Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: gunsmith on September 03, 2022, 03:35:59 PM
-
I think the ATF has been banning frames and receivers and parts/kits , I knew it was totally unconstitutional and have not followed it closely .
Some cool company out there sued, won.
IANAL but this looks like good news
WOW!!! Judge DESTROYS ATF Frame/Receiver Rule! Says It's Facially Unlawful!!
[/b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8AMKi1Mo28
-
Yay! Now let's get a
GCA NFA* 34 case in front of that judge.
Dream on, Terry... dream on.
Terry, 230RN
* Oops, thanks bedlamite. They all look the same to me.
-
Judge O'Conner did not kill himself.
-
Yay! Now let's get a GCA NFA34 case in front of that judge.
Dream on, Terry... dream on.
Terry, 230RN
FTFY, and I really hope Matt can take care of that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltlS6zBZEuo
-
This is a start, and good. Not just the ATF (although that's where my interests lie) but the executive branch in general is a little to free with "rule making". I blame Congress as much as the agencies. They were all too happy to abdicate their power so as to never have to take a stand, but it's well out of hand. West VA. v EPA is hopefully the start of that.
Sadly, I think the pistol brace rule is doomed, as the vast majority of users are in fact using the braced "pistol" as an SBR. We just need to convince a court that an M4 is protected under the 2A as the obvious arm of the militia.
-
Link to the decision: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1662145028/VanDerStok_v_Garland_Order_on_MPI.pdf?1662145028
The Final Rule’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning. The definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically “the frame or receiver of any such weapon” that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver. Congress could have included firearm parts that “may readily be onverted” to frames or receivers, as it did with “weapons” that “may readily be converted” to fire a projectile. But it omitted that language when talking about frames and receivers. “[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 1782 (2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when Congress uses a phrase in one part of a definition and excludes that phrase from another part of the very same definition, courts should give effect to Congress’s deliberate exclusion.
-
We just need to convince a court that an M4 is protected under the 2A as the obvious arm of the militia.
Very much so.
-
Don't celebrate yet. This isn't a decision -- it's only an injunction preventing the ATF from applying their new definitions in the territory encompassing the Fifth Circuit until the lawsuit can be heard.
That said, it's a well-reasoned order, and might even have provided the plaintiff's attorneys with some references for their use when it gets to trial.
-
As far as the ATF going too far, rumor has it the ATF is looking for additional funding to process a "registration amnesty" for braced pistols later this year - they're now going to be retroactively redefined as SBRs. Estimates are that somewhere north of 4,000,000 firearms will be affected. If true, this retroactively invalidates all the previous ATF letters to both manufacturers and individuals stating that braced pistols were NOT SBRs.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/atf-pistol-brace-amnesty-registration-program/
This could be a real problem for those living in states that allow pistols but not SBRs. No word on whether or not removing the brace will exempt the subject firearm from these new requirements.
I expect court fights - as does, no doubt, the ATF. But they have effectively unlimited funds to pay lawyers, so they don't care.
-
We just need to convince a court that an M4 is protected under the 2A as the obvious arm of the militia.
Indeed, very much so.
The Final Rule’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning. The definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically “the frame or receiver of any such weapon” that Congress defined as a firearm.
Which is exactly why I've been bellyaching for years about "our" usage of the terms "upper receiver" and "lower receiver." It lends credence to the notion that both parts are firearms and need serializing and 4473s.
We ourselves are stepping on our own feet on that one.
Terry, 230RN
-
As far as the ATF going too far, rumor has it the ATF is looking for additional funding to process a "registration amnesty" for braced pistols later this year - they're now going to be retroactively redefined as SBRs. Estimates are that somewhere north of 4,000,000 firearms will be affected. If true, this retroactively invalidates all the previous ATF letters to both manufacturers and individuals stating that braced pistols were NOT SBRs.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/atf-pistol-brace-amnesty-registration-program/
This could be a real problem for those living in states that allow pistols but not SBRs. No word on whether or not removing the brace will exempt the subject firearm from these new requirements.
I expect court fights - as does, no doubt, the ATF. But they have effectively unlimited funds to pay lawyers, so they don't care.
Yes and no. That's not quite what the rule says. You could have a firearm with a pistol brace on it that is still a pistol. The new rule doesn't invalidate the pistol brace letters. What the new rule does do is make clear that having an installed pistol brace in conjunction with some other things constitutes "redesigning " the pistol into a firearm intended to be shot from the shoulder.
As to the take it off question, those answers already exist. If you take off the combination of parts that makes the gun an SBR prior to the rule taking effect, no harm no foul. If the reciever started life as a rifle, and you make it an SBR by adding parts after the rule is in effect, it's always an SBR. If it started life as a pistol or other it can go back and forth between rifle and pistol, but you need to install a >16" barrel before you install the stock (or brace + other accessories)
The proposed rule has a checklist and point system to determine if your particular weapon configuration with a pistol brace is a pistol or SBR, but it's convoluted enough I'm not going to try and explain it.
-
Adding braces to the NFA is going to make the tax stamp wait even more obscene.
-
The proposed rule has a checklist and point system to determine if your particular weapon configuration with a pistol brace is a pistol or SBR, but it's convoluted enough I'm not going to try and explain it.
Yeah... and if the brace complies with their stupid point system, the BAFE still reserves the right to declare your gun an illegal SBR anyway.
-
Yes and no. That's not quite what the rule says. You could have a firearm with a pistol brace on it that is still a pistol. The new rule doesn't invalidate the pistol brace letters. What the new rule does do is make clear that having an installed pistol brace in conjunction with some other things constitutes "redesigning " the pistol into a firearm intended to be shot from the shoulder.
As to the take it off question, those answers already exist. If you take off the combination of parts that makes the gun an SBR prior to the rule taking effect, no harm no foul. If the reciever started life as a rifle, and you make it an SBR by adding parts after the rule is in effect, it's always an SBR. If it started life as a pistol or other it can go back and forth between rifle and pistol, but you need to install a >16" barrel before you install the stock (or brace + other accessories)
The proposed rule has a checklist and point system to determine if your particular weapon configuration with a pistol brace is a pistol or SBR, but it's convoluted enough I'm not going to try and explain it.
The ATF has already said that doing something like modifying an approved brace MAY effectively create an SBR. What's leaking out now suggests ATF may be getting ready to put forth something that goes well beyond that soon - December is the expected time frame. The checklist and point system seem to result in nearly all braced pistols being redefined to be SBRs. ATF has already indicated that should a braced pistol somehow "pass" their point system checklist, they may determine it's an SBR anyway. The future status of firearms originally sold as braced pistols (e.g., CMMG Banshee) as of right now is uncertain - ATF may creatively reinterpret them to be "unregistered SBRs" and following the "once an SBR, always an SBR" rule decide they need to be registered under an amnesty whether you take the brace off nor not.
Lots of speculation right now - we really don't KNOW for sure what they're going to do.
-
Their status is not uncertain at all. If the proposed rule goes into effect, and the weapons have pistol braces installed on the effective date, they are SBRs.
The proposed rule pretty clearly attempts to make any pistol brace configuration that would be useful from the shoulder into an SBR while leaving the original "stated" use of strapping the gun to your forearm as legal. That's why I said it doesn't revoke the letters that SB Tactical et. al. recieved. Those letters were all predicated on the "strap pistol to your forearm" use case.
The ATF has already said that doing something like modifying an approved brace MAY effectively create an SBR. What's leaking out now suggests ATF may be getting ready to put forth something that goes well beyond that soon - December is the expected time frame.
Nothing is "leaking" out now. The notice of proposed rule change, and the text of that rule have been public for months. In fact, it was originally going to take effect last month and the ATF pushed the effective date to Dec to try and beef up the eforms site. The only New info recently is that ATF is considering an amnesty on the Form 1s for a braced weapon so that it won't cost you $200 to register them.
Lots of speculation right now - we really don't KNOW for sure what they're going to do.
We know exactly what they are going to do.
Here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
Proposed Rule 2021R-08 in it's entirely is linked from that site. There's no leaks, and the ATF is crystal clear on what they are attempting to do:. If you have a praced pistol that is set up so that it can be effectively fired from the shoulder, that's an SBR.
-
Given that this is a rule rather than a law, what would it take for (e.g.) DeSantis to put the kibosh on it in 2024?
-
Given that this is a rule rather than a law, what would it take for (e.g.) DeSantis to put the kibosh on it in 2024?
:rofl: :rofl:
Be a neat trick indeed since the people that count the votes aren't going to let him win.
-
:rofl: :rofl:
Be a neat trick indeed since the people that count the votes aren't going to let him win.
It's not election fraud if they're changing the election outcome to what it should be.
-
Given that this is a rule rather than a law, what would it take for (e.g.) DeSantis to put the kibosh on it in 2024?
I am not 100% sure of exactly the process once the rule is posted to the federal register.
For it to be an executive function, I suppose the President could order the ATF to come up with a new rule undoing this. The new rule then it would have to go thorough the rule-making process (Notice of proposed change, public comment period, updated proposed rule, wait time, publish to register)
This should more correctly be a legislative function, but the legislature has had decision paralysis for years and seems unlikely to recover any time soon.
The rule could be challenged in court, but unlike the frame and receiver rule I suspect the ATF is correct in their analysis that most of the pistol braces sold "redesign" the pistol to be fired from the shoulder, and the SBR definition (unlike the frame and receiver definition) is spelled out in the relevant legislation. I think we'd have better luck challenging SBR's inclusion in the NFA itself under Miller (weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia ... are free from government regulation.) and/or Heller (weapons in common use are protected) and that's probably a long shot.
-
Given that this is a rule rather than a law, what would it take for (e.g.) DeSantis to put the kibosh on it in 2024?
Of course he could. Just order the BAFE to change their ruling. Just like a President could order the BATFE to give us a rational interpretation of the "sporting purpose clause" and allow foreign evil black rifles to be imported. Is there any reason to think a Republican President would do so?
No.
Trump was the most "pro-gun" (in that he did not support an AWB) president since JFK and he did nothing for gun owners using his executive power. His only executive use of gun related power that I can recall was screwing over people that owned bump stocks.
Presidents could do quite a lot for gun owners using executive power, but none of them ever have done so. Ever!
-
I am not 100% sure of exactly the process once the rule is posted to the federal register.
For it to be an executive function, I suppose the President could order the ATF to come up with a new rule undoing this. The new rule then it would have to go thorough the rule-making process (Notice of proposed change, public comment period, updated proposed rule, wait time, publish to register)
This should more correctly be a legislative function, but the legislature has had decision paralysis for years and seems unlikely to recover any time soon.
The rule could be challenged in court, but unlike the frame and receiver rule I suspect the ATF is correct in their analysis that most of the pistol braces sold "redesign" the pistol to be fired from the shoulder, and the SBR definition (unlike the frame and receiver definition) is spelled out in the relevant legislation. I think we'd have better luck challenging SBR's inclusion in the NFA itself under Miller (weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia ... are free from government regulation.) and/or Heller (weapons in common use are protected) and that's probably a long shot.
How can the AFT be right about anything when their very existence is to violate an enumerated right?
-
Presidents could do quite a lot for gun owners using executive power, but none of them ever have done so. Ever!
Trump rescinded Obama's rule about the VA reporting those with disabilities to the NICS. Would that count?
-
How can the AFT be right about anything when their very existence is to violate an enumerated right?
Not sure if serious.
The ATF didn't write the NFA, and their interpretations of the various iundefined portions of it is usually a coin toss. But setting aside the "executive branch rule-making" farce that they love so much, in this case I think they are interpreting the language of the NFA how Congress meant it. As opposed to the forced reset trigger, where they are ignoring the plain text to do what they want.
-
. . . You could have a firearm with a pistol brace on it that is still a pistol. The new rule doesn't invalidate the pistol brace letters. What the new rule does do is make clear that having an installed pistol brace in conjunction with some other things constitutes "redesigning " the pistol into a firearm intended to be shot from the shoulder. . . .
IANAL so help me understand this . . . if the new rule does not invalidate the pistol brace letters, is it your contention that a braced pistol in exactly the configuration shipped from the manufacturer under the aegis of an ATF letter with no subsequent alterations will NOT be recategorized as an SBR?
-
There are way too many variations to answer that. I would say read the rule, it lays out what is likely to be an SBR.
I would also add that as far as I know most all of the guns sold with factory braces don't themselves have a letter, but rather were sold under the letter that the brace alone recieved and was operating under. That is the letter i was commenting on that is not invalidated. A brace by itself, or installed on a pistol in a way that doesn't redesign the pistol to be fired from the shoulder isn't itself, nor does it make the pistol, an SBR.
I suspect that factory rifles like an MCX or a CMMG Banshee will indeed be squarely in the SBR territory, although it might depend on your optics choice.
As someone that owns several braced pistols that are about to become SBRs I am concerned with this rule, and have spent quite some time figuring out what it does and does not say.
-
Trump rescinded Obama's rule about the VA reporting those with disabilities to the NICS. Would that count?
Yes, I did not know that.
-
Not sure if serious.
The ATF didn't write the NFA, and their interpretations of the various iundefined portions of it is usually a coin toss. But setting aside the "executive branch rule-making" farce that they love so much, in this case I think they are interpreting the language of the NFA how Congress meant it. As opposed to the forced reset trigger, where they are ignoring the plain text to do what they want.
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
-
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
I'm sorry, was the NFA declared unconstitutional while I was napping? Has US jurisprudence changed from the assumption of constitutionality until found otherwise?
There are plenty of laws that I disagree with that are still on the books. I can disagree with the law while still acknowledging that it exists, what it says, and that it will be enforced upon me.
-
Not sure if serious.
The ATF didn't write the NFA, and their interpretations of the various iundefined portions of it is usually a coin toss. But setting aside the "executive branch rule-making" farce that they love so much, in this case I think they are interpreting the language of the NFA how Congress meant it. As opposed to the forced reset trigger, where they are ignoring the plain text to do what they want.
The NFA violates and enumerated right, as congress intended. The BATFE was given the job of enforcing this violation.
-
We just need to convince a court that an M4 is protected under the 2A as the obvious arm of the militia.
Best I can do is an A1 receiver, A2 upper, fixed stock, iron sights, no optic.
-
The NFA violates and enumerated right, as congress intended. The BATFE was given the job of enforcing this violation.
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Not to be a dick, but what's your *expletive deleted*ing point?
The NFA, however odious, is not practically unconstitional until a court finds it so, and no court has. Additionally ATF has proven both willing to, and adept at, killing people who cross the lines they draw with their rule-making, whether they have the theoretical power to make laws or not. I love a good internet chest beating as much as the next guy, but considering I own several solvent traps in various stages of Form 1-ing, a Rare Breed Trigger, and 12 pistol braced weapons, 5 of which are Privately Made Firearms, and 3 of those are 3D printed receivers, this summer has made me pretty keen on knowing exactly where the ATF is choosing to draw the line on visiting people.
I guess we could all make do with 16" rifles and sneer at pistol braces and solvent traps on the internet like good little Fudd serfs.
I could tell fed.gov to *expletive deleted*ck right off, and take my chances with whatever Tac Team shows up next. I'm sure my wife and dogs would love that.
Seriously though: What's your suggestion for dealing with the ATF's rulemaking? My pistol braced guns are too practically useful to just give up that class of weapon.
-
The right to kill your children until six months in the womb was a "Constitional right" up until a few months ago. Now it isn't.
In fact, there was never a Constitional right to abortion, and jackasses in robes lying about it did not make it so.
What Judges claim may change what the government will imprision you over, but it does not determine the actual meaning of words and why they were written in the Bill of Rights.
The NFA is unconstitional whether or not Judges think it is. Because they can lie, ignore the law and facts and can and do usually vote their personal preferences.
-
That's why I said it isn't practically unconstitutional. It may be unconstitutional. But if you build a machine gun and show it to the ATF you'll find the NFA enforced as if it was constitutional.
So until some "jackasses in robes" actually write the words, we can treat it as constitutional for day to day life.
-
If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
A lot of people will be going to jail
-
If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
A lot of people will be going to jail
Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.
I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.
-
Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.
I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.
oh, you have a good point - however they're just under the impression that the second amendment means what it says - most folks are not like us, most folks just imagine they know whats legal and whats not.
Like if they grew up in NJ, they imagine JHP is illegal everywhere.
Lots of NYPD think AR15's are banned everywhere except for PD use.
I know a retired SFPD guy who thinks loaded open carry is legal in CA
-
That's why I said it isn't practically unconstitutional. It may be unconstitutional. But if you build a machine gun and show it to the ATF you'll find the NFA enforced as if it was constitutional.
So until some "jackasses in robes" actually write the words, we can treat it as constitutional for day to day life.
Some have questioned the morality of abiding by laws that are themselves illegal or unconstitutional by the plain reading of the Constitution. When asked whether or not a person SHOULD obey a bad law, Ayn Rand (you've probably heard of her) replied with words to the effect that you don't stop a juggernaut by laying down in front of it.
Sad to say, multiple parts of the Constitution have been ignored, and "jackasses in robes" have avoided doing their %$#!@ jobs because of political expediency. But from a practical sense, we're still stuck with the bad result - ignore it at your peril.
-
I opined several years ago that one of the problems with a failure of the Rule of Law (and with passing bad or nonsensical laws) is that following the law becomes less of a moral choice, and more of a tactical one. People don't follow the law because it's right, rather because it's too inconvenient not to follow the law. The problem with this is that tactical considerations can change quickly and without warning, and are much less compelling to people than their morals.
The US is well down this path.
-
I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.
Sorry, are you under the impression that as of right now it is "unlawful" to use a pistol brace as a shoulder stock?
Or, put another way, as it appears you have failed to keep up with the current status of pistol braces and the ATF's waffling on them, does that make you too stupid to play outdoors without adult supervision?
-
Sorry, are you under the impression that as of right now it is "unlawful" to use a pistol brace as a shoulder stock?
Or, put another way, as it appears you have failed to keep up with the current status of pistol braces and the ATF's waffling on them, does that make you too stupid to play outdoors without adult supervision?
Actually, I follow the current status of "pistol braces" very closely, and I am well aware of the ATF's waffling. ATF waffling aside, all you have to do is read the underlying law and regulations (not the "new" rules, the old rules).
-
Actually, I follow the current status of "pistol braces" very closely, and I am well aware of the ATF's waffling. ATF waffling aside, all you have to do is read the underlying law and regulations (not the "new" rules, the old rules).
No. The pistol brace was specifically designed to fall within the letter of the law. If you'd like me to detail why, I'm happy to do so, but you say you're hip so I'm sure that's not necessary.
The point of the "new" rules is that the ATF has to make new rules out of whole cloth in order to prohibit them.
-
If the pistol brace becomes illegal it will be a huge mess.
I know/have met a bunch of dudes with them, not a single one of them follows what is going on WRT gun rights in the courts.
A lot of people will be going to jail
I am with you on this. There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF. They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal. Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF.
-
I am with you on this. There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF. They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal. Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF.
Should be great fun looking for the guys in 5.11 shorts, blue polos and New Balances walking around gun shows looking to by "pistols".
-
I opined several years ago that one of the problems with a failure of the Rule of Law (and with passing bad or nonsensical laws) is that following the law becomes less of a moral choice, and more of a tactical one. People don't follow the law because it's right, rather because it's too inconvenient not to follow the law. The problem with this is that tactical considerations can change quickly and without warning, and are much less compelling to people than their morals.
The US is well down this path.
It's been recognized that there are two types of laws - malum in se and malum prohibitum. (Lawyers love Latin.) The first is a law that outlaws something that is fundamentally wrong - murder, burglary, theft, etc. The second is a "because we said so" type of law - for example, in some places if an adult buys a six pack of beer at 12:01 PM on Sunday that's fine, but if he does it 2 minutes earlier at 11:59 AM, that's a crime. Good people won't commit the first because, well, the underlying behavior is wrong. As for the second - well, that's where tactical choice comes it; rational people don't care about taking "illegal" actions that aren't inherently wrong, they'll just try to be careful about being caught.
-
I am with you on this. There will be some people are out there who will not keep up with the constant rule changes by the ATF. They will assume that since they bought a gun from the sporting goods store, that it is legal. Odds are most of those type people will never attract the attention of the ATF.
Yup. "Ignorance is no excuse" and "people should know better" doesn't fly with me anymore. Everyone on this site is a criminal, either misdemeanor or felon. Every one of us. There is no way to exist in the US anymore and not have committed a crime punishable with jailtime based on laws on the books, whether you are knowingly breaking a law or unknowingly breaking one of the hundreds of thousands you've never heard of.
Saying, "but they're unconstitutional!" doesn't work. As mentioned above, most of us are too comfortable to accept jailtime or $500K in legal fees fighting against a government with unlimited resources to destroy us. It may be a cop out, but I continue to strive for "under the radar". Until they go far enough to flip our switch, my strategy is to just stay away from the core planets and not call the feds.
-
Indeed, very much so.
Which is exactly why I've been bellyaching for years about "our" usage of the terms "upper receiver" and "lower receiver." It lends credence to the notion that both parts are firearms and need serializing and 4473s.
We ourselves are stepping on our own feet on that one.
Terry, 230RN
The part with the barrel where the bullet goes in should be the "receiver". The "undercarriage" that does the loading (movement of the hammer and bullet) should be the "body" of the gun as it doesn't really "receive" anything.
Now, before any of you say it receives the bullet from the magazine, NO it doesn't. The magazine elevates the bullet itself THROUGH the "body", then the bolt that is part of the "receiver" shoves it into place to be fired. [popcorn]
-
Ignorance is not always bliss, and sometimes stupid should hurt.
I'm sorry to sound like a jerk but, IMHO, people who buy something that's marketed and sold as a wrist brace and then persist in using it as a shoulder stock -- and profess NOT to know that's unlawful -- are probably too stupid to be allowed to play outdoors without adult supervision.
You think people who have pistol braces and use them as shoulder stocks "should hurt"? That is not a good attitude to have.
-
The part with the barrel where the bullet goes in should be the "receiver". The "undercarriage" that does the loading (movement of the hammer and bullet) should be the "body" of the gun as it doesn't really "receive" anything.
Now, before any of you say it receives the bullet from the magazine, NO it doesn't. The magazine elevates the bullet itself THROUGH the "body", then the bolt that is part of the "receiver" shoves it into place to be fired. [popcorn]
Except that the receiver is specifically defined as holding fire control components. Until last month the definition called out "hammer" and "firing mechanism" among other parts. Now it is "A part of a firearm that, ... provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components".
It is the weapons parts that are being "received", not the ammunition.
-
Wonder if the new ruling will affect FAL rifle uppers and lowers.
-
Wonder if the new ruling will affect FAL rifle uppers and lowers.
No. It does not change them.
-
No. The pistol brace was specifically designed to fall within the letter of the law. If you'd like me to detail why, I'm happy to do so, but you say you're hip so I'm sure that's not necessary.
I never said it wasn't.
What IS unlawful is attaching a wrist brace to a short-barreled rifle with the intention of using it as a shoulder stock rather than as a wrist brace.
-
I never said it wasn't.
What IS unlawful is attaching a wrist brace to a short-barreled rifle with the intention of using it as a shoulder stock rather than as a wrist brace.
That statement entirely presupposes the status of the firearm as well as the intent of the manufacturer.
If I assemble an AR15 pistol without any adornment to the buffer tube but with the full intent of shouldering the bare buffer tube is it a short barreled rifle?
-
That statement entirely presupposes the status of the firearm as well as the intent of the manufacturer.
Yes ... it does. Read the definition ... it clearly says "intended to be fired from the shoulder" (or something pretty close thereto).
So if I attach a wrist brace to an AR that has a short barrel, and I fire it one-handed with the brace strapped to my wrist as intended, I am within the law. If, on the other hand, I attach the same wrist brace to the same AR firearm with no intention of firing it one-handed, and all I ever do is shoot it like a rifle with the "wrist brace" lodged firmly on my shoulder ... I have broken the law.
Hello, Demolition Ranch ...
-
Yes ... it does. Read the definition ... it clearly says "intended to be fired from the shoulder" (or something pretty close thereto).
So if I attach a wrist brace to an AR that has a short barrel, and I fire it one-handed with the brace strapped to my wrist as intended, I am within the law. If, on the other hand, I attach the same wrist brace to the same AR firearm with no intention of firing it one-handed, and all I ever do is shoot it like a rifle with the "wrist brace" lodged firmly on my shoulder ... I have broken the law.
Hello, Demolition Ranch ...
For a while it was the BATmen's contention that they could regulate how one holds a braced firearm, and that holding it in the "unapproved" manner constituted "manufacture" of an SBR. That was more asinine than their "a shoelace is a machine gun" assertion and it eventually fell by the wayside.
-
Yes ... it does. Read the definition ... it clearly says "intended to be fired from the shoulder" (or something pretty close thereto).
This is what you're looking for:
(7)The term “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 an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
You're saying that "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended" also applies to the user, not just the manufacturer of either the weapon or stock and that your reading is so clear that anyone who doesn't come to your exact understanding needs adult supervision. I think you're full of it, and if I were inclined to be generous to you and the AFT I'd say that it is at best legally unclear and could be argued either way. That you want it to "hurt" for anyone who disagrees with your interpretation speaks ill of you.
So if I attach a wrist brace to an AR that has a short barrel, and I fire it one-handed with the brace strapped to my wrist as intended, I am within the law. If, on the other hand, I attach the same wrist brace to the same AR firearm with no intention of firing it one-handed, and all I ever do is shoot it like a rifle with the "wrist brace" lodged firmly on my shoulder ... I have broken the law.
If you own a braced pistol and have only ever used it strapped to your wrist, but when you let me shoot the gun I shoulder it and fire it have I manufactured an illegal SBR? When I hand it back to you is it now permanently an illegal SBR because I remade it, or changed intent somewhere? Or is it only illegal while I am holding it?
Or, again, if I have an unadorned AR buffer tube on a pistol and I fully intend to shove that against my shoulder while firing, have I manufactured an SBR? The only way you and the AFT can be consistent with your strained interpretation is to say that because I intend to use the buffer tube as a stock then by touching a buffer tube to my shoulder I have manufactured an SBR despite doing no redesigning or remaking of the weapon or any components on it.
If, on the other hand, the end use is not relevant then the SBR status hinges on the intent of the designer of the weapon and components. As the manufacturer of the pistol braces has stated their intent is for the braces to be used as braces, the misuse of their product does not change its design or intent.
-
As I said:
I guess we could all make do with 16" rifles and sneer at pistol braces and solvent traps on the internet like good little Fudd serfs.