Any reason not to just SBR all my pistols?

[Yarome]

Yeah but we move incrementally as well. The NFA was supposed to be the beginning of an outright ban 90 years ago, that is why it is so illogical. The idea was they pass it in this rather butchered form and then fix it in short order, banning pistols (which were supposed to be part of the original NFA tax) and incrementally moving up the list of "scarier" guns like semi-auto rifles and repeaters. They tried with "assault weapons" but only succeeded in making them more popular. Now NFA item sales are going through the roof, and SCOTUS is having to answer tough questions about "common use" that are going more and more our way. The left is finding that if they push too hard and too fast on gun control it backfires and we get less restrictions after the fights all settle out. We are seeing a flurry of this with state level cases, as many ban laws are poised to fall as we speak.

I always remain optimistic, but... in my day... Heller was our "Bruen" and eventually they invented interest balancing to get around it. That's stood for quite awhile and even with Bruen, the judicial is in many areas blatantly ignoring it, purposely misinterpreting it and prodding along all lines to find a successful approach to work around it. IE., Attempting to omit "and" from "dangerous and unusual". Altering the common use test to be "commonly used in self defense"... as in... only the number of actual trigger pulls in defense.

Heck... the supreme courts Sotomayor just today sided with NY and flat out stone walled an injunction request challenging NY's "good moral character" requirement for their citizens to exercise their 2A rights. Wouldn't even pass it up the line for further review. The other challenge case is still proceeding, but when supreme court justices blatantly defy the constitution and Bruen... that should give us all pause and a warning that the composition of the supreme court "will" eventually change and it may not be in our favor.

Short term I think we have more victories coming, but so far... the supreme court has failed in multiple cases to place injunctions on laws that go flatly against their own Bruen decision. That begs the concern that even if successful in the short term will the victories be lasting(?)

All things considered... nothing going on at the supreme court level does a thing to stop the bevy of new infringements being pumped out of the blue bastions at the state level. Push it out.. it takes years to make it through the courts, and even if their law is thrown out they simply rebrand something with the same affect to get another few good years of tyranny. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Camelfilter]

Which state? You talking Oregon? Cite your source please.

Concealed Handgun License.

CHL. My source is in the name given to the license.

This topic has gone round and round quite a bit. If you would like to be a test case being prosecuted for carrying a rifle concealed with your CHL, go rite ahead.

I will choose not to carry a rifle concealed, because I prefer not to be a test case in the event of arrest & follow on prosecution. Because Oregon & because lawyers.

YMMV, perhaps you have near unlimited resources to try such?

 

[Jcon268]

All good points raised.

All I'll say in addition for consideration is to remember that the left moves incrementally against the lowest hanging fruit. As infringements and bans move forward... after so called "assault weapons"/"weapons of war"... I can easily see NFA's being next in line. They are by definition, "dangerous and unusual" so using the same arguments of "no one needs weapons of war for personal self defense" the next logical extension may well be, "no one needs uniquely dangerous and unusual weapons for personal self defense".

Most likely that wouldn't first manifest as a full on ban and confiscation, but say... "Firstly" outlawing the legal transfer of said weapon types. "Banning" them generationally. "Secondly", once accomplished, that lowers the fruit a little more and brings an outright NFA item ban within reach.

Just sayin... read the tea leaves and think ahead. What many thought would be utterly ridiculous for them to do even 25 years ago is todays reality.

The other way of looking at it is that NFA registered items are a) rarely used in commission of violent crimes b) constitute a very small percentage of the gun count in this country.
Furthermore NFA items are purchased by people who have gone through extensive background checking and have followed the law to the letter to obtain the item... and have full records on file. How that could be twisted into scary to the public, I don't know but...they'd probably take a shot at it, you're right. I just know that things have been backpedaling lately for the ATF. First with bump stocks, then forced reset triggers and finally with pistol braces. I don't think it would be wise for them to go after such a small group of people who has by definition, been the epitome of a law abiding gun owner.

What I CAN picture them doing is raising the cost of a tax stamp to prohibitive levels thereby killing interest in pursuing the acquisition of NFA items..or they may just ban further purchases with a grandfather clause like machine guns, driving up the cost of ownership.

 

[Yarome]

The other way of looking at it is that NFA registered items are a) rarely used in commission of violent crimes b) constitute a very small percentage of the gun count in this country.
Furthermore NFA items are purchased by people who have gone through extensive background checking and have followed the law to the letter to obtain the item... and have full records on file. How that could be twisted into scary to the public, I don't know but...they'd probably take a shot at it, you're right. I just know that things have been backpedaling lately for the ATF. First with bump stocks, then forced reset triggers and finally with pistol braces. I don't think it would be wise for them to go after such a small group of people who has by definition, been the epitome of a law abiding gun owner.

What I CAN picture them doing is raising the cost of a tax stamp to prohibitive levels thereby killing interest in pursuing the acquisition of NFA items..or they may just ban further purchases with a grandfather clause like machine guns, driving up the cost of ownership.

True. Although much of that can be said about "assault weapons" too. They are very rarely used in the commission of violent crimes, go through a BGC and are owned by law abiding citizens. There may be some truth in NFA's having the additional "stamp of approval" and expressly granted feeb permission for a person to exercise their 2A rights... however.... that shouldn't be any part of the process or a requirement, anyway.

Infringements have become so normalized that I think sometimes it's easy to forget that there is no other protected right that requires scrutiny and gooberment approval before you are granted permission to exercise it.

I think the bottom line and the blaring truth of the matter is... make no mistake... they don't care one bit about how law abiding a person is. To the contrary, they blatantly preach that all gun owners are the problem with absolutely no distinction between the criminals and the law abiding. They attack and limit the rights of the law abiding relentlessly while at the same time... lowering the penalties, reducing/eliminating the consequences and expanding the rights of the criminals.

I don't believe it really has much to do with the numbers or levels of ownership either though. Undoing the right to own NFA items is simply a stepping stone to build and expand upon. IE., Getting rid of "dangerous and unusual" makes it easier to take the next step of banning "dangerous" OR "unusual". If they can accomplish that.... it's simply a matter of expanding what types of firearms they decide to classify as "dangerous". AKA., every and any firearm.

Using fear tactics to garner support, pushing a ban on "especially dangerous" firearms seems a logical extension of their current tactic and likely an easy sell among their minions.


It's all just speculation, but looking ahead at the directions they "want" to ultimately go may be something to consider when thinking about how a person may want to configure their firearms or consider voluntary registration directly at the feeb level or not.

To each their own.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Lets remind people.. the SCOTUS have consistently upheld that its Congress who makes and passes laws that are presumed "constitutional", until a State or citizen brings the case up at Federal or State level.

This is to say..

Whats going to stop Congress from amending and expanding the NFA? By striking the terms "dangerous and unusual", and by adding semiautomatic firearms as a class to be registered and taxed...

Edit. No reason you couldn't just SBR everything... if you aren't planning to go over State lines, or move.. or conceal carry... although ORS 166.260 specifically says a CHL holder is not affected by ORS 166.250 which does say its "unlawful to carry any firearms concealed on the person"... (edit 2. It may just mean the CHL holder cant be legally charged with violating ORS 166.250 by concealed carrying a SBR/SBS)

Edit 3. I need to go to sleep! But there's nothing in the ORS that specifically and explicitly prohibits the concealed carry of a rifle/shotgun in any form, by a person with a CHL. Just that its unlawful to conceal carry any firearms on the person, if the person is not a CHL holder.

 

[Jcon268]

I think you can still travel between states you just have to notify the ATF first. The only place I might go to is Idaho to visit my brother and we'd hit the range. I think so long as I notify them first, I'm good for a year.

 

[pizzamike]

I think you can still travel between states you just have to notify the ATF first. The only place I might go to is Idaho to visit my brother and we'd hit the range. I think so long as I notify them first, I'm good for a year.

Or just have a 16" upper. Throw on the 16" upper and leave the shorty at home. Goes right back to a standard rifle at that point. No need to deal with the ATF, although submitting the paperwork is super simple as well.

 

[Jcon268]

Or just have a 16" upper. Throw on the 16" upper and leave the shorty at home. Goes right back to a standard rifle at that point. No need to deal with the ATF, although submitting the paperwork is super simple as well.

Is it one of those things where you have to wait for a response/okay from them to travel? Or just send the notification and go?

 

[Yarome]

Is it one of those things where you have to wait for a response/okay from them to travel? Or just send the notification and go?

Approval prior to travel. You can email or fax it to the NFA division for faster processing.

 

[pacmanwa]

Not unless your some hard charger who carries an AR-15 "pistol" under a trench coat or loaded in your vehicle concealed.

Personally I think AR pistols are dumb and SBRs are awesome. I see their point though…. I guess.

I get it. But some states have laws about what kind of gun you can drive around loaded. For example, Washington you can only carry a loaded pistol in your car, not a loaded rifle. Looking back, I wish I built my SBR as a pistol first, that would let me legally drive around with it in pistol configuration loaded.

 

[pizzamike]

I get it. But some states have laws about what kind of gun you can drive around loaded. For example, Washington you can only carry a loaded pistol in your car, not a loaded rifle. Looking back, I wish I built my SBR as a pistol first, that would let me legally drive around with it in pistol configuration loaded.

Just out of curiosity why do you need a loaded rifle in your vehicle when you can carry a loaded handgun on your person?

Obviously where you live rural vs urban dictates.

 

[solv3nt]

Just out of curiosity why do you need a loaded rifle in your vehicle when you can carry a loaded handgun on your person?

Obviously where you live rural vs urban dictates.

Because of Ze Jermans.

 

[pizzamike]

Because of Ze Jermans.

Real world application please. Haha

 

[solv3nt]

Real world application please. Haha

Ze Ruskies, Ze Chinese, Ze Iranians and Ze North Koreans.

 

[pizzamike]

Ze Ruskies, Ze Chinese, Ze Iranians and Ze North Koreans.

Ah yes. Lol.

 

[solv3nt]

Ah yes. Lol.

Haven't you seen Red Dawn?

 

[pizzamike]

Haven't you seen Red Dawn?

Yes. I prefer reality. Haha

 

[lucusloc]

Real world application please. Haha

A pistol is what you take when you are not expecting a fight, a rifle is what you take when you are. And if you can take a rifle when you are not expecting a fight then all the better.

Rifles have more capability than pistols, full stop. There really is no comparison. The only reason I carry a pistol is because a rifle is a hell of a lot harder to fit in a pocket. If I could get a rifle in there I would do that instead, but alas no one has invented pocket-dimension holsters yet.

In a truck this is less of an issue, especially if you custom build a center console to fir your gear. Then you can take a rifle with you (as long as you are in your truck) and it can sit somewhere out of the way until needed. You'll probably also still want to keep a pistol on your hip, just because that is way more handy if you need it, but having the rifle right there means an upgrade is close at hand if you need it.

As for why more people are thinking about this kind of application, well look no further than Kenosha, Portland, Seattle. . . Lawlessness is becoming the norm for certain parts of our country, and while it would be nice if everyone who wanted to avoid that kind of thing could just leave the reality is people often live and work somewhere because that is what they have, not because that is what they want the most. If you do have to venture into the more lawless of our population centers having a bit of extra firepower can bring a little extra comfort to any potential situation. As we have seen the mob does not always disperse at the first shot, and a rifle not only carries more, but each one counts for more to boot. This makes it the thing to have in a spot like that.

 

[pizzamike]

A pistol is what you take when you are not expecting a fight, a rifle is what you take when you are. And if you can take a rifle when you are not expecting a fight then all the better.

Rifles have more capability than pistols, full stop. There really is no comparison. The only reason I carry a pistol is because a rifle is a hell of a lot harder to fit in a pocket. If I could get a rifle in there I would do that instead, but alas no one has invented pocket-dimension holsters yet.

In a truck this is less of an issue, especially if you custom build a center console to fir your gear. Then you can take a rifle with you (as long as you are in your truck) and it can sit somewhere out of the way until needed. You'll probably also still want to keep a pistol on your hip, just because that is way more handy if you need it, but having the rifle right there means an upgrade is close at hand if you need it.

As for why more people are thinking about this kind of application, we'll look no further than Kenosha, Portland, Seattle. . . Lawlessness is becoming the norm for certain parts of our country, and while it would be nice if everyone who wanted to avoid that kind of thing could just leave the reality is people often live and work somewhere because that is what they have, not because that is what they want the most. If you do have to venture into the more lawless of our population centers having a bit of extra firepower can bring a little extra comfort to any potential situation. As we have seen the mob does not always disperse at the first shot, and a rifle not only carries more, but each one counts for more to boot. This makes it the thing to have in a spot like that.

I appreciate the lesson on rifles vs pistols.

Let me know how running through the streets with an AR or rifle plays out. If a cop doesn't shoot you there is an high probability another armed citizen will. But I'm not running to the sound of gunfire unless my loved ones are involved. My Glock is enough. Low signature is key.

Your head is a much more useful weapon than any pistol or rifle. Avoid those situations entirely. Risk assessment is key.

You're comparing a rifle to a pocket pistol….. want more efficiency than carry a bigger gun. Like @solv3nt said.

Just cause Rittenhouse did it doesn't mean you will be held to the same standard.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I appreciate the lesson on rifles vs pistols.

Let me know how running through the streets with an AR or rifle plays out. If a cop doesn't shoot you there is an high probability another armed citizen will. But I'm not running to the sound of gunfire unless my loved ones are involved. My Glock is enough. Low signature is key.

Your head is a much more useful weapon than any pistol or rifle. Avoid those situations entirely. Risk assessment is key.

You're comparing a rifle to a pocket pistol….. want more efficiency than carry a bigger gun. Like @solv3nt said.

Just cause Rittenhouse did it doesn't mean you will be held to the same standard.

So... it reads like you don't support the full exercise of 2A...

The Right to keep (possess, buy, acquire) and to bear ( carry on one's person) arms (weapons of offense and armor of defense, and everything that faciliate the use of such arms)