National ATF coming for pistol braces

[GrayGoose]

... Assuming 40 million semi autos are going to be registered...

Or.... 40 million semi autos are going to be "lost in tragic boating accidents"...

 

[Longwalkhome]

Or.... 40 million semi autos are going to be "lost in tragic boating accidents"...

Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.

Only if they don't know you have it can you sleep secure once they change the law imho.

I doubt they will go to NFA registry, it will be a big cluster er ah flock

 

[BillM]

Don't forget, the only way they even got the Hughes act passed was to make it a TAX instead of an outright ban,

Here is the text of the Hughes amendment. No mention of it being any kind of a tax. The first line looks like a ban to me--


(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

 

[Hueco]

Friend we are on the same side so forgive if I don't speak and post the way you want. I post opinion from my understanding and really don't ever argue points of perfection. I do think if you look at registering millions of guns with the NFA and what a nightmare and folly it is then you may agree they won't do it. Its a fear tactic to say they will imho.

I make no claim on your ability to speak or write as you see fit. You chose to reply to me, and so here we are. The distinction between a rule change by an executive branch bureaucracy and a law as passed by Congress is, to me, no trivial difference. This is not a point of perfection but in fact the basis of the entirety of my previous post and point and why I said your interpretation of it was incorrect.

The ATF making such a rule change on their own would be like the local police department suddenly deciding that driving red cars on the I-5 within 100 miles of PDX is now illegal and worthy of a massive fine and jail time. I hope that this example displays just how much an overstep of rights that I feel this would be. To be clear: I think that adding the AR to the NFA is an overstep, no matter who does it. But, the ATF acting of its own accord with no direction from Congress would be a much more tyrannical action.

I disagree that the breadth of scope of registering some XX million AR's to the NFA would be a deterrent. When has the government ever cared about such things? We literally have soldiers in the Middle East who were born after the war already began. It doesn't really matter the reason that we're there: the fact that we are still there after two decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost - this is the measure of the government's resolve.

So if the Legislature says that they're going to add AR's to the NFA, and the Executive says they're going to enforce it, and the Judicial doesn't stop it...then I don't think the breadth of work means anything. They'll get started just the same, will probably get larger budgets too.

 

[The Heretic]

I don't think the ATF has any intention or desire to get more guns on the NFA registry. This is pure politics. The WH told them to come up with something, preferably something to get some control over braces, and they did. I think the checklist is flawed, but less flawed (with regards to ambiguity and potential legal issues for citizens) than the previous practice of flip flopping policy letters and field agent opinions on what is legal and what isn't with regards to pistol braces.

The checklist is flawed in how the points are assigned and what seems to me to be internal contradictions, plus I think there is room for fighting this in court, but that remains to be seen.

What the checklist may give us is a more defined set of criteria that the market and innovators can and will work around.

Just my opinion, and not intended to infer that I like the checklist - sometimes ambiguity works to ones benefit, but ambiguity makes me nervous because then the gov can (and often does) change their interpretation of the law (something the ATF is famous for), whereas a checklist tends to work against that tendency.

 

[Dinglenutz]

The WH told them to come up with something, preferably something to get some control over braces, and they did. I think the checklist is flawed, but less flawed (with regards to ambiguity and potential legal issues for citizens) than the previous practice of flip flopping policy letters and field agent opinions on what is legal and what isn't with regards to pistol braces.

I agree. Additionally the brace vendors have been asking for written guidance. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Your post is not accurate.

"The government's duty to pay just compensation applies to personal property as well as real property, Roberts said. "The government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home," Roberts wrote."

Takings clause applies to personal property, SCOTUS rules in 'major blow' to set-aside programs

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

You can't get much more authoritative than the United States Supreme Court.

Having lived a long life and watching our courts, I am no faith i

I make no claim on your ability to speak or write as you see fit. You chose to reply to me, and so here we are. The distinction between a rule change by an executive branch bureaucracy and a law as passed by Congress is, to me, no trivial difference. This is not a point of perfection but in fact the basis of the entirety of my previous post and point and why I said your interpretation of it was incorrect.

The ATF making such a rule change on their own would be like the local police department suddenly deciding that driving red cars on the I-5 within 100 miles of PDX is now illegal and worthy of a massive fine and jail time. I hope that this example displays just how much an overstep of rights that I feel this would be. To be clear: I think that adding the AR to the NFA is an overstep, no matter who does it. But, the ATF acting of its own accord with no direction from Congress would be a much more tyrannical action.

I disagree that the breadth of scope of registering some XX million AR's to the NFA would be a deterrent. When has the government ever cared about such things? We literally have soldiers in the Middle East who were born after the war already began. It doesn't really matter the reason that we're there: the fact that we are still there after two decades, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost - this is the measure of the government's resolve.

So if the Legislature says that they're going to add AR's to the NFA, and the Executive says they're going to enforce it, and the Judicial doesn't stop it...then I don't think the breadth of work means anything. They'll get started just the same, will probably get larger budgets too.

Opinions differ, that makes for a better world...In my opinion.

 

[Rkangel]

Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.

Only if they don't know you have it can you sleep secure once they change the law imho.

I doubt they will go to NFA registry, it will be a big cluster er ah flock

People can do what they feel is right. But, history has shown that registration is no protection against confiscation. Quite the opposite. They will only leave you alone so long. Registration is an even more direct paper trail. And we have seen pretty clearly that rights, rules and regulations mean little or nothing to the current administration. So, any limitation against access to records wouldn't even act as a speed bump to them.

Why are some of us ok with a tax on the Second Amendment but not the others? Would we be ok with a tax to speak, assemble or worship? Would we be ok with paying protection money to the government for the privilege of being secure in our person or property? Would we be ok with paying a bribe in order to have a speedy and fair trial? If we have to pay to exercise a right, is it really a right anymore, or is it a privilege for only those deemed wealthy, worthy, or woke enough by the fatherland? I think the answer is playing out on the nightly news.

 

[Longwalkhome]

People can do what they feel is right. But, history has shown that registration is no protection against confiscation. Quite the opposite. They will only leave you alone so long. Registration is an even more direct paper trail. And we have seen pretty clearly that rights, rules and regulations mean little or nothing to the current administration. So, any limitation against access to records wouldn't even register as a speed bump.

Why are some of us ok with a tax on the Second Amendment but not the others? Would we be ok with a tax to speak, assemble or worship? Would we be ok with paying protection money to the government for the privilege of being secure in our person or property? Would we be ok with paying a bribe in order to have a speedy and fair trial? If we have to pay to exercise a right, is it really a right anymore, or is it a privilege for only those deemed wealthy, worthy, or woke enough by the fatherland? I think the answer is playing out on the nightly news.

We pay taxes on our gun rights all the time, if you buy new there is a Pitman tax on all guns and ammo added along with a background check tax. Buy used and the government taxes the transfer through the dealer and still you have the BC tax.

No sir I don't like taxes and at my age I have paid a lot more taxes than some folks will. Its my opinion its worth paying the thieves $200 to leave me alone. Its not right nor constitutional what they do but if folks don't want to take the time to stop the crap then we have to learn to live with it.

I bought some NFA things years ago and never once heard from them after the paperwork was done. Its a very good argument that its unconstitutional but folks don't seem to care anymore. I do

 

[Rkangel]

We pay taxes on our gun rights all the time, if you buy new there is a Pitman tax on all guns and ammo added along with a background check tax. Buy used and the government taxes the transfer through the dealer and still you have the BC tax.

No sir I don't like taxes and at my age I have paid a lot more taxes than some folks will. Its my opinion its worth paying the thieves $200 to leave me alone. Its not right nor constitutional what they do but if folks don't want to take the time to stop the crap then we have to learn to live with it.

I bought some NFA things years ago and never once heard from them after the paperwork was done. Its a very good argument that its unconstitutional but folks don't seem to care anymore. I do

We do. But should we be as comfortable with it as we are? At best we are only buying a little time, yet giving them the map and key. There is a reason the administration is pushing for everything to be regulated via the GCA or NFA. There is a reason that all of the options that still allowed gunowners some freedom (80%, pistol braces, etc...) are in their crosshairs. And it isn't for our safety or benefit or to reduce crime...It's hard to say they are reducing crime by making millions of new felons overnight with the stroke of a pen.

 

[Diamondback]

Certainly there is that option but if I want my guns I will pay the thieving tax so they will leave me alone. Unless a man built his own AR then odds are they know you have it. The paper trail is there as evidence if you bought new or after the forced transfer registration.

This is why smart AR and AK (and anything else where they can get the skill) people only buy bare receivers, or even 80%'s, and Roll Yer Own.

 

[nammac]

Me thinks, IF they change the rules and suddenly make a firearm fall under some ATFE rule, making millions of previously lead ally owned firearms illegal, then there should be no application fee or tax stamp or whatever other name they try to attach to it. Just because some alphabet agency changes the rules, doesn't mean millions of Americans have to pony up $$$ to keep what they've already legally owned…

I recall someone trying to increase taxes on tea some years ago. That didn't seem to work out so well. And only escalated in said someone and their army receiving an azz whoopin' …

Enough is indeed enough. People need to stand up to tyranny and resist. Our founding fathers would have…

 

[The Heretic]

Its my opinion its worth paying the thieves $200 to leave me alone.

When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.

In fact, when it comes to confiscation, who do you think they will go after first? Someone with a hunting rifle, revolver, etc., or someone with a SBR/SBS, suppressor or select fire firearm?

Wait for it...

 

[Longwalkhome]

This is why smart AR and AK (and anything else where they can get the skill) people only buy bare receivers, or even 80%'s, and Roll Yer Own.

Its my opinion that you can never shoot those around anyone else because you will be rated out. I didn't go that direction because I don't like hiding my stuff.

 

[The Heretic]

Me thinks, IF they change the rules and suddenly make a firearm fall under some ATFE rule, making millions of previously lead ally owned firearms illegal, then there should be no application fee or tax stamp or whatever other name they try to attach to it. Just because some alphabet agency changes the rules, doesn't mean millions of Americans have to pony up $$$ to keep what they've already legally owned…

Should not be - sure. There shouldn't be an NFA or GCA either.

 

[Longwalkhome]

When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.

In fact, when it comes to confiscation, who do you think they will go after first? Someone with a hunting rifle, revolver, etc., or someone with a SBR/SBS, suppressor or select fire firearm?

Wait for it...

Again you are wise and I agree with your opinion, they will always come for more.

 

[Member 34319]

When the time comes, they will not leave you alone.

In fact, when it comes to confiscation, who do you think they will go after first? Someone with a hunting rifle, revolver, etc., or someone with a SBR/SBS, suppressor or select fire firearm?

Wait for it...

Still waiting for them to take the full autos away. It's only been 87 years.

If it takes at least 87 years for them to come after SBS/SBR/AOW/Suppressors. I'll likely be just fine.

I am honestly surprised at how many people still think the government is actually going to just start confiscating guns and shooting up gun owners.

Marketing…

 

[Rkangel]

Me thinks, IF they change the rules and suddenly make a firearm fall under some ATFE rule, making millions of previously lead ally owned firearms illegal, then there should be no application fee or tax stamp or whatever other name they try to attach to it. Just because some alphabet agency changes the rules, doesn't mean millions of Americans have to pony up $$$ to keep what they've already legally owned…

I recall someone trying to increase taxes on tea some years ago. That didn't seem to work out so well. And only escalated in said someone and their army receiving an azz whoopin' …

Enough is indeed enough. People need to stand up to tyranny and resist. Our founding fathers would have…

It could be argued that 1773 happened for much less.

Its my opinion that you can never shoot those around anyone else because you will be rated out. I didn't go that direction because I don't like hiding my stuff.

Range Karens are part of the reason I have developed a distaste for most "professional ranges". Nobody stays in their lane, literally. Not hiding anything, everything is legit and numbered, but when someone hovers, or is overly curious, it is not because they like your gear.

 

[The Heretic]

Still waiting for them to take the full autos away. It's only been 87 years.

If it takes at least 87 years for them to come after SBS/SBR/AOW/Suppressors. I'll likely be just fine.

I am honestly surprised at how many people still think the government is actually going to just start confiscating guns and shooting up gun owners.

Marketing…

The states have started confiscating.

The gov and gun control forces are playing the long game. They won't start tomorrow, probably not next year, maybe not before I die, but they will eventually. As already noted, history has shown that registration invariably and eventually leads to confiscation. Never say never.

 

[Member 34319]

The states have started confiscating.

The gov and gun control forces are playing the long game. They won't start tomorrow, probably not next year, maybe not before I die, but they will eventually. As already noted, history has shown that registration invariably and eventually leads to confiscation. Never say never.

That's not entirely factual either. States have not truly started confiscating guns. They have created laws that assist in removing guns from those that may do harm. In a sense they have created "pre-crime". Guilty until proven innocent. If innocent, these people have had their property returned. That is not really confiscation. Calling it so isn't factual.

Even most here have looked at some of the cases of red flag laws and posted that it made sense, the person shouldn't have owned a gun. Sure one can pick out those that were questionable, but most cases the person committed an offense or broke a law.

To state they are coming for your guns, would literally mean, they are coming for your guns. In my life experiences, they aren't.