National More Info On Brace Ban

[ilikegunspdx]

View attachment 1270090

Has anyone seen ANYWHERE where the ATF said it's going to be free? Amnesty does not = "free" to my way of thinking. Amnesty to me = "forgiveness of a crime", not "fees are waived"

 

[Member 3687]

That would go back to its initial ruling that braces were not buttstocks when they clearly are.

A brace has never been a butt stock, was never patented as a butt stock and just because people used it as a butt stock does not make it one. Even if you do not agree.

If I stab some with a screw driver it does not become a knife or a dagger even if I sharpen it, it is still a screw driver and will never be a knife or a dagger, yet I used it as one.

Words have meanings in law and the ATF has stated they do not regulate accessories and a brace is an accessory to a pistol not a rifle. It was not designed to be installed on a rifle and no factory rifle that I haves seen to date has ever been sold with a brace, so how is it a stock.

Has the AFT ever evaluated a rifle with a brace on it and made a determination letter on it to show it was a stock?

Gee whiz for the last 10 years they have have said it was a brace on a pistol but now they are saying it is a stock on a SBR.

We will see them in court

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think "amnesty" in this context more likely means:

Today a braced pistol is legal and you can sbr it if you want to

After the new brace ban/rule, possessing a braced pistol is illegal but they will grant you an amnesty to register it as an sbr (ie turn it from "illegal" to "legal"). Just my opinion and of course not enough ATF info. know for sure. Everyone is getting fixated on "free" I think.

 

[Yarome]

Has anyone seen ANYWHERE where the ATF said it's going to be free? Amnesty does not = "free" to my way of thinking. Amnesty to me = "forgiveness of a crime", not "fees are waived"

Not that I've seen. I think it is just supposition and wishful thinking based on the previous "amnesty" they did for MG's. Amnesty in and of itself doesn't include any relief from due process or fees.

Only as you outlined. "You own an illegal item, but we won't charge you with a crime if you make it known you are in violation of the law and duly register it within the allowed amnesty period."

As far as I'm understanding it, anyway.

 

[GrayGoose]

Bracing for it...

(well, not really)

 

[Member 53328]

Braces are in the same category as a bump stock/forced reset triggers in my eyes. Not saying they should have to be registered/illegal but they are a gimmick. Simply a solution/loop hole to skirt the law (whether we agree with the law or not). Anyone who thought braces would just go "unnoticed" is a naive in my opinion. But that's just me….. I've been called the boot licker that has paid for tax stamps on this forum….. liberal arguing tactics/name calling from the 2A community. It's enjoyable to watch us eat our own.

 

[American123]

Braces are in the same category as a bump stock/forced reset triggers in my eyes. Not saying they should have to be registered/illegal but they are a gimmick. Simply a solution/loop hole to skirt the law (whether we agree with the law or not). Anyone who thought braces would just go "unnoticed" is a naive in my opinion. But that's just me….. I've been called the boot licker that has paid for tax stamps on this forum….. liberal arguing tactics/name calling from the 2A community. It's enjoyable to watch us eat our own.

They are far from a gimmick, they serve multiple very legitimate purposes and the term "loophole" is just another way of saying, "freedom" but attempting to cast light on it as if it should not be a freedom.

Existing as "not a stock" is a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, if the NFA is deemed idiotic because of how braces help avoid NFA restrictions on SBR's, then it is evidence that the NFA is pointless, an infringement on a constitutionally recognized right, and should be repealed.

The law stipulates what is legal and what is not. Politicians use the term "loophole" to describe legal acts that they want to make illegal. If they want to make something illegal - there is a process for that. Trying to morph language and definitions to change laws is not that process.

 

[Member 53328]

They are far from a gimmick, they serve multiple very legitimate purposes and the term "loophole" is just another way of saying, "freedom" but attempting to cast light on it as if it should not be a freedom.

Existing as "not a stock" is a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, if the NFA is deemed idiotic because of how braces help avoid NFA restrictions on SBR's, then it is evidence that the NFA is pointless, an infringement on a constitutionally recognized right, and should be repealed.

The law stipulates what is legal and what is not. Politicians use the term "loophole" to describe legal acts that they want to make illegal. If they want to make something illegal - there is a process for that. Trying to morph language and definitions to change laws is not that process.

They "had" a legit purpose, you are correct. But the masses manipulated that and ruined it for everyone. But that's nothing new in America.

 

[Yarome]

Simply a solution/loop hole to skirt the law (whether we agree with the law or not). Anyone who thought braces would just go "unnoticed" is a naive in my opinion. But that's just me….. I've been called the boot licker that has paid for tax stamps on this forum….. liberal arguing tactics/name calling from the 2A community. It's enjoyable to watch us eat our own.

My take is... the 2A allows the freedom for every person to exercise their rights in any way they feel is appropriate... for them. I may not necessarily agree that the same is "reasonable" or "appropriate" for ME, but it's not anyone's right to determine, demean or infringe on another person's rights simply because it's not a choice we would make for ourselves.

I agree. We shouldn't be eating our own by labelling other gun owners as naive or accuse them of using loopholes to, esentially, break the law (in our own minds only) in how they chose to exercise their rights. Especially when the "laws" and "rules" are constantly changing and in and of themselves, often unlawful.

We either believe "Shall not be infringed" has meaning for all... or for none.

 

[American123]

They "had" a legit purpose, you are correct. But the masses manipulated that and ruined it for everyone. But that's nothing new in America.

Incorrect: If a person who can not walk uses a wheel chair to help them get around. It doesn't become "not a wheelchair" just because I sit in it with my perfectly working legs.

Once you understand how law works, these applications of logic are really simple.

 

[Member 53328]

Incorrect: If a person who can not walk uses a wheel chair to help them get around. It doesn't become "not a wheelchair" just because I sit in it with my perfectly working legs.

Once you understand how law works, these applications of logic are really simple.

If that's the case I think I'm gunna go get one of those cool blue placards to allow me to park really close to the store.

I don't make statements/opinions dictated by absolutes. I don't lean extreme in either direction. I have no issue with pistol braces. I just saw this coming a long time ago so I am not surprised and no one else should be. Once again my comments are manipulated. What more should I expect.

 

[Yarome]

If that's the case I think I'm gunna go get one of those cool blue placards to allow me to park really close to the store.

That doesn't apply in the sense that you are not entitled to a blue placard.

There is no legal requirement that you must be disabled, or to what degree, for you to decide you want a stablizing brace so you can fire your AR pistol with one hand, if you so choose. You are entitled to make that decision for yourself.

Just like you are entitled to sit in a wheelchair if the mood strikes you. Disabled or not.

But I get the point you're trying to support. Many simply don't agree with it.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

They "had" a legit purpose, you are correct. But the masses manipulated that and ruined it for everyone. But that's nothing new in America.

B.S.

A pistol that is stabilized can be shot much more accurately than one without a brace.

Why should that not be a "legitimate purpose"? Simply because a law that was passed in 1934, when these braces did not exist, says so?

In the same vein why is a 15" barrel so different than a 16" barrel that tons of restrictions apply to one, but not the other? It makes no sense in modern times and is simply ATF trying to shoehorn modern weapons into 1934 laws which were created long before these weapons existed, or likely even imagined.

Why do you want to continue to reinforce strict interpretation of these laws which are obviously way out of date?

 

[Member 53328]

I'd love for everything to be legal. And so would my pocket book. But that's not the world we live in. I'll leave it at that.

 

[wired]

A brace has never been a butt stock, was never patented as a butt stock and just because people used it as a butt stock does not make it one. Even if you do not agree.

If I stab some with a screw driver it does not become a knife or a dagger even if I sharpen it, it is still a screw driver and will never be a knife or a dagger, yet I used it as one.

Words have meanings in law and the ATF has stated they do not regulate accessories and a brace is an accessory to a pistol not a rifle. It was not designed to be installed on a rifle and no factory rifle that I haves seen to date has ever been sold with a brace, so how is it a stock.

Has the AFT ever evaluated a rifle with a brace on it and made a determination letter on it to show it was a stock?

Gee whiz for the last 10 years they have have said it was a brace on a pistol but now they are saying it is a stock on a SBR.

We will see them in court

If I bolt a shovel on the back of a gun it becomes a buttstock.literally. it might have been designed to be a shovel but it's used as a buttstock.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Federal court in Texas just shot down ATF trying to regulate gun parts. He said they only have authority from Congress to regulate receivers and frames and they overstepped their authority.

IMO this looks extremely promising for braces. A brace is a part attached to a pistol, not a frame or receiver. And the part that shows ATF is drastically over reaching their authority is the fact that in their draft brace rule they tried to redefine what a rifle is by what is attached to a pistol, which is of course absolutely absurd. You 1934 ATF law defenders are going to be disappointed methinks! And that's a very good thing for freedom and the 2A community. Hooray!!!!

 

[Yarome]

If I bolt a shovel on the back of a gun it becomes a buttstock.literally. it might have been designed to be a shovel but it's used as a buttstock.

That's confusing what an item actually is and it's designated purpose vs. how an item may be repurposed for alternative use from which it was originally intended. A shovel handle "may" be used to shoulder a weapon, but it's still a shovel handle. There is a distinction.

Kind of like using a butterknife as a screw driver. It's still a butterknife and it's usage as a screwdriver does not alter it's original intended use or designation.

Besides. If you put the whole shovel on, it's no longer a pistol. It's a tactical survival shovel.

 

[saxon]

Also, the amnesty requires sending in a photo of a pistol with a brace, to certify that it qualifies for the amnesty. It then becomes NFA SBR without paying $200. So how many people will put a brace on a pistol or SBR, send the photo in, get the tax stamp for "free" (a few other fees, such as BGC?), and then later, put a full stock on that SBR?

After all, once something is registered and tax stamped as an SBR, there is no reg/rule/law preventing changing the stock, or the barrel for that matter.

1,2,3, more or how many fingers and toes

 

[TheDude1]

I'll run mine without a brace. Registering it as an NFA item means you can't cross state lines with it without filling out a form.

 

[American123]

If that's the case I think I'm gunna go get one of those cool blue placards to allow me to park really close to the store.

I don't make statements/opinions dictated by absolutes. I don't lean extreme in either direction. I have no issue with pistol braces. I just saw this coming a long time ago so I am not surprised and no one else should be. Once again my comments are manipulated. What more should I expect.

If you are able to legally obtain a disabled placard designated for you, you would be able to park in the handicapped zone. That's how the law works.