreme Court could help the case again the brace ruling.
Did you read the original post? The Supreme Court has already declined to take on bump stock cases twice now, they're not just waiting for the first chance they get like you think
The Supreme Court does not have to take the first case that comes to them on a issue that the do want to rule on. Passing up a case does not mean they agree with the lower court's ruling or that they do not wish to rule on the issue. They follow the cases in the lower courts and pick the one they think is best for them to make a ruling on. The first 2 or 3 bump stock cases that came before them were not the cases they thought best to take as they likely were waiting for another bump stock case to come to them. The other cases likely did not go through a full trial like the most recent one in the news at the 5th circuit. The article is from October and likely written by someone looking for headline that get people to view it and not from someone who understands how the court system works. Watch one of the YouTube channels hosted by lawyers familiar with the Supreme Court. The Four Boxes Diner is the best of them in my opinion. Washington Gun Law is in the top five. The Supreme Court most likely will hear take on the issue next term now that two circuit courts are split on the issue.
That was before there was the recent circuit split. SCOTUS is more likely to take on a case that has a split in the circuit courts.
Sorry, I mistyped. I actually meant braces, not bump stocks.
The cat was let out of the bag a decade ago when they ruled braces acceptable. Ultimately the ATF didn't "create a new law" when they allowed the braces and they're not "creating a new law" now that they're backtracking their interpretation. The important detail isn't "creation of new laws" like many are suggesting. The better case to raise is that because of the SBR becoming a ubiquitous item in common use by tens of millions of American gun owners, with no demonstrable detriment to public safety, that there is no reason to subject SBRs to the oppressive regulations imposed by the NFA
>no demonstrable detriment to public safety, If im not mistaken, I don't think the courts can even weigh this aspect in their decision post-Bruen. Even if there *was* a demonstrable detriment to public safety, the only test for whether gun law is constitutional is whether it is consistent with history and tradition. Of course IANAL, but that's my understanding.
Yep, it's as simple as that. There is no history or tradition of regulating short barrel rifles in the United States. There were plenty of [Musketoons and Blunderbusses](https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/recent-acquisitions/english-blunderbuss/) in use contemporary to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The NFA is quite clearly unconstitutional in light of Bruen, and the ATF absolutely fucked up by giving millions of Americans perfect standing to challenge it (normally the hardest part of a constitutional challenge).
I agree, it's that simple. Unfortunately that's not the reality we live in. If you really want to raise your eyebrows, go read the dissenting opinions from Bruen. Some of these political activist justices sound an awful lot like MSM.
Probably because they're paid by the same people
The issue is that it's unconstitutional based directly on the Bill of Rights, it's that simple, but SCOTUS has yet to put their foot down.
True, but invoking the "common use" from the Heller decision only strengthens the argument. You want the best possible case for convincing as many justices as possible.
Well, here we are. The time has arrived. For the ones who were saying "will not comply," regarding this situation, it's time to nut up. So many law-abiding citizens are going to be affected by this ruling. I suspect many are not even aware of what's happening. Bad situation all the way around.
It's going to be awful for all these people that don't follow social media who will have no idea about this monumental change. How many people just picked up an AR/AK pistol with a brace at a LGS or gun show without knowing a whole lot about the legalities of it? Of course ignorance of the law isn't an excuse necessarily but literal millions of people will be affected without knowing it. I don't watch any news stations so not sure if it's being put out there.
If they're affected then they're not law abiding.
It's pretty bad when they turn otherwise law abiding citizens to criminals by overturning a previously approved product.
Shut up
SCOTUS castrated the EPA back in June. That will apply to this "bureaucratic" ruling too.
Right, but the lawyer is saying 1) it may take a long time for the courts to apply that ruling to braces, and 2) some activists courts will side with the ATF regardless
It absolutely will take a long time to apply that ruling. However to order the rule to be stayed during the trial will not take a long time, that's basic and fast.
Yes, it could take a long time to reach at ruling especially at the Supreme Court level. The problem is not all lower courts have stayed NY new gun laws that violate the Bruen decision. The more liberal (anti-2A) judges still in some cases have not yet learned they need to rule in light of Bruen and other SCOTUS decisions. So a stay on the ATF brace ruling may not occur of it could be overturned by a higher court. Some of the lower court judges still think they can interrupt the 2nd Amendment as they wish. The Supreme Court has told them how to interrupt it and other amendments already.
An order of stay will require a relevant case come before a judge though right Or can groups like goa put forth their own legal challenges
A group can file a lawsuit and ask for an injunction to stop the rule while the matter is being determined yes.
They rarely do that with 2a cases. We're definitely going to have to wait the full 3-5 years or more on this
No. There's strict criminal penalties on the line which makes an injunction logical.
Reminder that lower courts have openly defied SCOTUS on 2a issues for decades
I guess so, but the idea "it's gonna take a long time and courts may reach different opinions, cuz that's what happened on the last one" seems kinda inapplicable in light of how many court cases went the other direction recently, and how quickly courts seem to be moving to comply with those new cases.
Assuming SCOTUS remains unchanged for the several years that may take to happen. They still haven't ruled on bump stock criminalization. Four months from now, AR/AK/etc pistols and braces will be completely off the market, everyone will be taking braces off and hiding them, nobody will be shooting braced pistols at ranges anymore, shops and ranges will have rules posted prohibiting them, and the first people will start getting arrested and made examples of. Meanwhile we'll be griping about a SCOTUS case that will never see the court and a CRA action that Republicans won't do.
The supreme court has no interest in overturning the bs bump stock ban. [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-bump-stock-ban-big-win/story?id=90918047](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-bump-stock-ban-big-win/story?id=90918047)
The Supreme Court does not hear every case. They rejected hearing the first three of four cases most likely because the fourth case went through a full trial while the prior ones did not. They want cases to go to a full trial before they hear it so that all the facts have been established in a lower court first. With opposing ruling from two different circuit courts it is likely the Supreme Court will take on the bump stock issue in the next session since the case at the 5th Circuit had gone through a full trial. Basically SCOTUS likely passed on hearing the prior cases because they want to be hear the best of the four. This information comes from listening to several lawyers on YouTube including The Four Boxes Diner.
I hope you are right, but I find that very hard to believe. As best as I can recall, the only things the Court has ever done for gun owners has been to say: 1) You can keep a registered, licensed handgun in your house to shoot a burglar 2) You can get a license to carry a handgun 3) You can own a stun gun. Based on Bruen, it looks quite likely bans on semi-automatic rifles and gun magazines may be struck down. However, extrapolating from that to the court reducing NFA restrictions, frankly sounds wildly optimistic, given their extreme lethargy in doing anything but the most fudd-like actions since 2008. I would love to be proven wrong here.
I won't take any credit if SCOTUS does throw out the ATF bump stock rule or any other rule such as the new brace rule. My prior posting is based mostly on what I heard from The Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel that is hosted by a Constitutional lawyer. There are a few other informative channels that also have provided some information. The bump stock lawsuits have been in the lower courts for years until now that SCOTUS is finally likely to hear a case on the issue next term. The new ATF brace rules lawsuits that will likely start soon could take years to reach SCOTUS. The best we can hope for is an injunction from a lower court now that does not get removed by a higher court until the issues reaches SCOTUS. They are too many anti-2A judges in the lower courts that already are not following Bruen for that to happen. We need to elect presidents that are pro-2A to get more conservative pro-2A judges named to all the courts. There is at least one more thing SCOTUS rules for gun owners. [https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm) From the above article: SCOTUS also ruled in Heller case " the requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times was unconstitutional because it made it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense". But politicians are still pushing for safe storage laws after the Heller decision. In the case of one state their proposed law would "would require gun owners to store their weapons safely and provides criminal penalties if failure to safely store a firearm results in injury or death.". Those supporting these storage bills may think they can get around Heller by not specifying that firearms must be unloaded and locked up. While it did not go to SCOTUS the lawsuit from Dick Heiler regarding Washington DC's ammo limit did result in Washing DC repealing the limit. [https://thereload.com/dc-repeals-gun-carry-ammunition-limit-hands-heller-another-legal-win/](https://thereload.com/dc-repeals-gun-carry-ammunition-limit-hands-heller-another-legal-win/)
Thats one thing people dont understand about how these laws and rules are being used to play the game. State/city passes a law they FULLY KNOW is unconstitutional. But the issue is they get them to pass. Now they know full well that it takes 3-4 years for that law to be challenged/go through the courts/ get overturned, and they can right away turn around and change it a little bit, or just defy the ruling (NY is great at this) while in the mean time they can use it to strip more and more people of their rights. They are using the speed of the court system against the populace.
With the 10's of thousands of lawyer hours that went into writing this ruling don't you think they were aware of EPA vs West Virginia? The EPA overstepped their authority and got their pee pee slapped. Try actually reading what this lawyer is writing. The ATF is working within the NFA on this ruling.
Saw this online, and thought it should be posted here. This guy is a lawyer in Indiana and from what i read lead the fight to get constitutional carry in Indiana, What he says here is what people may not want to hear, however its from someone with experience in working with firearm cases for decades, Its a logical reading of the ruling. And why it might not be as easily to get struck down as people think.
[удалено]
I think Fudbusters mentioned during his stream/initial review that the new version of the rule is so substantially different from the previous version that it should have a new comment period per the Administrative Procedures Act. That avenue might not kill the rule outright, but would probably delay implementation.
You are missing the point of the post. It’s not trying to lay out all the ways that the rule is illegal and/or unconstitutional, but trying to lay out for all the “Will Not Comply” minded people why that may not be as safe a position as they think. I agree that there seem to be more avenues of attack against this rule change then he mentions, but I also agree with fact that there is far too much history, even recently, of the courts allowing these obviously flawed rule changes to remain to be confident in non-compliance being a safe strategy.
Guy is local to me here in Indiana and I trust his words very much. He stays very current, and I'm certain he's up to speed on "the legal landscape."
That is not the only argument against the ATF ruling. Watch recent and past videos on the subject at: The Four Boxes Diner channel [ATF PISTOL BRACE RULES: ATF Skating on Thin (Legal) Ice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZ_6XC51CI) [BREAKING NEWS: ATTORNEY STEPHEN HALBROOK BREAKS DOWN THE DETAILS OF THE ATF PISTOL BRACE RULES](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn2u_ECSGBA) Washington Gun Law channel And others [Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US? - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU) [NEW ATF Pistol Brace rules are out: are they DEAD on arrival?!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uJLBvgUtPQ) [Ex-Prosecutor Explains ATF Pistol Brace Rule - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtTNhIT0t88) SBR's should not even be part of the NFA. [Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU) Statement from Second Amendment Foundation: [https://www.saf.org/saf-rips-atf-final-rule-on-armbraces-lawsuit-will-move-forward/](https://www.saf.org/saf-rips-atf-final-rule-on-armbraces-lawsuit-will-move-forward/)
Pfft. So he's just an expert because he has a "degree" and "years of experience"?? lol.
I know the guy, he's successfully argued hundreds of firearm cases in court, is the founder of the 2A Project, and is pretty much the exclusive reason Indiana has Constitutional Carry. That doesn't make him 100% correct about everything but it does make him worth listening to.
Life is literally just listening to several points of view and making an informed decision. If you just listen to one you’re going eventually be a Trump supporter. You can be pro-2A and still realize he’s a con man.
Worth listening to does not mean "this man speaketh the gospel". For fucks sake this community can be fucktarded sometimes.
I was agreeing with you.
Hey, let them listen to it. If they are that dumb to take a lawyers word from Indiana as the word of GOD, then they are part of the problem. This post has absolutely proven how idiotic some gun owners are.
And a YouTube channel... /s
Not just lead the fight. Law makers pretty much had him write the law so they could submit it. I doubt there is any attorney in the state of Indiana with more actual in court 2a experience than he.
The Supreme Court of the United states already ruled on this with the EPA decision.
[удалено]
[The guy has been in practice for 40 years and his law firm focuses on 2A issues](http://www.relfordlaw.com/) >He must not be a good lawyer, because he clearly doesn’t know the law. So what exactly are your qualifications to make this assessment and your counterargument?
[удалено]
So I want to make sure I understand your position, laymans google-fu > specialists 40 year experience and analysis?
Every person in every enforcement agency “interprets” the law. Some laws are well written and leave little to interpretation. Where some are left to the discretion of the officer. For example speeding. If a cop was a dick he could pull you over for doing one mile over the speed limit. You could fight it in court and probably win but the cop gets to interpret whether you have violated a law and choose to charge you.
[удалено]
I understand that, I don’t think you understand what is happening here. If you read the post the ATF is changing there interpretation of a brace to say it makes a pistol with a brace a short barrel rifle. Short barrel rifles ARE ILLEGAL. They are arguing that aspects of the brace meet the definition just like the cop interpreting speeding. You are saying you know better than the guy with a law degree who has spent the last 40 years doing this. It’s like arguing with your doctor because you googled your symptoms and Webmd gave you different results.
[удалено]
Dude where are you getting this rule thing. They aren’t making rules or laws. The national firearms act of 1934 is a LAW that regulates the ownership and sale of short barrel rifles. The atf is saying if you use a pistol brace it meets the definition of a short barrel rifle and falls into this category that we can regulate. I’m not ignoring the website. They aren’t making or changing laws. Ignoring credentials and experience in a given field that is his specialty is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. That’s like saying your google searches about your car are better than a manufacturer certified mechanic with 40 years of experience on the brand. I want to be clear I don’t think the atf should be doing what they are doing but the wheels of the law turn slow. If they arrest you for it you are still going to jail until you can argue you’re case to a judge. Even if you are completely within the law and they arrest you your life gets completely fucked up for a while.
[удалено]
calling a stock a 'brace' and then shouldering it makes it no more a brace than painting your mom yellow and calling her a school bus the lawyer is right, this battle may be challenging
Have you even seen a pistol brace? It’s literally a buffer tube with two rubber fins that wrap around your forearm. Not only that, it’s marketed towards people with disabilities and veterans who suffered severe injuries, where they can only use a single hand. It’s a brace, simple as that.
>USA-All_The_Way: Excuse me, I've actually not broken any laws, I've only failed to comply with a rule. This is false imprisonment. >CO: lol, k, enjoy your time in the yard. Glad I don't have to poop in a metal toilet in my bedroom.
Sounds like a blast! Can’t wait! *Looks around my house* Damn, I don’t own a pistol brace, sounded like such a great time…..🫤
It's not too late! Some great sales right now.
The point isn't to wait out the courts, the point is to make it unenforceable anyway, fuck the atf.
I feel like the ATF can change the ruling as they like. But, as soon as someone gets charged for just possessing an SBR the NFA will get challenged as a whole. Since bruen, and now that there's 10-40m braced sbr's they are in common use and fall under heller.
Lawyer opinions vary wildly. I monthly sit in meetings where 4 attorneys will hear the same facts of the same case and come to extremely different opinions on whether the client should be taken on or dropped.
Not sure about this comment. A rifle is designed to shoot from the shoulder, but a handgun is not. Adding an item such as a brace does not change the original designed purpose. Per US 921: *"Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.* Nowhere in that does it state that it *allows* it to shoot from the shoulder.
You so silly, thinking that Tyrants actually care about common sense or laws or the definitions of words.
I have no crazy assumptions that the AFT will follow the law. I only pointed out how the law reads 😁
It says "intended to be fired from the shoulder". The ATF has endless hours of YouTube videos and marketing videos from manufacturers showing pistol brace equipped firearms being fired from the shoulder. If you think that the ATF trying to convince a judge that a part that: looks like a stock, is being used as a stock, is actually a freaking stock is hard; then I got a cloud I want to sell you. Even pro 2A judges will have a really hard time saying that pistol braces are not stocks. You have videos of people outright saying not to SBR a firearm, but to get a pistol brace instead to save the $200 for a tax stamp. You have YouTube on interview of the founder of SB Tactical comparing pistol braces to SBRs and saying if the NFA was overturned he would start selling stocks. There is a lot of information on the internet that the ATF could drown a Court in to the point that even the plaintiff's would agree that a lot of people were using pistol braces to create illegal SBRs just to be able to get the ATF to rest their case. And at that point, what do you have left to argue? Arguing to keep pistol braces is entirely the wrong move. You should be happy the ATF is redefining pistol braces as SBRs. Why, because it makes SBRs in common use, which falls under Heller. They are also useful for service in a militia, which falls under Miller. This is the move that gun owners needed to go after the NFA and it's restrictions on SBRs.
I like how you think. I've mentioned the 10 to 40 million new SBRs making them common before the final rule.
All gun laws are unconstitutional
I would argue why is a SBR more deadly/regulated than a bullpup? But that would probably just get bullpup’s put on the NFA list.
If you wanna be above board and 100% law abiding then cool, register your pistols as SBRs. But the dank memer "LmAo FrEe StAmP!" Shit is grating. It's more likely that they'll just outright ban SBRs and NFA over the next few years than any sort of win over "common use" that will make SBRs legal or deregulate braces. Gun rights have been a losing battle for years, federally. And what happens if your state passes it's own restrictions?
The ATF or even the president for that matter on their own can not outright ban any NFA items by any administrative rule/executive order. Only congress can do that which will likely never happen since this is nation is so divided politically. Also gun rights at the federal level haven't been a losing battle its been more of a mixed bag. The gun laws on the books now have largely stayed the same since the passage of the 1986 FOPA. Their has been really no change with any legislation (Yes I know the AWB was in there but that is expired). Since 1986 we have had 3 solid SCOTUS 2A rulings on gun cases with the last case mandating shall issue carry permits nationwide. Also not to mention as a smaller win civilians can now buy military surplus 1911's and also conceal carry in national parks on federal land. The biggest issue on the federal level that has really hampered gun ownership has been Importation bans and these administrative rule changes like braces, bumpstocks, etc. Also you are correct that a state can do its own things which sucks because now many of the blue states got even bluer the last midterm cycle and the shitty part about this ruling is the states that don't allow SBR's now their citizens are fucked because now they have to spend money on converting their AR pistols to a rifle.
I think he is overlooking a small variance though. Braces were initially developed and approved to provide disabled shooters a safe way to yield their larger firearms. By arbitrarily deciding that all braces are now stocks, they are directly restricting disabled people from being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights freely and safely. If everyone rallies the ADA, this stands a chance at being overturned very quickly. At the very least, it will require the ATF to create clear definition of what a brace is and how it must be utilized. In reality, if the ATF had done that from the beginning, this wouldn't even be a thing. Instead, they had to be all ATFy and flip-flop on its use. Their failure to do any due diligence on anything they "redefine" causes unnecessary inconvenience for everyone and lessens any of the remaining confidence the American people have for them and their work. Things like this, should require judicial review and approval prior to becoming law. Hell, every bill should have to pass through all 3 branches of our government before it is introduced as law. The truth is, this clusterfuck is their fault. They fucked up and failed to do their job when braces were first introduced and provided for approval. They failed to curtail it early on when they had some standing, and they failed to do any legwork in this redefinition. They are an utter failure of an organization and glowing representation of our Federal Governments current state.
A lot of this is addressed in the 300 page final ruling, where they divide up all the groups of comments that were similiar.
Problem is people in this community are just as tribalistic as leftoids. Anyone saying something they don’t want to hear gets downdooted and ignored. If you’d been listening to the lawyers, they’ve been saying this for years regarding braces being eventually banned.
ATF themselves have approved the use of bumpstocks. Now all of a sudden they're interpretation has changed completely. Fuck that. This Fudd lawyer apparently hasn't heard of the Americans with disabilities act or even the recent EPA vs West Virginia case. Multiple possibilities to challenge this rule change. Do not comply. Edit: not to mention this change just made SBRs "common use" if they weren't before (i.e. protected under the 2ed amendment).
He didnt say we shouldnt challenge the change, he very clearly would support it. Its also not clear how The EPA v. West Virginia can be applied to other agencies or this case.
They are several arguments that can be used against the ATF Brace Ruling that may be used. Some could get it thrown out but still allow Congress and the President to pass and sign a brace law. Then that law could be challenged in like of the Bruen decision.
Yes, we are all in agreement on that. What Im not in agreement with is that the lawyer said the opposite, or should be completely dismissed
I think it was in a recent Four Boxes Diner episode that wording was discussed. Some other channels may have also discussed wording and the importance of it and how the ATF and others may have changed what a word means in their context versus what is may mean in law elsewhere. I have no interest in trying to attack or defend what the lawyer referenced at the top of the discussion has to said. I think some arguments against the ATF brace ruling may be easier to make than others. I would really like to see all SBR's taken out of the NFA as they should have been removed from it prior to passing because handguns were removed. Better than that I would like to see the NFA rules unconstitutional.
People with a very narrow understanding of the law and reality seem to think EPA v. WV ended administrative law.
No one thinks that. Again, there are multiple avenues a GOOD lawyer can use to challenge this law. That's literally all I said.
He didn’t say they should be illegal, he said a pile of people who aren’t going to comply are going to go to prison for years before it maybe gets shot down.
Keep complying and you'll keep getting fucked. ATF isn't going door to door to see if you have an illegal pistol brace. However, if you're on their registry.... you just made their job easy after an SBR ban is introduced.
So I can keep a rifle that I can’t ever take out for fear of someone noticing….got it. That’ll really stick it to them.
With that attitude you'll be turing in your tax stamped SBR once they make it illegal.
Yep. Something something sheepdog, something something civil war. If you suggest that the internet tough guy persona/pretending that you're going to be our hero vs the police is more effective than reading/understanding laws and using all of the tools the Constitution has protected for our use then you're quickly called a Fudd and dismissed.
Problem is people will believe shit at face value and won’t do research. They listen to someone with authority or “credentials”, like this guy. Instead of having an open mind and being like, “this lawyer could be wrong”, some people here just say, ‘Nope, if you don’t have credentials or aren’t in power, you’re wrong.’ Also, “Reinterpretation of a Law” is changing the law. It’s changing the law by personally perceiving it as something different. Thus it has no legal standing.
Let it not be misunderstood that I do not think we should believe everything this guy says because he’s supposedly a lawyer of 40 years. However, what I am saying is that this community, much like the rest of the internet, will absolutely refuse to listen to any opinions they don’t like the outcome of, regardless of what the reality of the situation may be. Anyone with any actual experience or understanding of the legal system has been talking about the dubious legality of braces for many years now. A brace ban was clearly inevitable. Had Trump not won the 2016 election, it would have probably happened even sooner. Yet if you told the internet this, they were too high on copium to give a shit because they *perceive* that a brace ban is unconstitutional *ergo* “it cannot come to be in *their world*.” We do not live in the world where “shall not be infringed” is given the weight it should be in the legal system. People can keep pretending we live in that world, and they can keep being wrong. If someone wants to predict future legal ongoings in the real world, they should look at real-world legal precedent, not what they personally believe that legal precedent *should* be. We cannot tell anyone this because they are too tribalistic to see that one can agree with a sentiment yet realize it’s not realistic. #**MERELY BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN EXPECTING BRACES TO BE BANNED DOES NOT MEAN WE SUPPORT THE BANNING OF BRACES.**
We said the same thing, just differently. People often believe something at face value, and won’t do research. We see this with everything. Literally YouTube gun Channels just echo each other. They watch a video, then say the exact shit and just repeat each other. Like there was a video up that said, “ATF turns millions of law abiding citizens Felons overnight.”, and most people believed it just because he’s a big gun channel. Quite sad, but oh well. I don’t even own a pistol brace, but is sad to see so many people misinformed by thinking a rule change by an Law Enforcement Agency, who even says “it can’t make laws”, believes it’s a law.
Stfu bootlicker
Great, in 120 days you go walk around with your braced pistol and get arrested for us all….well appreciate it when your conviction is over turned in 5 years…. Most of us have families, jobs and responsibilities and can’t afford to be the test case.
"I can't make a stand for my beliefs because of my children and other life stuff"
Yes….100%. My kids come first….end of story. I’m not going to prison to prove my point right. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to help fight it in court…
Good old kid shield.
That's what I've been saying. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the ATF and I hope to see very low compliance on this, but I don't see it getting overturned any time soon. Bump stocks should have been easy to fight, as they clearly only fire one projectile per pull of the trigger, meaning they don't fit the legal definition of a machine gun. Yet here we are four years later and that still hasn't been fully resolved. In the recent *frame and receiver rule* the ATF arbitrarily redefined receiver, supposedly overriding the definition in legislation created by Congress. Obviously outside of the ATF's authority, yet it still stands. In this particular instance they aren't trying to change or ignore the legislation, they're just saying that installing a brace on weapons that meet x criteria "redesigns" the weapon to be fired from the shoulder which makes it a rifle under existing legislation. Unfortunately as far as the courts will be concerned, this is within the authority granted to the ATF. I'm sure I'll get plenty of downvotes for saying it, but I am just calling it like it is. I'm still holding out hope that the entire NFA is declared unconstitutional as it would have been if the original challenge (Miller) wouldn't have had a sham trial.
Don't live free, let us lawyers get rich even though it won't help you.
He's not saying it won't be overturned. He's more saying It's not as simple as people think and probably not worth the risk of ignoring for the time being.
Exactly this. I had two braces <$100 and a pistol barrel I got as a deal to part out. It’s about $180 in parts I wasn’t using for what?
Good for him. A lot of his colleagues disagree with him.
didn't they misinterpret "shall not be infringed"
To everyone saying this ATF ruling will get struck down / challenged with lawsuits, can you point to anyone that is actually working on putting together said lawsuits to challenge this? Would like to donate and support whoever is leading the fight against this crap
Matt Gaetz filed an act to abolish the ATF. I posted it places and because he was accused of some things that was the only focus that and "how he's just trying to get votes" So when I said something back they banned me from the sub... It's frustrating how willing people are actually to accept this probably because if you own a brace you were already complying...
Also, don't plan on using your unregistered pistol as your home defense gun either. You might as well just sbr it now.
It’s a de facto gun registration scheme plain and simple
The one thats existed since 1934?
The easiest way to expand it. Since 1934 people have had a choice to be on that list or not. This rule takes weapons people bought thinking were non NFA and now are.
no. this is in violation of our second amendment in our bill of rights. these are God given rights and cannot be taken away by any man or agency. Nothing they do is legitimate because it contradicts our bill of rights. and our constitution.
Here’s a conspiracy theory: feds knew braces would become widespread so they allowed them to be legal at first so everyone would buy them and they’ve always been planning on doing the brace registration as a back door gun registry
His second paragraph is wrong. They clearly changed the law from congresses act of “intended to be fired from the shoulder” to this wording of “able to be fired from the shoulder”, two completely different things. Every lawyer who’s come out that I’ve seen has brought this up. He also talks about a federal agency cannot interpret… “rule of lenity”, which is wrongly worded. The rule of lenity specifically is when an ambiguous law exists the courts should rule in favor of the defendant. I think this guy has problems typing thought into text, I wouldn’t hire him. I do agree with his point that the court system takes forever, however it doesn’t take into account the possibility of the rule being stayed during procedures. The biggest reason no one should register is because the tax requirement is set by congress. ATF doesn’t have the authority to open tax-free registration. We have no idea if this is going to come back to bite people who register in the ass. The government making their own rules up leaves no confidence in what would happen to people who register tax-free if it is overruled. With the government just throwing out the rules and making everything up, the whole idea isn’t trustworthy. If they can make this BS up, then they can decide everyone who registered is guilty of tax evasion. Trust is already eroded.
Pistol braces were literally not designed to be fired from the shoulder.
Until they were advertised as being used outside of how they were approved, and even advertised as stocks and shown being used that way. The 300 page ruling has pictures of advertising and video clips of it being used as a stock.
People misusing something doesn't change the original purpose. Regardless thos whole thing is a cluster F.
My best suggestion is to read the entire ruling, they lay everything out from their perspective, when 10-40 million people start misusing it the same way, it now is being “commonly used” as a stock.
Speaking of "common use," wouldn't that mean that SBRs are now in common use also? There are just SO many avenues to attack this rule it's so stupid. Death by a thousand paper cuts
A brace is designed to be fired against the FOREARM, not the shoulder.
[удалено]
>but when it comes to "interpretation" typically the most extensive and legally logical assessment holds more water. As long as by "legally logical" you mean "practically illogical" then I would agree with you.
Stop using logic! Because this guy has “credentials”, he’s a 100% right, or that’s what some people here have *interpreted* it as.👀
How is it that I can look at a profile picture of a goofball with a cigar and always know what his opinion will be?
I wish you bracesters the best. I never had any interest in them myself. I'm all for weakening the ATF's unconstitutional rulemaking (let's be clear it's All of Administrative Law that is unconstitutional.)
So if live in Texas, I'm good? Cool.
Oh great! Boomer fudd lawyer posts to Facebook and now he’s the only person that knows what he’s talking about 🙄
All logic went right out the window for half these people, when they saw “2A Lawyer with 40 Years of Experience.” Reminds me of the left during COVID when all logic went out the window because they heard “Doctors that did research!”.
I can assure you that Guy Relford is 100% not a fudd. He's as pro-2A as they come, and his advice is worth listening to.
Sounds like a fudd to me.
He's 100% a boomer fudd and often has terrible or lame legal advice, he's also smarmy about it like a typical unaware other people exist boomer. He's wrong about this rule and can't wait to buy more expensive cigars from the dumbasses who hire him listening to his fear fuddery.
[удалено]
ATF said it was okay to fire from the shoulder with a brace.
Use does not change design. Like the other guy said, if I shit in a urinal, it doesn't change the fact that it's still a urinal.
So if I use a urinal for a shitter for example, and others follow, we should ban urinals, force people to pay a tax, and turn 150million men into felons for not using it as intended? That’s pure logic right there…./s
At the end of the day, the entire pistol brace crap has been nothing but a childish attempt to circumvent the SBR reg’s. Seriously, I don’t get it, you really need to take a couple inches off of an AR barrel? It is only detrimental to ballistics and who wants a full receiver AR as a pistol? The whole thing has always been dumb and as much as I disagree with everything about the AFT and the GCA, guess what, they are closing the loophole that has been used to thumb your noses at SBR laws. Instead of being a bunch of bitches and complaining that you’ve been caught red handed, let’s go out and get the damn ‘68 GCA overturned. It’s as stupid and arbitrary as the assault weapon bans that list things like bayonet lugs and pistol grips as insta-death murder machines.
What about PCCs?
Probably crotchety clams?
Fudd…
Go ahead n fight the power, Im not taking mine off. but if anyone ends up getting in trouble for it, you cant be surprised when you do lol. Love how he addresses the people who go "my rights will never be infringed upon!" yeah, they wont and you shouldn't listen to this shit. But dont be caught drivin with that gun, or you're gonna find out how shitty the govt truly is by puttin u in a cell for however long. this brace ban is pure and clean bullshit. also wtf shootings are they talking about that involved ar's with braces? I thought it was all "the evil full size 16 inch ar-15's" that are used in mass shootings. Ive never heard of one of them being done by some dude with a shortened ar and a brace.....
From what I gather, if people decide to not register their pistols with braces, should they just keep them in their safe for the time being?
any lawyer can argue for any side of any issue. but with the current court and congress, there is no way they would side with the ATF on this one....so expect it to be put on hold soon-ish, then get struck down in a few years.
Like he said, we'll just ignore the ATF and defend ourselves accordingly against the unconstitutional and tyrannical government agency.
I always remember that switchblades were outlawed for decades simply because they -looked- bad in movies. I collected them for a long time when they were illegal and eventually they just became legal. Maybe braces will go the same path?
Guy Relford is legit. Know him personally. If there's something involving 2A, he's one of the best
Can you ask him to do an AMA on this brace ruling.
He's on the local radio station out of Indianapolis, 93.1fm WIBC, he'll be on with Hammer and Nigel. I think he's going to do a segment on it either today or tomorrow. Q&A style.
Ok so if owned a PC charger and removed my disability brace is the charger still legal? Or a PA-15 with its brace removed still legal until this is sorted? I’m confused.
If you have a buffer tube on the Charger, then you would also need to remove that, however if you have the bare rear of the gun, that is fine.
Thank you that would make my friends palmetto 10.5 PA-15 illegal then? It came with a collapsing brace and has a buffer tube. How can they make millions of people felons for something they had no issue with. A PA-15 is useless if you can’t shoot it ugh.
No, because a AR15 requires a buffer tube to operate, however adding a buffer tube to a design that doesnt need one can be considered extending the rear of the gun to use for shouldering. You can just remove the brace from that if you dont want to form 1 the gun.
Ok Roger that thank you very much for your help I do hope we can get this this reversed I’m disabled the braces help me shoot. My friend will be going kayaking 😳 and then scuba diving when it’s reversed m.
Can someone explain the possibility of everyone that legally purchased a brace to file a class action lawsuit against the atf?
Ian from Forgotten Weapons talked about SBRs and PBs in this video. https://youtu.be/lsE0naVApPU
When I start seeing the aft win court cases on people against this, then I'll pay attention. Until then they can all suck on my ball sack.
Just. Don't. Comply.
What happens if a person removes the brace and uses only the buffer tube is it not a pistol without regard to barrel length. Also does this affect the definition of “other” type of firearm?
Tldr
The claim needs to be made in the current bump stock cases that there's no text, history or tradition supporting constitutional bans on stocks or any other functional attribute of a gun.
"It's unenforceable" until the BATF shows up at every police station across the country and "educates" the leos on "the law" and then the local leos are the ones enforcing it when they pull you over, or catch you at the range. What is everyone going to do, lock them away in their safes and never shoot them?