JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
For me, this route would be nightmare for when it comes to moving across state lines, which I do a lot. I do not know the simplicity of moving a NFA item from one state to another or even changing my address in the same state. No thanks!
Why is that a nightmare? Once a year you fill out a 5320.20 and email it in to the ATF. 5 minutes. Once a year.
 
Why is that a nightmare? Once a year you fill out a 5320.20 and email it in to the ATF. 5 minutes. Once a year.
Is there not something at the state level that needs to be done? I know you are well versed but I was told by a guy with a manufacturer license it was not so simple.

But then, there is that whole registry situation, a major no thanks!
 
Is there not something at the state level that needs to be done? I know you are well versed but I was told by a guy with a manufacturer license it was not so simple.

But then, there is that whole registry situation, a major no thanks!
If you've ever bought a gun at a dealer they know you. Don't believe otherwise. In any case no state restrictions. Your friend was off a bit.
 
I have nothing against SBR. I've considered it for one receiver. However, every time something like this comes up, as it did with the Q situation, some will say they are glad they registered everything as NFA... as though registration is a guarantee of any protection for the future. There is no such protection. Registration is a one-sided control mechanism against the citizen, not a limiting mechanism against the government. NFA registration defines at length what you cannot do with your SBR. Where does it say one word about what the government cannot do in return?

Once the tide changes they will start with the registration list first. It will be ever-increasing rules about where, when and how you can use your SBR. Once that no longer satisfies the grabbers, it will progress to confiscation.
 
I have nothing against SBR. I've considered it for one receiver. However, every time something like this comes up, as it did with the Q situation, some will say they are glad they registered everything as NFA... as though registration is a guarantee of any protection for the future. There is no such protection. Registration is a one-sided control mechanism against the citizen, not a limiting mechanism against the government. NFA registration defines at length what you cannot do with your SBR. Where does it say one word about what the government cannot do in return?

Once the tide changes they will start with the registration list first. It will be ever-increasing rules about where, when and how you can use your SBR. Once that no longer satisfies the grabbers, it will progress to confiscation.
And I'll ask this again.
Can you name one case where the Feds or State Agents actually confiscated, or went after lawful owners of registered NFA items?

I know plenty of cases with unregistered NFA items, and where the owners became felons/criminals after they broke other laws..
But I have yet to read of such things happening to lawful, registered owners since the start of NFA 1934....
 
Very few things have flown as far under the gun radar as SBR's do. I only have three non SBR'd AR's at this point with 16 or so SBR's including other stuff and 18 silencers. i'm not worried. The NFA doesnt say anything about what you cannot do with your SBR other than you have to file a 5320.20 once a year by email to travel to another state. I can't loan it to someone else. Like I do that anyway. Major inconvenience not.. You can do a LOT more with an SBR than you can with a title one gun. A LOT more.

One more SBR to do for now as soon as I get restocked on fingerprint cards. A 10" .338 Spectre AR.
 
Well, if they "ban" the braces,at the very minimum I'll send the ATF an invoice to pay for my two braces that I paid for and were legal before they so arbitrary decided otherwise.

Given their ridiculous MO, they would probably respond by sending one of their representatives to your front door with a search warrant.
 
And I'll ask this again.
Can you name one case where the Feds or State Agents actually confiscated, or went after lawful owners of registered NFA items?

I know plenty of cases with unregistered NFA items, and where the owners became felons/criminals after they broke other laws..
But I have yet to read of such things happening to lawful, registered owners since the start of NFA 1934....

I am not against SBR if anyone chooses to do so.

But, in the big picture, there is there is no new idea under the sun. Bad people will do bad things if given the opportunity. And bad ideas have a way of being revived after people's memories fade. Hence the adage: those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Registrations have been abused by many countries in the past. Just because it hasn't happened here yet, doesn't mean it wont. Bad ideas get revived. I'm sure German Jews in 1933 weren't expecting what was coming out of Germany's racial registration and identification system. After all, they were legal. I'm sure Australians and New Zealanders weren't expecting their registered firearms to be confiscated (or arrests for expressing alternative opinion for that matter). After all, they were legal. I'm sure people in these instances had very similar conversations to what we are having, before the other shoe dropped.

As many progressives in DC have openly stated, their model for social reform, civil rights, guns, etc... has been Europe and Australia. If we want to know what is coming here, we only have to look at what is happening there. I think that is sufficient cause for reasonable concern about what bad people will do with bad ideas.
 
I am not against SBR if anyone chooses to do so.

But, in the big picture, there is there is no new idea under the sun. Bad people will do bad things if given the opportunity. And bad ideas have a way of being revived after people's memories fade. Hence the adage: those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Registrations have been abused by many countries in the past. Just because it hasn't happened here yet, doesn't mean it wont. Bad ideas get revived. I'm sure German Jews in 1933 weren't expecting what was coming out of Germany's racial registration and identification system. I'm sure Australians and New Zealanders weren't expecting their registered firearms to be confiscated (or arrests for expressing alternative opinion for that matter). I'm sure people in these instances had very similar conversations to what we are having, before the other shoe dropped.

As many progressives in DC have openly stated, their model for social reform, civil rights, guns, etc... has been Europe and Australia. If we want to know what is coming here, we only have to look at what is happening there. I think that is sufficient cause for reasonable concern about what bad people will do with bad ideas.
They can have a model of Europe or Australia or whatever but none of those place have a 2nd amendment and a newly minted fully conservative supreme court. We are not Europe or New Zealand. We are not a Democracy and we have rule of law and a very peculiar Constitution that isnt going to change.
 
And yet.... NFA 1934 has been in force, for 86 years, and added/modified 1968, and 1986, and then during the 90s with the import bans per EOs..... and we still ain't got squads of ATF goons and jackboots going after lawful owners with duly registered NFA items (not just SBRs, but AOWs, SBS, Silencers/suppressors, pre1986 MGs, and Destructive Devices) :rolleyes: last I read, there's 180,000 or so pre-1986, registered, transferable Machine Guns in the United States. Not sure how many suppressors, and how much bigger the number is for SBRs.. one would think that to further their gun control aims, that there's already a rather large pool of registered guns they could go after as a "test run" except for the whole 4th and 5th Amendment issues, and that pesky "no taking of property without just compensation" thing.
 
And yet.... NFA 1934 has been in force, for 86 years, and added/modified 1968, and 1986, and then during the 90s with the import bans per EOs..... and we still ain't got squads of ATF goons and jackboots going after lawful owners with duly registered NFA items (not just SBRs, but AOWs, SBS, Silencers/suppressors, pre1986 MGs, and Destructive Devices) :rolleyes: last I read, there's 180,000 or so pre-1986, registered, transferable Machine Guns in the United States. Not sure how many suppressors, and how much bigger the number is for SBRs.. one would think that to further their gun control aims, that there's already a rather large pool of registered guns they could go after as a "test run" except for the whole 4th and 5th Amendment issues, and that pesky "no taking of property without just compensation" thing.
How much compensation were they offering for the bumpstocks? Give them time and the right leadership and they will come for them.
 
How much compensation were they offering for the bumpstocks? Give them time and the right leadership and they will come for them.
Here's the sticking point I am making. The bumpstock debacle was because they were "considered unregistered machine guns " and even now, there's a court case or some such relating to them.

But none of them were registered as machine guns before the ban :rolleyes: because they were legally, not machine guns
 
Here's the sticking point I am making. The bumpstock debacle was because they were "considered unregistered machine guns " and even now, there's a court case or some such relating to them.

But none of them were registered as machine guns before the ban :rolleyes: because they were legally, not machine guns
My concern is that the "rules" are ever changing and with some serious anti-gun zealots in power even NFA items could become a target. The big focus now is the braces and pistols. I could see them making up some bullpucky reason why they are no longer legal.
 
They can have a model of Europe or Australia or whatever but none of those place have a 2nd amendment and a newly minted fully conservative supreme court. We are not Europe or New Zealand. We are not a Democracy and we have rule of law and a very peculiar Constitution that isnt going to change.

The USA isn't really the USA anymore either. You and I believe in the constitution and rule of law. Unfortunately, the leaders and progressives don't. P/C and social justice have affected every aspect of the Bill of Rights and the law with daily infringement. When legislators don't follow the law there is no justice.

None of the ATF's opinions were approved by legal means. Yet they are writing them, interpreting them, and enforcing them as if they are law, thereby circumventing the authority of all three branches of government. We also have a supreme court that has previously allowed unconstitutional precedent, and foreign legal decisions, to determine their rulings rather than the text and context of the Constitution. Just look at the mental gymnastics Justice Roberts made to 'rewrite' the affordable care act to make it "constitutional". Maybe the current court can unwind some of the previous courts' trainwreck decisions, but they actually have to decide to hear the case.
 
So what about a rifle length with a brace? By the way FAHQ BATFE.
If you're talking 16" barrel, its a rifle, and there's no real point in keeping a brace on it? If like over 26" OAL but under 16" barrel, then sure, it doesn't fall under AOW, nor does it fall under either Pistol or Rifle, as long as it does not have a shoulder stock?

If the ATF unilateraly defines all AR/AK receivers as rifle class then well. I don't know what to say really.
 
The USA isn't really the USA anymore either. You and I believe in the constitution and rule of law. Unfortunately, the leaders and progressives don't. P/C and social justice have affected every aspect of the Bill of Rights and the law with daily infringement. When legislators don't follow the law there is no justice.

None of the ATF's opinions were approved by legal means. Yet they are writing them, interpreting them, and enforcing them as if they are law, thereby circumventing the authority of all three branches of government. We also have a supreme court that has previously allowed unconstitutional precedent, and foreign legal decisions, to determine their rulings rather than the text and context of the Constitution. Just look at the mental gymnastics Justice Roberts made to 'rewrite' the affordable care act to make it "constitutional". Maybe the current court can unwind some of the previous courts' trainwreck decisions, but they actually have to decide to hear the case.


I agree with you. Just one thing I wonder about. Is there a law that gives the ATF the authority to regulate things via policy? For example DoD directives (memos) are a matter of law. When a general or SES sends out a memo, it's a matter of law. I wonder if they gave the ATF that same power via statute.

Then think of it another way. Who would you rather interpreting things and deciding. Diane "the shoulder thing that goes up" Feinstein when talking about a barrel shroud for a shotgun or more gun savvy ATF? I'm not defending them by ANY means. I just giving food for thought. They are the lesser of 2 evils and I'd bet they have statutory authority to regulate via policy. They have Attorneys on staff and US Attorneys to consult. They have more education and experience with law than any of us. Not as much common sense but more legal knowledge.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top