National Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block?

[223to45]

Has anyone read the PDF from Giffords?? Shows what they are after.

9 items Giffords are after

 

[The Resister]

@The Resister ; lets make few things clear. The SCOTUS have determined that NFA1934, GCA1968,FOPA1986 were all "constitutional".

Also, it is not technically a ban on ownership, as long as the owner submits to paying a tax, submits to being put on a registry, and have to get approval before moving across State lines

While yes the FOPA1986 banned the unlicensed ownership of machine guns made after 1986; it isn't a full on ban like the import bans made by EO

The United States Supreme Court, in legislating from the bench, has made a mockery of the Constitution and they themselves do not recognize it as being much more than a guide for their legislative efforts. You no longer have the Constitution as envisioned by the framers.

 

[turbo_vanner]

pretty sure folks are overthinking this, and when Q updates their termanology and advertisements, it will all blow over.

 

[turbo_vanner]

You no longer have the Constitution as envisioned by the framers.

you no longer have the constitution you envisioned by the framers. From the perspective of the SC, we are right where we need to be. The constitution literally directs us to interpret it and change it as we see fit.

 

[The Resister]

This to me points out the big problem with depending on black robes to protect "rights". Once some black robes say selling you a license for a "right" is ok they are no longer rights. Why not have a license to protect your 5th or 4th rights? Say you can not ask for protections under these amendments unless you buy a permit? Sounds good to me.

The black robes did not have the authority to make some of the rulings they did. They certainly have the power, but I have the power to give most people a physical beatdown, but don't have the authority. Just as the system would hold me accountable for the misuse of power so should the American people hold the government accountable.

 

[The Resister]

Haynes vS United States, 1968.

Might be a stretch; considering this applies only to convicted felons not being required to register possession of firearms

And the prosecutions of people under NFA1934 and GCA1968 seems to applies only to those who otherwise would be "lawful" possessors, if they paid the tax and register items. Actually, I think that particular interpretation is the key to why the ATF wants to make rules and modify the original laws to get a bigger group of people to fine/arrest/make examples of.

That ruling is contradictory to the original intent of the framers.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That ruling is contradictory to the original intent of the framers.

So is the notion that felons and certain convicted criminals don't have full rights under GCA1968 (prohibited persons list)

 

[The Resister]

you no longer have the constitution you envisioned by the framers. From the perspective of the SC, we are right where we need to be. The constitution literally directs us to interpret it and change it as we see fit.

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past (sic)." Thomas Jefferson

"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington in his Farewell Address

Sorry, the founders and framers never intended for an unelected body to legislate from the bench. What they're doing cannot be justified.

 

[The Resister]

So is the notion that felons and certain convicted criminals don't have full rights under GCA1968 (prohibited persons list)

Absolutely not true. Anyone who watched old cowboy movies on tv realizes that they were indicative of the way people felt back in another time. In many westerns the bad guy went to prison, came out and became the sheriff. Laws to the contrary are, historically, of recent date and do not reflect the values of the past where we gave people second chances and did not have different classes of citizens.

 

[turbo_vanner]

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past (sic)." Thomas Jefferson

"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington in his Farewell Address

Sorry, the founders and framers never intended for an unelected body to legislate from the bench. What they're doing cannot be justified.

except for the constitution allowing its creation... if they left that in, it seems like they intended it for it to be used.

 

[RDR INC]

For your immediate information.
I just received this information. I do not know what the impact this will be on other AR pistol owners. With the anti-gun climate stirred up by the left wing and if Hiddin Biden wins, it doesnt bode well for any firearm much less for AR pistols

Tom Reynolds
Red Dog Reloading

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video BREAKING: ATF claims Q's AR pistol is an SBR (10/6/20)







Preview YouTube video ATF Rules Honey Badger Pistol Is A SBR And Violates NFA - Are All AR-Pistols Next?!

 

[The Resister]

except for the constitution allowing its creation... if they left that in, it seems like they intended it for it to be used.

I don't know what that even means. We change the Constitution by amendment, NOT by usurpation of authority (See the Tenth amendment).

 

[The Resister]

For your immediate information.
I just received this information. I do not know what the impact this will be on other AR pistol owners. With the anti-gun climate stirred up by the left wing and if Hiddin Biden wins, it doesnt bode well for any firearm much less for AR pistols

Tom Reynolds
Red Dog Reloading

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video BREAKING: ATF claims Q's AR pistol is an SBR (10/6/20)
View attachment 759945
View attachment 759946


Preview YouTube video ATF Rules Honey Badger Pistol Is A SBR And Violates NFA - Are All AR-Pistols Next?!
View attachment 759947

The point I've been trying to make all day is that a lot of ARs will be covered under this ATF ruling. So, while we see the liberals arguing for more power to legislate by the Executive and Judicial departments of the federal government, you may want to look at my input a bit closer - unless you are as committed to tyranny and oppression as they are.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Absolutely not true. Anyone who watched old cowboy movies on tv realizes that they were indicative of the way people felt back in another time. In many westerns the bad guy went to prison, came out and became the sheriff. Laws to the contrary are, historically, of recent date and do not reflect the values of the past where we gave people second chances and did not have different classes of citizens.

Are you not reading what I am saying??? I am saying that the notion that convicts and felons don't have full rights, under the GCA1968 is contradictory to the original intents of the Founding Fathers; according to your own interpretations.

Edit. The GCA1968 brought us FFL background checks and the creation of Prohibited Persons class.

 

[Rkangel]

except for the constitution allowing its creation... if they left that in, it seems like they intended it for it to be used.

you no longer have the constitution you envisioned by the framers. From the perspective of the SC, we are right where we need to be. The constitution literally directs us to interpret it and change it as we see fit.

Only within the amendment processes clearly outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The framers set this bar very high in order to prevent broad sweeping changes in the law of the land due to the petty whims of petty leaders and unelected officials.

 

[The Resister]

Are you not reading what I am saying??? I am saying that the notion that convicts and felons don't have full rights, under the GCA1968 is contradictory to the original intents of the Founding Fathers; according to your own interpretations.

Edit. The GCA1968 brought us FFL background checks and the creation of Prohibited Persons class.

Okay, my bad. It isn't my interpretation, however. I think Wyatt Earp is a good example. He stole a horse, was found guilty, and escaped from jail. That wouldn't be his only run in that earned him a criminal record before he became a lawman in 1875.

 

[The Resister]

Haynes vS United States, 1968.

Might be a stretch; considering this applies only to convicted felons not being required to register possession of firearms

And the prosecutions of people under NFA1934 and GCA1968 seems to applies only to those who otherwise would be "lawful" possessors, if they paid the tax and register items. Actually, I think that particular interpretation is the key to why the ATF wants to make rules and modify the original laws to get a bigger group of people to fine/arrest/make examples of.

If they put me in charge, I can simplify this for everyone. I would terminate the BATFE, turning all alcohol and tobacco violations over to the DEA and giving the FBI the job of investigating firearm violations AFTER they had cut the regulations in half.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Has anyone read the PDF from Giffords?? Shows what they are after.

9 items Giffords are after

Mark Kelly is an embarrassment to the Naval Academy.

 

[RogerJ]

This whole brace thing is from some 0bama holdovers from an obscure ATF section. This is the October surprise every 4 years targeted to the Right. The people who run this site know it (or should by now) and are unnecessarily alarming people.

 

[awshoot]

Straight from the Honey Badger manual Honey Badger Manual

View attachment 759363
View attachment 759364
View attachment 759365

I stopped taking screenshots there, but they call it a rifle and a stock several more times after that. These dip shi*s did this to themselves.

From the manual:



Where they using the same butt device on rifles and pistols with the only difference being the extension range? If so, that's not a good look.

I could see their argument: "extension range is what makes the difference between a pistol and rifle."

I could see the ATF's argument: "anything that allows you to shoulder a weapon makes it a rifle of some sort and after that the question is whether it is a short one or regular one.."

Q is now engaged in the argument and will either prevail or not. The mere fact that they are in this argument though, means they've lost. I think Q would have been better served if there had been a greater distinction between their brace and stock than merely extension length.