National Constructive Possession Brace vs Stock

[RobMa]

 

[eustace_stelio]

Do whatever. Just don't tell yourself that you are striking a blow for gun rights by hiding a $20 plastic stock in your closet.

Mine was closer to $100.

 

[eustace_stelio]

The whole legality of a "sbr" is stupid as heck. How is a rifle with a 7.5" barrel more dangerous or potentially more dangerous than ine with a 16" barrel?

Isn't the argument that a sbr is more concealable? Lol

More concealable than a glock 17 with a 33 round magazine? Or hell even 2 glock 17s with 33 rounders? Doubtful

And a lot of the mass shootings done with ar type rifles are 16" rifles. It's quite dumb imo and even dumber to allow pistol braces for nearly a decade then be like "now it's a problem" when very few mass shooting events were the result of a pistol brace allowing for concealment...

 

[monkeybutler]

That guy is a loudmouth moron. Not the kind of spokesperson we need. But I really love the hipster fast cuts in the video production. Time to find smarter idols.

 

[Flopsweat]

The whole legality of a "sbr" is stupid as heck. How is a rifle with a 7.5" barrel more dangerous or potentially more dangerous than ine with a 16" barrel?

Isn't the argument that a sbr is more concealable? Lol

More concealable than a glock 17 with a 33 round magazine? Or hell even 2 glock 17s with 33 rounders? Doubtful

And a lot of the mass shootings done with ar type rifles are 16" rifles. It's quite dumb imo and even dumber to allow pistol braces for nearly a decade then be like "now it's a problem" when very few mass shooting events were the result of a pistol brace allowing for concealment...

It's a useless section that was left in the draft of the NFA after the pistol ban was removed. Anyone who argues that a shorter barrel makes a rifle more dangerous is likely either ignorant of the history of the NFA or lying.

 

[RX-79G]

The whole legality of a "sbr" is stupid as heck. How is a rifle with a 7.5" barrel more dangerous or potentially more dangerous than ine with a 16" barrel?

Isn't the argument that a sbr is more concealable? Lol

More concealable than a glock 17 with a 33 round magazine? Or hell even 2 glock 17s with 33 rounders? Doubtful

And a lot of the mass shootings done with ar type rifles are 16" rifles. It's quite dumb imo and even dumber to allow pistol braces for nearly a decade then be like "now it's a problem" when very few mass shooting events were the result of a pistol brace allowing for concealment...

I think you know very well that a rifle, even with a very short barrel, is much more effective than a Glock 17. The rationale behind the law is clear, whether we like it or not.

 

[RX-79G]

Mine was closer to $100.

Does it work super good for firing your AR at arms length?

 

[GrayGoose]

A victimless "crime"...

 

[eustace_stelio]

I think you know very well that a rifle, even with a very short barrel, is much more effective than a Glock 17. The rationale behind the law is clear, whether we like it or

More mass shootings happen with pistols. 32 people killed at Virginia tech. The deadliest mass shooting in US before the Las Vegas shooting, which was a full size rifle.

Most mass shootings are in close proximity.

 

[eustace_stelio]

Does it work super good for firing your AR at arms length?

Who gives a crap. I purchased it legally. It was legal for nearly a decade and because some witch hunters came up with hypothetical scenarios in which it is now somehow inherently more dangerous than a 16" rifle with a standard stock it's now illegal?

Hard pass

 

[Flopsweat]

Who gives a crap. I purchased it legally. It was legal for nearly a decade and because some witch hunters came up with hypothetical scenarios in which it is now somehow inherently more dangerous than a 16" rifle with a standard stock it's now illegal?

Hard pass

He's just trolling you.

 

[RX-79G]

More mass shootings happen with pistols. 32 people killed at Virginia tech. The deadliest mass shooting in US before the Las Vegas shooting, which was a full size rifle.

Most mass shootings are in close proximity.

Are you making the case for banning everything?

 

[eustace_stelio]

Are you making the case for banning everything?

Banning dees

 

[eustace_stelio]

He's just trolling you.

Oh for sure. He can sing till he is blue in the face. Dude has the same vibes as those kids that would catch the cool kids smoking in the bathroom at school and instantly run to tell the teacher.

 

[Alexx1401]

Who gives a crap. I purchased it legally. It was legal for nearly a decade and because some witch hunters came up with hypothetical scenarios in which it is now somehow inherently more dangerous than a 16" rifle with a standard stock it's now illegal?

Hard pass

You are trying to apply logic to these laws and rules and the people putting them in are never going to use that. NONE of the laws do anything for crime. Say the short barrel is dangerous if used in crime and the only people who will follow the law are those who are not criminals. The criminal will just cut a barrel down as they are already criminals. Like ALL gun laws this is made to fail. So when it does not work they can come back for more. A LOT of gun owners make the mistake of going along with this deluding themselves into believing those making these laws will ever stop.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Thompson/Center Arms made the case that if one has the parts for both a rifle and a pistol starting with a pistol receiver; they are not in constructive possession of a SBR; rather, the SBR configuration must be assembled to be unlawful. You can legally go Pistol to Rifle to Pistol, as long as it does not go into a SBR configuration. ATF still holds that "Once a Rifle, always a rifle"; meaning you cannot just cut a barrel and swap for a pistol buffer tube (or swap upper for a pistol and swap buffer tube assembly for a pistol tube)

Edit. Thompson/Center case should have ended the SBR portion but it didn't. If it had ended/overturned/nullified just the SBR portion of the NFA, we might not even be having this discussion about braces and everything. The AWB of 1994 might still have happened anyways but at the least people would be free to own SBRs tax-free, had the SBR part of NFA been overturned back in 1992


Staples, 1997 case has a dissent by the Notorious RBG and unanimously agreed by the rest of the SCOTUS bench; that Semiautomatic rifles are protected by the 2A by being in common use.. even though there was the AWB of 94 that was still in effect, because it targeted only the cosmetic features of specific rifles the case also said that the government must prove beyond doubt that the accused knew before his arrest, that his Semiautomatic rifle was illegally modified into a machine gun.


Heller, 2008 enshrined that the entire class of Semiautomatic handguns are in common use and thus protected by 2A.


Bruen, 2022 Introduced the Text as informed by History and Tradition for 2A cases; this confirmed right to carry in public. This also might affect NFA/GCA/FOPA Hughes Amendment because from 1791 to 1934, there were no laws/history/traditions requiring the registration and restriction of certain firearms classes; and the average American Citizenry had full parity of arms with the Army/Navy/Marines until 1934.

Thus far; it should be interesting that even though these cases have confirmed in favor of 2A and against the US government; they did not overturn the SBR portion, although they could have, and perhaps the time is now to be rid of the SBR/SBS portion of the NFA, if not the whole of it; depending on the lawyers in black robes


As for the brace thing. Think what you want. The fact they were legal for over 10 years; and Americans bought them in the millions; and the seemingly intentional mischaracterization of the brace ruling as well as the subjective "objective criteria" which could by the letter of the ruling include just about all AR pistols regardless of whether or not they have a brace attached...


Chevron deference cannot really be used for this since the ruling includes criminal penalties; therefore Rule of Lenity must be applied, and it would have to be in favor of the citizens and not the government. Thompson/Center, Staples, Heller, Bruen all were decided with Rule of Lenity, from what I can see.

 

[Caveman Jim]

theres gonna be mass non compliance. just sayin.

Ya think?

 

[Flopsweat]

While we're on the subject, this guidance doc was intended to explain how to use the worksheet. It seems to only prove how convoluted the process truly is.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-10/pdf/2021-12176.pdf

 

[ilikegunspdx]

While we're on the subject, this guidance doc was intended to explain how to use the worksheet. It seems to only prove how convoluted the process truly is.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-10/pdf/2021-12176.pdf

That was the first draft rule, not the final rule where there is no worksheet. Just want to clarify, not defend damn atf.

 

[Flopsweat]

That was the first draft rule, not the final rule where there is no worksheet. Just want to clarify, not defend damn atf.

Yes, Congress told them it was too complicated, so they changed it to their tried and true "Here's an impossibly vague description. The criteria are secret. Send us your design and we'll tell you if it's OK". Or words to that effect.