National ATF coming for pistol braces

[CamoDeafie]

The problem is that their interpretation of the law was wrong the first time around. And yeah, like any government agency that uses laws they have fairly broad leeway in the interpretation of said laws . Been ruled constitutional so...it is according to the constitution and how we determine laws are constitutional. They're crossing their Ts and dotting their I's getting ready for the innevitable court challenge which I for one think they will win...because braces are just ugly stocks.

That's your opinion. The ATF might lose this one, if the Courts go by "intent of designs" versus "results of use".

Like almost all the manufacturers of these braces say they're not intended to be used as shoulder stocks... and the ATF have sent letters saying they either comply or don't... the Courts may well use those letters of compliance against the ATF, telling them to be consistent.. but then again, the Courts may well decide in favor of the ATF, if the ATF convinces the Courts to not use the evidences or expert testimonials from the brace makers and companies

It really is a crapshoot. Its also why I have a cheek rest option for my 6.5 Grendel, in case the Courts side with the ATF and declare all braces to be "shoulder stocks by use not by intent"

 

[wired]

That's your opinion. The ATF might lose this one, if the Courts go by "intent of designs" versus "results of use".

Like almost all the manufacturers of these braces say they're not intended to be used as shoulder stocks... and the ATF have sent letters saying they either comply or don't... the Courts may well use those letters of compliance against the ATF, telling them to be consistent.. but then again, the Courts may well decide in favor of the ATF, if the ATF convinces the Courts to not use the evidences or expert testimonials from the brace makers and companies

It really is a crapshoot. Its also why I have a cheek rest option for my 6.5 Grendel, in case the Courts side with the ATF and declare all braces to be "shoulder stocks by use not by intent"

If you really believe the handicap BS arm brace thing. They were designed to skirt the law and look sort of like something that might be useful to the handicapped.

 

[sobo]

But you must admit, they do help the firearm to be more accurate. Who in their right mind would argue for a less accurate firearm?

 

[wired]

But you must admit, they do help the firearm to be more accurate. Who in their right mind would argue for a less accurate firearm?

The SAME way a stock helps an SBR be more accurate than a pistol without a stock. The EXACT same way.

 

[RobMa]

 

[The Heretic]

If you really believe the handicap BS arm brace thing. They were designed to skirt the law and look sort of like something that might be useful to the handicapped.

So you say.

It comes back to stated (intended) purpose.

You can say their intended design is to skirt the law, but that is not what most of the manufacturers say. At that point if comes to "he said, she said", and evidence to the contrary lacking (such as marketing or "smoking gun" emails/etc.), the manufacturer's stated intentions and marketing would be stronger evidence than your opinion/beliefs. The question is whether the ATF's assertions will be believed over that of the manufacturer's assertions (and those of whomever brings a court case to overturn the ATF's future rulings).

 

[wired]

So you say.

It comes back to stated (intended) purpose.

You can say their intended design is to skirt the law, but that is not what most of the manufacturers say. At that point if comes to "he said, she said", and evidence to the contrary lacking (such as marketing or "smoking gun" emails/etc.), the manufacturer's stated intentions and marketing would be stronger evidence than your opinion/beliefs. The question is whether the ATF's assertions will be believed over that of the manufacturer's assertions (and those of whomever brings a court case to overturn the ATF's future rulings).

That's the question but I have a hard time seeing the judge siding with the manufacturers on that one. It's clearly a buttstock and the ATFs proposed rules do make allowance for what they will consider a brace.

 

[308]

It probably does not help those who understand the words 'shall not be infringed' when supposed 2A firearms enthusiasts constantly lean on the shoulders of the BATF cube farmers because they don't mind being on a list.

 

[CamoDeafie]

These were also called butts, buttstocks, stocks in old writings and books. "Pistol whipped with the butt of the pistol", or "struck with the butt of his revolver" or some variations.

A "stock" is understood to be the rearmost part of a gun, either a grip, or a shoulder stock or some other protuberance.

A cheek rest could rightly be called a stock but it is not a shoulder stock.





The GCA 1968 only defines that firearms designed to be fired from the shoulder are either rifles or shotguns, with further refinement found in the NFA1934 definitions regarding barrel lengths.

 

[Rkangel]

The problem is that their interpretation of the law was wrong the first time around. And yeah, like any government agency that uses laws they have fairly broad leeway in the interpretation of said laws . Been ruled constitutional so...it is according to the constitution and how we determine laws are constitutional. They're crossing their Ts and dotting their I's getting ready for the innevitable court challenge which I for one think they will win...because braces are just ugly stocks.

The first problem is that they were allowed to interpret the law in the first place, or push the belief that opinion letters carry any weight of law and do so without congressional oversight or approval. Legislative branch creates laws. Judicial branch interprets laws. Executive branch enforces laws. Which leads to the second problem. None of these branches seem to do their jobs or stay in their lanes. They are too busy trading favors and padding their pockets to do the people's business, so they create more three letter agencies, or never hear cases, in order to isolate themselves from responsibility and culpability. The third problem is that none of these branches seem to actually give a darn about the Constitution or the Law.

But the biggest problem (as has been mentioned before) is that they effectively want to give themselves the authority to make up laws, interpret the made up laws and enforce them on the spot. So even if you follow all of their arbitrary and capricious rules they can still find you guilty of a crime. You can bet your sweet bippy that if they succeed with this it won't stop at pistol braces. Regardless of our personal feelings about braces vs. stock, pistol vs. SBR, this proposed rule change was never actually about any of that. It's about getting that foot in the door, seeing how much they can get away with, and setting a precedence for their actual plans.

 

[The Heretic]

These were also called butts, buttstocks, stocks in old writings and books. "Pistol whipped with the butt of the pistol", or "struck with the butt of his revolver" or some variations.

A "stock" is understood to be the rearmost part of a gun, either a grip, or a shoulder stock or some other protuberance.

A cheek rest could rightly be called a stock but it is not a shoulder stock.


View attachment 1037738View attachment 1037739


The GCA 1968 only defines that firearms designed to be fired from the shoulder are either rifles or shotguns, with further refinement found in the NFA1934 definitions regarding barrel lengths.

All good info, but the law has its own definitions and courts rarely care what is technically correct nomenclature, only what the law itself says. The law can say a "cow" is a canine creature with 5 legs, no tail and a horn in the middle of its forehead, and within the scope of that law, that would be a "cow".

 

[Hueco]

So you say.

It comes back to stated (intended) purpose.

You can say their intended design is to skirt the law, but that is not what most of the manufacturers say. At that point if comes to "he said, she said", and evidence to the contrary lacking (such as marketing or "smoking gun" emails/etc.), the manufacturer's stated intentions and marketing would be stronger evidence than your opinion/beliefs. The question is whether the ATF's assertions will be believed over that of the manufacturer's assertions (and those of whomever brings a court case to overturn the ATF's future rulings).

That's all well and good while all the manufacturers keep up the facade of them being intended to be braces.

It'll all go out the window if they let slip the intention is to shoulder the weapon.

GOD DAMNIT PALMETTO!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Also people don't realize that if you have a pistol with essentially no brace (or maybe no brace at all) it can easily fail the "scorecard" and becomes an illegal sbr. Remember 4 points is all u need.

So fe if u have an angled foregrip (which atf said is ok) that's 4 points by itself and it's an illegal sbr no matter what any other scores are.


This "scorecard" concept, once established and the precedent is set, could be easily applied to make a new "scorecard" for a ban on assault weapons.

The 1994 assault weapons ban used a "features test" that is similar to the scorecard without the numbers. However that was passed by Congress and became law. This time it's ONLY ATF making it up. The 1994 features test:

 

[CamoDeafie]

Its like that Clinton era lawyer said..
"It depends on what the meaning of "is"; is"

 

[Flopsweat]

If you really believe the handicap BS arm brace thing. They were designed to skirt the law and look sort of like something that might be useful to the handicapped.

So you say.

It comes back to stated (intended) purpose.

You can say their intended design is to skirt the law, but that is not what most of the manufacturers say. At that point if comes to "he said, she said", and evidence to the contrary lacking (such as marketing or "smoking gun" emails/etc.), the manufacturer's stated intentions and marketing would be stronger evidence than your opinion/beliefs. The question is whether the ATF's assertions will be believed over that of the manufacturer's assertions (and those of whomever brings a court case to overturn the ATF's future rulings).

Let's keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty, not assumed so. For over a century corporations have paid lobbyists to get loopholes and exceptions injected into laws for their own self interest. When we run across a naturally occurring one, of course we will take advantage of it. It's only right. And the only right way for a government agency to counter that is to change the law to not have that loophole or exception in it.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Where in the laws relevant to this, are shoulder stocks slavishly defined and laid out as detailed as possible? Because I do not see such things.

Only that intended/designed to be fired from the shoulder versus designed to be fired by a single hand for firearms under GCA1968 and NFA only defines firearms as any of the following;

Short barreled rifles
designed to be fired from shoulder
Under 16" barrel

Short barreled shotguns
designed to be fired from shoulder
Under 18" barrel

Any Other Weapon
made from a rifle or shotgun or pistol
Concealable( held by ATF to be less than 26" OAL)
May have Two vertical grips
Maybe a few other things?

Destructive Device
bore greater than .50 inches, and rifled, not counting shotguns
Any and all artillery pieces not demilled, and not based on blackpowder antiques (no idea if replicas are counted?)
Antipersonnel rounds for 37mm/40mm launchers makes launchers and ammo D.D.s

 

[Diamondback]

Saying a brace on a pistol is "intent to shoulder" is like saying ladyparts on a woman are "intent to prostitute" or genitals on a D are "intent to chomo."

See what I did there?

 

[wired]

I have never seen anyone at any range I have ever been at not shoulder one because that is what they are made to do. Its a stock that looks like it might have some other use.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I have never seen anyone at any range I have ever been at not shoulder one because that is what they are made to do. Its a stock that looks like it might have some other use.

I've never seen police, military, nor most shooters shooting handguns accurately with one hand the vast majority are taught to use 2 hands... therefore by your logic... the vast majority of handguns are AOWs because the users violates the GCA1968 definitions of "a pistol is designed to be fired by a single hand"

 

[Stomper]

I posted it on FB and got a like from a left leaning Canadian

What, does he have a kickstand on his leg or something?