How do you SBR a braced pistol under 29"?

[erwos]

Did you actually read what I wrote?? The SBR laws were created under the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's a Federal law created by an act of Congress. So, I abide by the law. This brace rule is illegal and holds no weight per the Supreme Court. As a citizen, I'm not required to follow the rule. I cannot be touched. If I am, I am due redress from the government. You seem to be forgetting that WE THE PEOPLE are in charge, NOT the government, whose purpose it to SERVE US. They will serve me, not the other way around. I'm continually amazed by how many people in this state have battered gun owner syndrome.

Braces were "created" as the result of a non-binding interpretation. They are being banned as part of a formal rule-making process. I read what you wrote; the problem is that it's a screed, not a legal analysis. Nothing's illegal until SCOTUS rules on it, and right now, the NFA's running at 1 W, 0 L in SCOTUS and they haven't said a thing about braces as of yet, or the ATF's ability to define what is or is not a stock or a rifle.

This thing where people think Bruen is now a get-out-of-jail-free card for every gun law they don't like is hilarious, and I suspect there's going to be a lot of surprised, angry people when SCOTUS declines to hear the challenge to the brace ban.

 

[Combloc]

Looks like you've made your choice.

 

[smokey]

Like this

 

[smokey]

Or in md, more like this...

 

[Combloc]

CLASSIC!! LOVE IT!!!!!

 

[Worsley]

Braces were "created" as the result of a non-binding interpretation. They are being banned as part of a formal rule-making process. I read what you wrote; the problem is that it's a screed, not a legal analysis. Nothing's illegal until SCOTUS rules on it, and right now, the NFA's running at 1 W, 0 L in SCOTUS and they haven't said a thing about braces as of yet, or the ATF's ability to define what is or is not a stock or a rifle.

This thing where people think Bruen is now a get-out-of-jail-free card for every gun law they don't like is hilarious, and I suspect there's going to be a lot of surprised, angry people when SCOTUS declines to hear the challenge to the brace ban.

Law and statue do not supersede the constitution.

 

[Squaregrouper]

Braces were "created" as the result of a non-binding interpretation. They are being banned as part of a formal rule-making process. I read what you wrote; the problem is that it's a screed, not a legal analysis. Nothing's illegal until SCOTUS rules on it, and right now, the NFA's running at 1 W, 0 L in SCOTUS and they haven't said a thing about braces as of yet, or the ATF's ability to define what is or is not a stock or a rifle.

This thing where people think Bruen is now a get-out-of-jail-free card for every gun law they don't like is hilarious, and I suspect there's going to be a lot of surprised, angry people when SCOTUS declines to hear the challenge to the brace ban.

The original Sig Brace, Kak Shockwave and some others had merit. The advent of the SBA3 was an obvious subversion of SBR laws. Others came along with "Hold my beer 'braces'" and now we're where we are.
This whole thing is a perfect example of poking the bear. Ask enough questions and you'll eventually get an answer you didn't want to hear.

 

[Combloc]

I think it's more about revenue. Follow the money.

 

[smokey]

The original Sig Brace, Kak Shockwave and some others had merit. The advent of the SBA3 was an obvious subversion of SBR laws. Others came along with "Hold my beer 'braces'" and now we're where we are.
This whole thing is a perfect example of poking the bear. Ask enough questions and you'll eventually get an answer you didn't want to hear.

Counterpoint: upwards of 40,000,000 braces were sold. Magazines were published with entire months dedicated to braces because of their popularity. Most major gun manufacturers produced factory braced guns. The genie is out of the bottle for roughly 1/10th of America. There is no denying that braced handguns ARE in common use now.

We're in a much different place now to challenge the entire NFA and GCA because of it. If braced handguns are determined to be SBRs, they are determining that there are 40,000,000+ SBRs out in our hands.

 

[outrider58]

I think it's more about revenue. Follow the money.

If it is, then the 'tax' would have kept up with inflation. It did not.

 

[Worsley]

If it is, then the 'tax' would have kept up with inflation. It did not.

Hmm - what tax does?

 

[erwos]

I think it's more about revenue. Follow the money.

My understanding is that NFA revenue gets dumped in the general fund anyways, the ATF isn't keeping it. Ironically, I do think that if they kept it, they'd figure out a way to make the process go much faster to increase the number of people buying stuff.

A couple notes reviewing the thread:
1. "Constructive possession" (it's not constructive intent) is a red herring 99.99% of the time. The ATF could theoretically come after you, but it's vanishingly rare in reality, and the only examples are extremely egregious and usually an add-on charge. "I have a braced pistol and an extra stock" isn't really going to cause problems in reality. Incidentally, holding on to your brace would also theoretically put you in some fun times with this if you thought it was a big deal. It amuses me that people invoke BGOS on me, and then freak out about constructive possession.
2. My interpretation or your interpretation of the Constitution is not really relevant. It's what SCOTUS interprets it as. And even in Bruen, they did not say 2A was absolute by a long shot. In fact, I'd argue THT blows the door back open for everyone again, and not always in a good way. You know some jack-ass county lawyer is going quote the Tombstone law and say that MoCo has historical precedent to fully ban carry, etc.

Speaking as someone who's filled out a couple 5320.20s lately, let me assure you that SBRs have their own set of PITAs to deal with, especially if you live frequently shoot across the state border.

 

[outrider58]

Hmm - what tax does?

Are you telling my tax rates don't change?

 

[Squaregrouper]

Counterpoint: upwards of 40,000,000 braces were sold. Magazines were published with entire months dedicated to braces because of their popularity. Most major gun manufacturers produced factory braced guns. The genie is out of the bottle for roughly 1/10th of America. There is no denying that braced handguns ARE in common use now.

We're in a much different place now to challenge the entire NFA and GCA because of it. If braced handguns are determined to be SBRs, they are determining that there are 40,000,000+ SBRs out in our hands.

I agree about common use. The fact that The ATF actually approved the "braces" as not being SBR's and then changed their minds after millions and millions were sold is problematic to say the least.
I stand by my belief that manufacturers kept pushing the envelope until The ATF pushed back.

 

[smokey]

I agree about common use. The fact that The ATF actually approved the "braces" as not being SBR's and then changed their minds after millions and millions were sold is problematic to say the least.
I stand by my belief that manufacturers kept pushing the envelope until The ATF pushed back.

SBA4™ | SB Tactical

SB Tactical SBA4™. We design, develop and manufacture accessories for firearms including the original pistol stabilization brace.

www.sb-tactical.com

[Sarcasm]They were pushing the envelope?[/sarcasm] Lolz. Yeah, a couple of the designs were more overt fingers to the AFT than others for sure.

 

[jrumann59]

SBA4™ | SB Tactical

SB Tactical SBA4™. We design, develop and manufacture accessories for firearms including the original pistol stabilization brace.

www.sb-tactical.com

[Sarcasm]They were pushing the envelope?[/sarcasm] Lolz. Yeah, a couple of the designs were more overt fingers to the AFT than others for sure.

Been saying that since the braces evolved from the blade braces, not saying there are not millions of americans that could benefit from them but it got to a point that the braces became less functional as braces and were stocks disguised as "braces". Again not saying the ATF is right or arguing the validity of the NFA but to quote a movie from the 80's "you mess with the bull you will get the horns."

 

[Occam]

holds no weight per the Supreme Court

Well, not until the matter is actually brought before the court. That hasn't happened yet. One can look at Bruen and find how one might go about a defense once arrested, working your way up through multiple courts and the years that takes before you DO get to SCOTUS for the ruling you're aspiring to. Do you have the financial staying power to make that trip? Hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least. We all want to see ATF (well, really, the Biden admin, acting through them) slapped down on this sort of thing. But that fight is only just starting.

As a citizen, I'm not required to follow the rule. I cannot be touched.

Well, sure you can. You can be arrested and prosecuted and - if all goes well - eventually prevail. The touching part can definitely happen in the meantime, obviously.

You seem to be forgetting that WE THE PEOPLE are in charge

Via elected officials. That's the problem. MOST of the people in the country - if they even knew what a pistol brace was - would, after learning about it, probably be right there in step with Biden and his ATF, saying you shouldn't have one. That whole "we the people" thing is true, but it's a lot harder to deal with in cases like this when "the people," by and large, consider braces and bump stocks and whatnot to be toys for wannabe operators and movie sets, blah blah blah. That's what we're up against: we (the pistol-with-brace-owning enthusiasts) are a small minority of "the people." Biden and his ATF would argue that they're doing exactly the will of the majority of the people. Which is where the Bill of Rights steps in and says that the majority doesn't get to have their way if that way isn't constitutional. You're saying that's already been hashed out in court, while the administration clearly disagrees and is willing to call your bluff until this crawls its way up the court food chain.

They will serve me, not the other way around. I'm continually amazed by how many people in this state have battered gun owner syndrome.

Why are you amazed? It's Maryland. Regardless, this is a federal issue, not a Maryland one. This rule puts property I own - and which they know I own - on the destroy/surrender list, with federal consequences - including permanent prohibition - at stake if I decide to wave a banned gun around in public. Whether or not they're arriving at the new rule outside the bounds of administrative law, subjecting yourself to arrest under it will be a bankrupting, life-destroying ride. Wishing that away in Internet Tough Guy Mode doesn't change the legal jeopardy, even if it can eventually be squashed as it should be. The truth is there are too many of us owning such things for them to mount a door-to-door on the ones that are explicitly banned (like, say, those CZ EVOs) before this gets the years-later court treatment it deserves. So asserting ITG status knowing it's unlikely to catch up with you is a lot of transparent bluster.

 

[Combloc]

lol. Okiedokie. I'm certain you would have stayed at home and criticized the men who were gathering at Lexington.

 

[Worsley]

Are you telling my tax rates don't change?

They do, but I‘m not sure they do at the same rate inflation does.

 

[Occam]

lol. Okiedokie. I'm certain you would have stayed at home and criticized the men who were gathering at Lexington.

OK, so why aren't you out shooting at feds yourself already? Muleskinner, is that you?

Saying "I can't be touched" is just straight up delusional. And that's the standard we then have to use when evaluating every other single thing you say. I'm reminded of your proof-of-the-supernatural video bluff. You got called on it, and caved. You're thumping your chest about how the ATF can't touch you, banking on the fact you're unlikely to be bothered by them between now and when it finally gets dealt with in court. Real easy to play ITG when you can avoid friction and detection by just doing what all the rest of the sensible people will do and not poke the bear while the litigation plays out. But you get "they can't touch me!" bragging rights here on a forum. Yeah, OK.