National ATF coming for pistol braces

[GWS]

Worked for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris doesn't shoulder weapons...weapons shoulder Chuck Norris.

I don't think any 80's action heroes even knew what a stock was. If the pistol brace popularity had developed a couple decades earlier they probably would have been called hip braces.

Well you can't have your star's face blocked by a rifle, can you?
Why do you suppose they fire their handguns sideways?

 

[Rkangel]

Well you can't have your star's face blocked by a rifle, can you?
Why do you suppose they fire their handguns sideways?

Stuff you see at the range

 

[Diamondback]

A potential challenge to NFA1934, Hughes Amendment, and possibly GCA1968 could be brought up using Miller and Heller.

1. Miller states "arms suitable for militia and in military service are protected by 2a"

2. Heller states "arms in common use at the time are protected by 2a" using the Miller decision as precedent.

Using these two together; it infers that the NFA and Hughes Amendment ought to be nullified and repealed... on the following basis.

The US Army issue carbine is a 14.5" barreled "SBR" which is also a select-fire/automatic (NFA term is machine gun).
The previous issue rifle was a 20" M16 rifle but that is considered a MG under NFA due to having been issued with either full auto or 3 round burst.

These two arms are in common use by the US military, at the current time. The AR15s are a semiautomatic derivative of these two arms, but due to millions being sold in the last 30odd years, in a variety of setups...

It follows then, that the SBR M4 and MG M16 types of rifles, and the semiautomatic derivative AR15s, all pass the "test" of "arms suitable for militia and military use" as well as being "in common use"... and thus... the NFA should be repealed or amended or nullified.

Also, since most USMC and Army-issue shotguns are cut-down to 14.5", SBS's are constitutionally protected... but as Elmer Fudd's Bambi-blaster is not in military use it is NOT.

Suck on THAT, Elmer...

 

[Ura-Ki]

Also, since most USMC and Army-issue shotguns are cut-down to 14.5", SBS's are constitutionally protected... but as Elmer Fudd's Bambi-blaster is not in military use it is NOT.

Suck on THAT, Elmer...

Don't forget, the WINCHESTER 1897 was cut to 21 inches long and in wide spread use in the military before the NFA kicked off!

 

[Diamondback]

Don't forget, the WINCHESTER 1897 was cut to 21 inches long and in wide spread use in the military before the NFA kicked off!

That's still above 18.5" NFA length though; except for a few "specials" most all WWI and WWII issued shotguns were Title I length.

 

[The Heretic]

Stuff you see at the range

 

[sobo]

Well you can't have your star's face blocked by a rifle, can you?
Why do you suppose they fire their handguns sideways?

Stuff you see at the range

Don't forget the most important part, the taunting...

This video never gets old...

 

[American123]

You dont have to give a bubblegum. I have tremendous respect for people who go to jail over their beliefs. Ive personally known at least 6 folks who have done the same thing over NFA charges. Free food, a place to sleep every day and a chance to meet your soulmate. What more could you want?

Seriously though, I always get a kick out of it when the Constitutional Scholars come out saying "The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what's Constitutional or not" when its literally in the Constitution that that is their job.

You don't have to be a consitutional scholar to understand the intent of the constitution. Obama was a great example of that, he was "a constitutional scholar" and he trampled all over it.

If we look back to any and all writing by the founding fathers. Mind you, they just fought a war against a tyrannical government who tried to confiscate firearms and means of resistance (shot, powder, cannons, etc) I am not aware of ANY writing from them to indicate they supported or intended with the constitution to limit the firepower an American could own, whatsoever. Mind you, at the time Americans privately owned warships, cannons and THE most technologically advanced firearms at the time.

With those facts acknowledged, any argument that tries to get around "shall not be infringed" is relying on agenda rather than fact, because the facts don't support the premise that the government has any authority to regulate the arms that Americans can keep and bear. Which gets right back to the premise of fighting a tyrannical government. If the government has the power to regulate the arms that Americans can have, that means the right is not absolute, it exists only within the confines set by the government, which the premise of that of course is entirely the opposite to the idea that Americans keep tyranny at bay by possessing arms. If the government can dictate to the populace what arms they are allowed to possess, that logically doesn't stand very well up to tyranny than does it?

I'm not saying I am going to go to jail due to unconstitutional laws. But this country has strayed so far from the constitution that the notion of it isn't even recognizable anymore. At the end of the day the government is just a big gang, and right now they are as a collective more powerful than me as the individual, so I'll play along for the time being, but it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. It just means that at the moment I am not willing to sacrifice everything I hold dear to violently defy a government that has well overgrown the intent of the constitution that created it.

 

[308]

You don't have to be a consitutional scholar to understand the intent of the constitution. Obama was a great example of that, he was "a constitutional scholar" and he trampled all over it.

If we look back to any and all writing by the founding fathers. Mind you, they just fought a war against a tyrannical government who tried to confiscate firearms and means of resistance (shot, powder, cannons, etc) I am not aware of ANY writing from them to indicate they supported or intended with the constitution to limit the firepower an American could own, whatsoever. Mind you, at the time Americans privately owned warships, cannons and THE most technologically advanced firearms at the time.

With those facts acknowledged, any argument that tries to get around "shall not be infringed" is relying on agenda rather than fact, because the facts don't support the premise that the government has any authority to regulate the arms that Americans can keep and bear. Which gets right back to the premise of fighting a tyrannical government. If the government has the power to regulate the arms that Americans can have, that means the right is not absolute, it exists only within the confines set by the government, which the premise of that of course is entirely the opposite to the idea that Americans keep tyranny at bay by possessing arms. If the government can dictate to the populace what arms they are allowed to possess, that logically doesn't stand very well up to tyranny than does it?

I'm not saying I am going to go to jail due to unconstitutional laws. But this country has strayed so far from the constitution that the notion of it isn't even recognizable anymore. At the end of the day the government is just a big gang, and right now they are as a collective more powerful than me as the individual, so I'll play along for the time being, but it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. It just means that at the moment I am not willing to sacrifice everything I hold dear to violently defy a government that has well overgrown the intent of the constitution that created it.

"....Endowed by their Creator..."
(not by the King or his future minions)

But we must not discuss the reality of that part so as not to offend or break rules.

 

[American123]

"....Endowed by their Creator..."
(not by the King or his future minions)

But we must not discuss the reality of that part so as not to offend or break rules.

A bubblegumin men!

 

[Ura-Ki]

They always leave out the part where the B.o.R. restricts the Government, NOT the people, which specifically means the Politicians!

 

[nammac]

They always leave out the part where the B.o.R. restricts the Government, NOT the people, which specifically means the Politicians!

It's left out because they know exactly how they violate the Bill of Rights on a daily basis. Professional, self serving politicians must be removed and get back to the model the Founding Fathers intended. Part time work, elected by those in their communities. They intended the mix to be shop keepers, farmers, laborers, business men and perhaps attorneys.

This model is too self serving and no longer accountable to or fearful of We the People.

 

[American123]

It's left out because they know exactly how they violate the Bill of Rights on a daily basis. Professional, self serving politicians must be removed and get back to the model the Founding Fathers intended. Part time work, elected by those in their communities. They intended the mix to be shop keepers, farmers, laborers, business men and perhaps attorneys.

This model is too self serving and no longer accountable to or fearful of We the People.

Exactly - I've been complaining about full time paid politicians (apart from the skeleton crew) my entire life.

 

[Ura-Ki]

It's left out because they know exactly how they violate the Bill of Rights on a daily basis. Professional, self serving politicians must be removed and get back to the model the Founding Fathers intended. Part time work, elected by those in their communities. They intended the mix to be shop keepers, farmers, laborers, business men and perhaps attorneys.

This model is too self serving and no longer accountable to or fearful of We the People.

Never mind the Lawyers in black robes, folks who are supposed to be blind to politics, agendas, and fashions of the times, justice is supposed to be unbiased and un moved!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Never mind the Lawyers in black robes, folks who are supposed to be blind to politics, agendas, and fashions of the times, justice is supposed to be unbiased and un moved!

Indeed. Have said this several times here.

The job of America's Federal government is supposed to be...

To ensure that the civil Rights of Americans are protected by any means.

To ensure that Congress do not pass laws that infringes on any Civil Rights of the Americans.

And to ensure that all three branches are balanced and checks against each other.


To expand on the above...

Congress is not about finding new ways to deprive Americans of their Civil Rights.

Supreme Court is not about finding new ways for Congress to deprive Americans of their Civil Rights.

Executive Branch is not about putting their friends and sponsors into places of power.

 

[American123]

Never mind the Lawyers in black robes, folks who are supposed to be blind to politics, agendas, and fashions of the times, justice is supposed to be unbiased and un moved!

That's the funny part, the agenda from the bench is getting rather obvious. People act like "supreme court said it, that's just the way it is." Well bull - they are just people who were appointed, and they were appointed with agenda because those who appointed them believed they would come to the conclusions desired.

I've never agreed with the concept that a small group of people could dictate to me what I am legally allowed to do (as long as I am not hurting others or taking their stuff.) To accept such a notion is no different than serfdom and a monarchy.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's the funny part, the agenda from the bench is getting rather obvious. People act like "supreme court said it, that's just the way it is." Well bull - they are just people who were appointed, and they were appointed with agenda because those who appointed them believed they would come to the conclusions desired.

I've never agreed with the concept that a small group of people could dictate to me what I am legally allowed to do (as long as I am not hurting others or taking their stuff.) To accept such a notion is no different than serfdom and a monarchy.

Indeed. IMO; SCOTUS job was supposed to be like this...

Congress passes new laws.

SCOTUS reviews new laws

SCOTUS tells Congress that new laws are infringing on Americans Civil Rights, and need to be scrapped, or that new laws pass muster of Strict Scrutinity.

Congress scrap bad laws, writes improvements that protects Civil Rights of Americans.

SCOTUS says good to go.

SCOTUS then goes to States via District Courts and tells States if States new laws passes muster of Strict Scrutiny, if they involve the ennumerated Rights. If not, then States can do as they want, as long as doesn't contradict Fed laws.

 

[Diamondback]

That's the funny part, the agenda from the bench is getting rather obvious. People act like "supreme court said it, that's just the way it is." Well bull - they are just people who were appointed, and they were appointed with agenda because those who appointed them believed they would come to the conclusions desired.

The Supreme Court once said "once a slave forever a slave" and "one human being can own another as property' too...

 

[American123]

Indeed. IMO; SCOTUS job was supposed to be like this...

Congress passes new laws.

SCOTUS reviews new laws

SCOTUS tells Congress that new laws are infringing on Americans Civil Rights, and need to be scrapped, or that new laws pass muster of Strict Scrutinity.

Congress scrap bad laws, writes improvements that protects Civil Rights of Americans.

SCOTUS says good to go.

SCOTUS then goes to States via District Courts and tells States if States new laws passes muster of Strict Scrutiny, if they involve the ennumerated Rights. If not, then States can do as they want, as long as doesn't contradict Fed laws.

That's not just your opinion, that's how it was supposed to work. The supreme court is not a legislation branch - their entire job is to make sure that laws pass constitutionality, they utterly fail at that often, especially because the bills coming out of the legislative branch are a hundreds of pages long. There is no way for them to get through it all throughly in a timely manner.

It's unfathomable that our entire country's foundational government/doctrine was put into less pages than all the bills that go through congress today.

 

[American123]

The Supreme Court once said "once a slave forever a slave" and "one human being can own another as property' too...

That tid bit bolsters my point