Got any plans for the Pistol Brace apocalypse?

[CamoDeafie]

The NFA is the gun control they want. I'm surprised it hasn't been expanded. Like by a lot

So am I. I've repeatedly said if they drafted a bill to add "assault weapons" category that includes everything they dislike to the NFA, it'd have a easier time passing both House and Senate than a repeat of the 1994 AWB with expanded stuff.

 

[ma96782]

Add, a LEADER like....



Next Stop.



Aloha, Mark

 

[mhayd93]

Yes, because repealing the NFA has never been a platform for either of the National Parties because it makes beaucoup money and is easy to say it's been ruled "constitutional"

Exactly, hardcore 2nd Amendment candidates who actually want to go after stuff like the NFA and ATF have long been suppressed by the establishment.

The irony of the 200$ tax stamp is that it was to basically prohibit sales of those NFA items, but now it's turned into quite the windfall for them!

 

[wired]

OK. True or false.

1. A firearm with a shoulder stock, and a rifled barrel under 16" is a SBR

True

2. A firearm with a rifled barrel under 16", and under 26" may be either a pistol, an AOW, or a SBR

If it has a buttstock its an SBR . If it doesn't have a buttstock and never did it is a pistol. If it has a forward grip and was never a rifle its an AOW.

3. A stabilizing brace has been considered not a stock until very recently

The argument could be readily made that it was a buttstock before the ATF got hoodwinked int allowing the use of stabilizing braces before they realized EVERYONE was going to use them as buttstocks and MANY versions were going to get sold that had not been approved. So no.

4. A firearm with a brace, under the new worksheet, under 16" barrel, and under 26" OAL may be a SBR

Yes

5. A firearm that does not have a brace, nor a stock, is under 26" OAL, is a pistol or AOW;

Yes

6. A firearm with a brace, under 26" OAL, if it has a 2nd vertical foregrip, used to be considered an AOW because of the foregrip

If it started as a pistol or bare receiver then yes.

7. If a stabilizing brace is now considered a stock; and the ATF was "mistaken" back in 2012 and since then..

Whats thr question?

8. So a braced firearm greater than 26" is "not a SBR"?

Its not a pistol. Its still going to be a firearm not an SBR. Unless they further change the rule there too. It could happen.

 

[wired]

Exactly, hardcore 2nd Amendment candidates who actually want to go after stuff like the NFA and ATF have long been suppressed by the establishment.

The irony of the 200$ tax stamp is that it was to basically prohibit sales of those NFA items, but now it's turned into quite the windfall for them!

Costs them about $60 an item to administer the program,

 

[MTpockets]

I wonder how this will affect the importation of "pistols" that would not be qualified for importation as rifles?

Here is an example...an 18+" barreled "pistol" by B&T...or maybe they won't care because it is not an SBR?


I can't believe that I came up with a serious question for this thread....off to find an animated GIF.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Okay. I' gonna make it real simple


A brace is either a shoulder stock or its not.

It cannot be both a shoulder stock and not a shoulder stock, using the narrowest, most simplest reading.

So explain to me again how a firearm over 26", with a rifled barrel under 16" is not a SBR with a brace, but the same brace on a firearm with an OAL less than 26" makes it a SBR?

 

[wired]

Okay. I' gonna make it real simple


A brace is either a shoulder stock or its not.

It cannot be both a shoulder stock and not a shoulder stock, using the narrowest, most simplest reading.

So explain to me again how a firearm over 26", with a rifled barrel under 16" is not a SBR with a brace, but the same brace on a firearm with an OAL less than 26" makes it a SBR?

OK youre probably right. Logically its an SBR. You win.

Im going to have to go back the (my) ATF office and notify my peers.

 

[Jay Walk]

To each his own but aren't binary triggers, auto key cards, bump stocks, pistol braces and the like just bringing us unwanted attention and hassle?

 

[CamoDeafie]

OK youre probably right. Logically its an SBR. You win.

Im going to have to go back the (my) ATF office and notify my peers.

Lol
A Fed lawsuit on this probably would have to rely on both the Bruen and the W.VA VS EPA decision.. because logically, if the ATF says "26" OAL or greater with a brace is not a SBR but under 26" OAL it is a SBR".... then that just makes it a bigger issue because they cannot say a brace is both a shoulder stock and not a shoulder stock and expect it to not go challenged.

 

[User 1234]

Theres some oddball stuff but to get int the weeds of the NFA takes a long time . That would be an SBR now if you were to register it today.

Isn't that photo a smoothbore firearm, therefore not a rifle under either the GCA or NFA?

 

[wired]

Isn't that photo a smoothbore firearm, therefore not a rifle under either the GCA or NFA?

Marble game getters are their own little world of weirdess. They did have 38 versions although I;'m not certain they were rifled. The only reason they are aow's is because they are single shot manual reloading. Yeah AOW not SBS maybe SBS depending on the model.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Theres some oddball stuff but to get int the weeds of the NFA takes a long time . That would be an SBR now if you were to register it today.

Actually if my memory's correct, that particular weapon had both a rifled barrel and a smoothbore barrel, a .22 and a .410 barrel combination, and under 16/18" barrel lengths and thus AOW?

 

[wired]

Actually if my memory's correct, that particular weapon had both a rifled barrel and a smoothbore barrel, a .22 and a .410 barrel combination, and under 16/18" barrel lengths and thus AOW?

There were other obscure calibers and configurations. I dont follow them . I know my grandpa had one that got purged when the cops showed up and cleaned out my great grandfathers collection of "confiscated " firearms when he died. Former LA County sheriff deputy.

 

[FourTeeFive]

If the ATF goes through with changing their own decision, yet again, will the actual pistol braces be illegal to possess? Or just if you mount them on a pistol?

Enquiring minds want to know...

 

[CountryGent]

Isn't that photo a smoothbore firearm, therefore not a rifle under either the GCA or NFA?

Generally: The top barrel is rifled. The bottom is smooth. Specimens are normally .22LR over a .44 smooth bore (early) or .22LR over .410-bore (later). They early versions had some custom calibers for the upper, rifled portion. I don't recall ever seeing one with both smooth bores, but I wouldn't rule it out. There's a variant with 18" barrels that is not subject to NFA, provided it still has the stock. Period advertising piece of early pattern:



The (original) M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon, which is a rifled .22 Hornet barrel over .410-bore, is also so classified, due to barrel lengths.

 

[mhayd93]

Costs them about $60 an item to administer the program,

Pretty good setup then still clearing +140$, especially going off the assumption that the agencies and departments responsible for NFA items are not exclusively funded by tax stamps!

 

[wired]

If the ATF goes through with changing their own decision, yet again, will the actual pistol braces be illegal to possess? Or just if you mount them on a pistol?

Enquiring minds want to know...

No. Braces are no different than stocks. You can own all you want

 

[wired]

Pretty good setup then still clearing +140$, especially going off the assumption that the agencies and departments responsible for NFA items are not exclusively funded by tax stamps!

They're like cops writing tickets . Ticket money goes into the general fund for the county, city etc and the city/county pays for the cops.

The ATF gets a LOT more money flowing in from the alcohol and tobacco side of the building. The ATF doesn't really even administer the tax side of the program . The Alcohol and Tobacco trade bureau in the Treasury dept does. They used to but that changed 20 some years ago.

 

[FourTeeFive]

No. Braces are no different than stocks. You can own all you want

More to the point, would it be considered constructive possession?