ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[jcutonilli]

Understood. But the meat of the case - which the federal judge clearly thinks will go to the plaintiffs - is about the ATF going outside statutory boundaries in making sh!t up. Brings bump stocks and braces right to mind.

The judge did not grant the restraining order on all of the plaintiffs, only the one manufacturer. The judge is holding additional hearings to see if it should apply to the other plaintiffs. It certainly is a good sign. We shall see if the injunction will hold up at the appellate level.

The bump stock issue has not gone well. Three of the circuits have accepted the ATF reasoning at the appellate level. A fourth circuit (the 5th Circuit) is rehearing the case en banc on 13 Sept. Hopefully they will overturn the ATF reasoning.

The brace rules have not been release. We will see if there are any impacts, but I suspect the ATF will release something similar to the proposed rules.

 

[Doctor_M]

So even with say a 90 day amnesty to file, ATF is averging over 400 days to approve stamps now... what happens if you file and they take a couple of years to issue a stamp... would you have to turn your currently legally owned weapon over to an FFL to hold pending approval... this whole idea sucks balls.

 

[Bob A]

There's millions of braced pistols out there. No way that ATF could approve them all within the lifetime of the owners.

If they push it through, they'd have to engage in a wholesale mailing of stamps; if they take that route, how can they defend 12+ months to approve a suppressor?

 

[Mike OTDP]

There's millions of braced pistols out there. No way that ATF could approve them all within the lifetime of the owners.

If they push it through, they'd have to engage in a wholesale mailing of stamps; if they take that route, how can they defend 12+ months to approve a suppressor?

This will be the big hangup...one way or another, the business of taking a year to process Form 1s and Form 4s has to end.

 

[TinCuda]

Somewhere early on, I read that the ATF expects that 60% of brace owners will just take them off. If that is the case, how would the ATF know who did or didn't simply remove the brace? How can this be even remotely enforceable? I have a felling that if this overly optimistic infringement does actually hold up in court, it will just be an addition violation that is stacked onto the pile of charges when you get busted robbing a convenience store. Even if you boil it down to a mere one million people that willfully violate the bogus rule, there is no way the ATF could possible go door to door to each offender. I think this whole thing will get overturned. The democrats know it, the ATF know it. It's just pandering for leftist votes.

 

[Occam]

It's just pandering for leftist votes.

I don't know about that. I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority of lefties have absolutely no idea what a brace is, what they do and don't do, or what sort of firearms they modify by their presence. Rather, this is being done by swamp creatures who know - in broad demographic terms - who this will offend and infringe upon, and they do it with malice towards that end. It provides opportunities to put politically undesirable people in legal jeopardy over a technicality they can whip out at will. The average Karen has zero understanding of the details. Obviously they're more than happy to support it because they'll just be told "weapons of war and mass murder" and that's all they need to hear. But this is statist bureaucrats doing with firearm accessories the same sort of thing they do with that 20-foot pond you dug out with your lawn tractor's snow plow: now it's a wetland and we've got you by the short hairs, evil redneck!

 

[Boats]

Somewhere early on, I read that the ATF expects that 60% of brace owners will just take them off. If that is the case, how would the ATF know who did or didn't simply remove the brace? How can this be even remotely enforceable? I have a felling that if this overly optimistic infringement does actually hold up in court, it will just be an addition violation that is stacked onto the pile of charges when you get busted robbing a convenience store. Even if you boil it down to a mere one million people that willfully violate the bogus rule, there is no way the ATF could possible go door to door to each offender. I think this whole thing will get overturned. The democrats know it, the ATF know it. It's just pandering for leftist votes.

Nah, they will just let local LEOs do it one at a time when someone gets caught with one at the range or in their car.

 

[BurkeM]

Can't you just remove the brace and have a perfectly legal pistol?


Yes, since they’re primarily going after the brace- not the actual receiver, barrel or magazine size.

 

[Growler215]

If you just remove the brace from an AR pistol with a carbine buffer tube, could you potentially still be found to be in "constructive possession" of an SBR if you have a brace or stock laying around that you could put on your AR pistol in a couple of seconds?

 

[Mike OTDP]

If you just remove the brace from an AR pistol with a carbine buffer tube, could you potentially still be found to be in "constructive possession" of an SBR if you have a brace or stock laying around that you could put on your AR pistol in a couple of seconds?

Yes.

 

[BigWilly]

Anyone know where I can find where it spells out the 29" OAL is with the stock/brace extended in order to be MD compliant?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[Speed3]

Well shoot, I can have as many sbrs as I want for free?

 

[jcutonilli]

If you just remove the brace from an AR pistol with a carbine buffer tube, could you potentially still be found to be in "constructive possession" of an SBR if you have a brace or stock laying around that you could put on your AR pistol in a couple of seconds?

Currently the answer is no because the rule ATF has proposed on the issue has not been finalized.

Assuming that the ATF issues the final rule and it is not struck down, then the answer is maybe. It depends on the situation and how you answer any question. If the only thing you have is an AR pistol and the brace, then it is likely you will be found in "constructive possession". If it is with other parts where the brace could be used legally, then probably not.

 

[thomfantomas]

It's a rule not a law.They are so indecisive.

#defundtheatf

 

[davela]

My Scorpion with brace is only 25”…

 

[Occam]

Yeah. My Scorpion Micro and its collapsible brace - which I purchased in anticipation of aging joints, obviously - sure ain't gonna make MD SBR standards. What's a fella to do. Or not do.

 

[davela]

Yeah. My Scorpion Micro and its collapsible brace - which I purchased in anticipation of aging joints, obviously

Obviously

 

[adit]

Yeah. My Scorpion Micro and its collapsible brace - which I purchased in anticipation of aging joints, obviously - sure ain't gonna make MD SBR standards. What's a fella to do. Or not do.

STFU.....

Just like that 80%er isn't a firearm, that disconnected stock is a random piece of plastic...

 

[jcutonilli]

Yeah. My Scorpion Micro and its collapsible brace - which I purchased in anticipation of aging joints, obviously - sure ain't gonna make MD SBR standards. What's a fella to do. Or not do.

Wait for things to be resolved. There is no current issue. While you can speculate based on the proposed rule, you can't really know for sure until the final rule is released. If the ATF releases the rule in Dec, there will still be some time to figure things out because it will not become effective until a later date likely 60-90 days. This would likely make the decision time March or April of next year.

The Bianch v Frosh case also factors into the decision as the 29" OAL requirement is tied to the AWB.

 

[BigWilly]

Wait for things to be resolved. There is no current issue. While you can speculate based on the proposed rule, you can't really know for sure until the final rule is released. If the ATF releases the rule in Dec, there will still be some time to figure things out because it will not become effective until a later date likely 60-90 days. This would likely make the decision time March or April of next year.

The Bianch v Frosh case also factors into the decision as the 29" OAL requirement is tied to the AWB.

I agree it's all speculation right now. But imma be real pissed if I get a 10.5 lower and then have to register it as a SBR and its not MD compliant if it's under 29". I just want some clear answers before I but my upper kit.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk