Enjoying Your AR Pistol Legally After New Brace Rules Takes Effect.

[Xaevian]

Monsters are real!

 

[wired]

"the supreme Court ruled it legal along time ago, decades ago"

If the SC overturns Roe v Wade, were abortion laws always constitutional, never constitutional, or only constitutional for a few years?

Pretty simple really, legal during the time the court says it's legal not legal during the time the court says it's not legal. Yep that's the world we live in

 

[Flopsweat]

Pretty simple really, legal during the time the court says it's legal not legal during the time the court says it's not legal. Yep that's the world we live in

Schrödinger's Law?

 

[American123]

No, I don't have to say that because the supreme Court ruled it legal along time ago, decades ago. I live in the real world and in the real world we have to comply with supreme Court rulings about what is constitutional and not constitutional whether you believe it or not

The second amendment gave zero authority to limit and infringe on ownership of arms by the characteristics to which the NFA does. A simple review of its constitutionality would lead such to be repealed. The "real world" acknowledges that people are fallible and subject to influence and agenda. The previous ruling was an example of such because it is very obviously unconstitutional when compared to what the constitution says.

 

[wired]

The second amendment gave zero authority to limit and infringe on ownership of arms by the characteristics to which the NFA does. A simple review of its constitutionality would lead such to be repealed. The "real world" acknowledges that people are fallible and subject to influence and agenda. The previous ruling was an example of such because it is very obviously unconstitutional when compared to what the constitution says.

Gee whiz, wouldn't it be great if we had a body and the federal government that reviewed the constitution and told us what was constitutional and what laws are constitutional within its framework. Too bad something like that doesn't exist so we just don't all go around making our own rules up that'd be fun wouldn't it

 

[Will_White]

It is no big deal getting a stamp. You pay $200 and get a stamp and thats about the end of the drama.A minor paperwork thing once a year if you cross state lines, No big deal. The NFA has been in existence for almost 90 years.

Form 1's for an SBR have been running 2-3 weeks processing time not 3-18 months. Ive got 75 of the damned things. No big deal.

Has the Supreme Court seen a challenge to the NFA? Miller established that military weapons were protected by the 2a but didn't dismantle it because the defendant couldn't prove a SBS was used by militaries, because he was dead.

 

[Flopsweat]

Gee whiz, wouldn't it be great if we had a body and the federal government that reviewed the constitution and told us what was constitutional and what laws are constitutional within its framework. Too bad something like that doesn't exist so we just don't all go around making our own rules up that'd be fun wouldn't it

 

[Oro]

The problem that no one wants to admit is that the ATF created this problem in the first place by illegally allowing braces in the first place. ...

I don't think that's strictly true. The braces that they approved made sense, and are going to stay legal (mine is one of those).

Things went sideways when people abused it by putting on carbine tubes and buttstocks, and then just hanging a few elements of a true brace on those collapsible buttstocks and calling them braces. I can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I think manufacturers share a lot of blame because they ran with that and advertised those non-approved set-ups as legal and misled the public.

Of course, this all could eventually be out the window with NYSRPA, but that's not going to happen immediately.

To me it seems very wrong to lump all things together as "braces." I've tried to analyze this and it seems to break down into two real groups:

1) "Pistol braces" which are non-adjustable, have straps, and are mounted on pistol tubes,.
2) "Carbine braces" which are mounted on adjustable carbine tubes and are most often adjustable to provide a typical rifle length-of-pull.

Pistol braces will be just fine, but "carbine braces" are not going to be ok on a pistol.

 

[wired]

Has the Supreme Court seen a challenge to the NFA? Miller established that military weapons were protected by the 2a but didn't dismantle it because the defendant couldn't prove a SBS was used by militaries, because he was dead.

Miller was a lot more than that.

 

[American123]

Has the Supreme Court seen a challenge to the NFA? Miller established that military weapons were protected by the 2a but didn't dismantle it because the defendant couldn't prove a SBS was used by militaries, because he was dead.

SBR's ate definitely used, case closed, not that military use would be relevant to infringe on the capability of civilian ownership. That ruling conflicts with the Hughes act anyway so full auto, which is definitely used, shouldn't be infringed on either.

 

[Will_White]

Miller was a lot more than that.

That's paraphrased but that's what the majority opinion says.

 

[wired]

SBR's ate definitely used, case closed, not that military use would be relevant to infringe on the capability of civilian ownership. That ruling conflicts with the Hughes act anyway so full auto, which is definitely used, shouldn't be infringed on either.

Miller was decided in an era where

a. The public didnt care about machine guns and silencers etc. and got sold quick on the fact that all of that was OK to tax out of existence. Tax acceptance was riding high in the country.

b. The Supreme court had been running for decades on the supposition that the 2nd Amendment only applied to keeping and regulating a militia. It wasnt until Heller that that streak broke. I dont know that any of this will change with NY.

That's paraphrased but that's what the majority opinion says.

Again, Miller did a few things. One was to affirm the legitimacy to the courts of the NFA in regards to the 2nd amendments support of arms as being useful to the militia. Thats really all the courts cared about for years and what they pushed. The 2nd amendment was about raising a well disciplined and armed militia. Keeping and bearing arms was for the militia. Heller changed that. Todays ruling changed it more.

 

[American123]

Miller was decided in an era where

a. The public didnt care about machine guns and silencers etc. and got sold quick on the fact that all of that was OK to tax out of existence. Tax acceptance was riding high in the country.

b. The Supreme court had been running for decades on the supposition that the 2nd Amendment only applied to keeping and regulating a militia. It wasnt until Heller that that streak broke. I dont know that any of this will change with NY.

Again, Miller did a few things. One was to affirm the legitimacy to the courts of the NFA in regards to the 2nd amendments support of arms as being useful to the militia. Thats really all the courts cared about for years and what they pushed. The 2nd amendment was about raising a well disciplined and armed militia. Keeping and bearing arms was for the militia. Heller changed that. Todays ruling changed it more.

Who is the militia? The people… who are the people? Individual Americans being referred to as a group in the plural.

Read the second Amendment, it's the right of the people, not the militia, not the government, but the people.

 

[Xaevian]

Who is the militia? The people… who are the people? Individual Americans being referred to as a group in the plural.

Read the second Amendment, it's the right of the people, not the militia, not the government, but the people.

Not the point he was making, at least the way I read it.

 

[wired]

Not the point he was making, at least the way I read it.

Not my opinion at all. That was the Supreme Court interpretation for decades , most of US history. I think Ive been pretty clear about firearms laws. My opinion means nothing. Same goes for your opinion. I dont even bother stating my opinion because it means squat. I live by rules passed by Congress, interpreted by the SCOTUS and executed by the ATF. Try telling the judge at your trial how the 2nd amendment means this or that and he'll laugh while passing sentence.

 

[wired]

Who is the militia? The people… who are the people? Individual Americans being referred to as a group in the plural.

Read the second Amendment, it's the right of the people, not the militia, not the government, but the people.

That was not the majority opinion at the courts from at least the 1890's through the early 2000's.

 

[Flopsweat]

Not my opinion at all. That was the Supreme Court interpretation for decades , most of US history. I think Ive been pretty clear about firearms laws. My opinion means nothing. Same goes for your opinion. I dont even bother stating my opinion because it means squat. I live by rules passed by Congress, interpreted by the SCOTUS and executed by the ATF. Try telling the judge at your trial how the 2nd amendment means this or that and he'll laugh while passing sentence.

So your opinion is that opinions don't matter?

 

[American123]

That was not the majority opinion at the courts from at least the 1890's through the early 2000's.

People are fallible. It is plainly written in the constitution whose rights they are and it is supported in its intention by the writings of several of those who signed founding documents.

 

[wired]

So your opinion is that opinions don't matter

When it comes to the law? Yep.

 

[Flopsweat]

People are fallible. It is plainly written in the constitution whose rights they are and it is supported in its intention by the writings of several of those who signed founding documents.

Are we all going to pretend that there is no pattern of justices leaning toward their party lines? Why do you think Biden keeps talking about packing the court? What does he think is wrong with it now?