AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

[M-Quigley]

Pistol owners with "devices attached" to the pistol that allow the pistol to be shouldered, (to include stabilizing braces) will allegedly have up to 120 days to

1. file the paperwork to have it be a legal SBR

2. remove the device (and no, you can't just remove the device and keep it at home either, it must be made permanently inoperable or get rid of it) and ATF will waive the $200 tax. No word on how long it will take for the ATF to approve the SBR. Some experts in the field say it could backlog the approval system for restricted weapons from the current months to years)

3. turn it into a legal size rifle

4. turn the entire pistol with a "device" into the ATF for destruction.

If you don't comply you could potentially get up to 10 yrs in prison.

b.t.w. what was announced was NOT the proposed rule in 2022, with the form 4999 and the "point system" for determining if the pistol with a brace is an SBR or not, that's gone. In it's place is something far worse. ATF will basically look at your pistol with the "device" attached and determine if it passes or fails, based on some subjective vague statements. Instead of the old "If the length of pull is over 12.5 inches then X points" it's now something to the effect of if the length of pull is "similar to a rifle", and ATF will determine this, not the gun owner. This new ruling (which they did not take comments on like the earlier proposed rule) is hundreds of pages long. If this is allowed to stand legally there will be nothing to stop the ATF and the Biden administration AG to restrict some pistols without a stabilizing brace also, like for example a new rule saying any pistols that have a "similar" weight or length to a rifle are rifles also. The words "similar to" are used a lot in this new ruling.

To me the subjectiveness and ambiguity of it is like driving down the road and having a Sheriff pull me over for speeding, with the Sheriff saying there is a speed limit but he won't tell me what it is exactly, and basically he gets to look at me driving down the road and to decide if I'm speeding or not.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulatio ... ing-braces

There is currently a lawsuit , SAF vs. ATF, and the judge might issue a stay on this ruling until it can work it's way through the courts. In addition a lot of other gun groups, NRA-ILA, GOA, etc. might also sue. Plus there is this:


https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment ... race-rule/

[Brian D.]

I have friends that laughed down their sleeves when I suggested this could happen, and why there wasn't a braced pistol among my inventory. Guess it's time to meet up with them and do my Nelson Muntz impression.

[Bearable]

The Second Amendment Foundation is missing the proper argument. The proper argument is that the statute making the possession of a "short barrel rifle" illegal is unconstitutional. Both Heller and Bruen makes clear that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that were “in common use at the time.” That being at the founding in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Pistols and short barrel rifles were common at the founding and when the 14th. amendment was ratified. The 1934 National Firearms Act placing a tax on an object that you have a right to possess is unconstitutional. Example, Poll taxes were found unconstitutional because you cannot tax a right to vote.

[M-Quigley]

The Second Amendment Foundation is missing the proper argument. The proper argument is that the statute making the possession of a "short barrel rifle" illegal is unconstitutional. Both Heller and Bruen makes clear that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that were “in common use at the time.” That being at the founding in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Pistols and short barrel rifles were common at the founding and when the 14th. amendment was ratified. The 1934 National Firearms Act placing a tax on an object that you have a right to possess is unconstitutional. Example, Poll taxes were found unconstitutional because you cannot tax a right to vote.

I agree but I'm guessing there has been plenty of challenges to the 1934 NFA act that SCOTUS has already ruled on or refused to hear and I don't know whether or not that argument has already been advanced. Even if that argument is advanced and is successful, that is only the tax, (which the ATF is allegedly waiving anyway for the first 120 days) not the NFA requirement to have it approved and registered with the ATF. As much as the NFA should be thrown out on constitutional grounds I seriously doubt SCOTUS will do that.

[FormerNavy]

The Second Amendment Foundation is missing the proper argument. The proper argument is that the statute making the possession of a "short barrel rifle" illegal is unconstitutional. Both Heller and Bruen makes clear that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that were “in common use at the time.” That being at the founding in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Pistols and short barrel rifles were common at the founding and when the 14th. amendment was ratified. The 1934 National Firearms Act placing a tax on an object that you have a right to possess is unconstitutional. Example, Poll taxes were found unconstitutional because you cannot tax a right to vote.

I agree but I'm guessing there has been plenty of challenges to the 1934 NFA act that SCOTUS has already ruled on or refused to hear and I don't know whether or not that argument has already been advanced. Even if that argument is advanced and is successful, that is only the tax, (which the ATF is allegedly waiving anyway for the first 120 days) not the NFA requirement to have it approved and registered with the ATF. As much as the NFA should be thrown out on constitutional grounds I seriously doubt SCOTUS will do that.

I'm not sure there really have been many or any challenges to the 1934 NFA.

That being said, does ATF even have legislative authority to waive the tax stamp fee for 120 days? I'm not so sure they do, so I'm not sure they can even do that part.

[Bearable]

United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 - Supreme Court (1939) involved a challenge to a federal indictment for unlawfully transporting in interstate commerce an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, as had been prohibited by the National Firearms Act of 1934. A district court had dismissed the indictment after concluding that the challenged criminal provision infringed the defendant’s Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, on direct appeal, reversed that ruling:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

The Supreme Court in Heller made clear that its conclusion as to the right to bear arms was not foreclosed by its earlier ruling in Miller.

Heller made clear that Miller did not “purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment,” and thus, Heller reasoned, it cannot read Miller to “say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” Heller made clear ‘“The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”’

So, based on the reading of Heller, the right to possess a short barrel rifle or sawed off shotgun is a question still open.

[schmieg]

The real shame about Miller is that the defendant could not afford counsel and the government filed and prosecuted the appeals unopposed.

[M-Quigley]

What the heck?

Allegedly ATF is now claiming that once the background check process starts, IF it somehow takes them longer than 88 days, (which it could possibly, particularly if a delay is slow rolled in investigation ) it is considered automatically denied, and allegedly according to an ATF agent at the SHOT show, the ATF would have the right to "take enforcement action". (meaning confiscate the pistol, arrest you)

I suppose the good news for people who file a form 1 to take advantage of not paying the tax on a alleged SBR is if ATF does get millions of filings in the next 4 months the 88 days won't start for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggOmUXxVWY

[DOA33]

If you submit a Form 1 with a picture of the weapon you own and the form gets denied, you have provided the ATF with hard evidence that you own a NFA weapon. They'll have your name, address, fingerprints, & picture of your face. As Quigley pointed out, if the process is taking longer than 88 days guess who is now a felon. I hope no one submits to this outrages foolishness by the ATF.

[DOA33]

It gets better. Reading the ruling, any and all pistols that have been imported with a brace must be turned over or destroyed. It does not matter if you have removed the brace and made it inoperable.

[M-Quigley]

It gets better. Reading the ruling, any and all pistols that have been imported with a brace must be turned over or destroyed. It does not matter if you have removed the brace and made it inoperable.

Where is that at? I couldn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, or isn't there now, since ATF seems to like to change their minds on a whim) Can you provide a link?

I'm glad my friend who guards a church lot with his AR pistol in his car will be using a good old American made pistol and ammo if a mass shooter decides to do what other mass shooters at churches have done. Wouldn't want a mass murderer to be taken down and innocent lives saved with an imported gun. (sarcasm)

Someone I know who has taken on the government in court and in appeals courts and won is of the opinion there is a very good chance one of the hundreds (sarcasm) of lawsuits against this, that at least 1 judge will issue a TRO on enforcement of this new ruling. His reasoning is that one of the things to stay legal if you don't want to register it as an SBR is either destroy the whole gun (which even ATF admits probably won't happen but they have to mention it) or remove and destroy the brace. They don't use the word "destroy" they say make it permanently inoperable so that it can never be reattached again, which is in effect the same thing (unless you want to keep it as a reminder of the awesome power of the ATF (sarcasm) )

He has been some braces costing $200 and some estimates place the total number of sales of braces at up to 40 million. Even taking half those numbers of cost and braces, that is an economic hardship to the owners of the braces of
2 billion dollars. if the ruling is later overturned, and they can't merely put the braces back on. It's just an opinion of his though, he is not currently involved in any suits in this matter. I hope he is right though.

[M-Quigley]

Never mind about the imported pistols, I just found multiple links. Here is one example. If true, wow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK4gJeJ_CI4

[bignflnut]

Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna gave a press conference Sunday in which he announced the Lunar New Year celebration shooting suspect had allegedly used a “semiautomatic assault pistol” to shoot and kill ten people Saturday night.

Just so everyone knows, now all pistols are "assault pistols"... because the language is the battlefront and the push is ON

[DOA33]

Another update from the fine people at the ATF.

Any and all NFA item from now on can only be used by the registered person. No more letting anyone else use it even if you're right there supervising.

You can find this gem under their website FAQ.

[url]eforms.atf.gov/faq[/url]

[M-Quigley]

Another update from the fine people at the ATF.

Any and all NFA item from now on can only be used by the registered person. No more letting anyone else use it even if you're right there supervising.

You can find this gem under their website FAQ.

[url]eforms.atf.gov/faq[/url]

I'm sure it's probably there but I went to the link and couldn't find anything referencing this on that page. Is there another link on that page I'm supposed to click on to get to that?

What will happen to the gun shops that rent full auto firearms at their own range?