National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[Local Loader]

For real, if someone has an 11"or 12" upper I can borrow or is willing to part with for cheap and/or trade let me know. Doesn't even need to have a handguard or sights.

 

[RobMa]

Null

 

[wired]

Not yet

Read the checked box...

 

[Jay Walk]

Will this be a SBR under the new rule?

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

www.sportsmans.com

 

[wired]

Will this be a SBR under the new rule?

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

www.sportsmans.com

Why would it be?

 

[Alexx1401]

Will this be a SBR under the new rule?

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

Ruger PC Charger 9mm Luger 6.5in Matte Black Modern Sporting Pistol - 10+1 Rounds

www.sportsmans.com

Did you want to put a brace on it? If so yes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Some great arguments here for this to be overturned.

 

[orygun]

@Cerberus Group , good guess on the 15 pages, and it's still early!

 

[arrowshooter]

Tube features don't matter. It's the brace that must go, or SBR it.

(4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder
is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component,
or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;""

I previously posted what CamoDeafie posted here and it reads to me that a buffer tube is enough to "fire from the shoulder", thus making any AR platform pistol an SBR even without a brace.

 

[PiratePast40]

I previously posted what CamoDeafie posted here and it reads to me that a buffer tube is enough to "fire from the shoulder", thus making any AR platform pistol an SBR even without a brace.

It sounds like it to me. However, an AR-22 would not meet that criteria since the buffer tube isn't necessary. Doesn't mean it doesn't meet the definition in other places, just that it does not for that sentence.

 

[Rkangel]

They proposed "x'. They were required to go through the comment period based on proposal 'x'. We commented on proposal 'x'. Yet they passed rule 'y'. Since the proposed rule and the published rule share almost nothing in common, other than the title, shouldn't they be required to go through the whole comment process again?

Essentially they proposed the rules for baseball. Everyone was playing baseball. But in the 9th inning, as the last runner was heading for home plate, they changed the rules to football and threatened the baseball players with felonies.

Personally, I think everyone who wants to SBR their pistol in the next 120 days should consider donating their $200 waived tax stamp to sue the crap out of the AFT.

 

[fmvolume86]

They proposed "x'. They were required to go through the comment period based on proposal 'x'. We commented on proposal 'x'. Yet they passed rule 'y'. Since the proposed rule and the published rule share almost nothing in common, other than the title, shouldn't they be required to go through the whole comment process again?

Essentially they proposed the rules for baseball. Everyone was playing baseball. But in the 9th inning, as the last runner was heading for home plate, they changed the rules to football and threatened the baseball players with felonies.

Personally, I think everyone who wants to SBR their pistol in the next 120 days should consider donating their $200 waived tax stamp to sue the crap out of the AFT.

I don't ask for permission nor do I give in to extortion.

 

[Gbirk]

I don't ask for permission nor do I give in to extortion.

This new rule is not extortion, it is bribery.

 

[fmvolume86]

This new rule is not extortion, it is bribery.

making you pay money to practice your right is extortion !!!! this is no different than the mafia or gangs. they are a gang !!
What's next make you pay a tax to say certain words because those words are offensive ? the 1st and 2nd amendment are very cut and clear. Do I need to start paying a tax to be able to type on a keyboard because i'm launching assault sentences ?
not to mention its registration and that in itself is also a violation of privacy and our right !

 

[jayR]

Pulled this out of their tome. Of interest to the constitutional types.

Department Response The Department disagrees with commenters that this regulation violates the Second Amendment. Heller and subsequent judicial decisions support the Department's view that weapons regulated by the NFA, such as short-barreled rifles, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in Heller, 554 U.S. at 570, held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense. At the same time, the Court recognized that the rights established under the Second Amendment are not absolute or unlimited. Id. at 595. Heller specifically recognized an "important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms," i.e., that the right is limited to "the sorts of weapons . . . 'in common use at the time.'" Id. at 627. The Court stated that this limitation is supported by "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Id. The Court rejected the "startling" position that "the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939." Id. at 624. Heller thus made clear that machineguns and short-barreled shotguns are "weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," and thus fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood. Id. at 625; see also id. at 627 (accepting that M-16 rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons that may be banned). Indeed, after Heller, lower courts similarly held that short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment because of the danger presented. United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1186 (10th Cir. 2018) ("we take our cue from Heller and conclude that the 185 possession of short-barreled rifles falls outside the Second Amendment's guarantee"); United States v. Gilbert, 286 Fed. App'x 383, 386 (9th Cir. 2008) (approving jury instructions that an individual does not have a Second Amendment right to possess a short-barreled rifle, and observing that, "nder Heller, individuals still do not have the right to possess machineguns or short-barreled rifles"); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 90–95 (explaining that a long gun with a shortened barrel is both dangerous and unusual, because "its concealability fosters its use in illicit activity," and "because of its heightened capability to cause damage" and that the Second Amendment does not provide protection for all types of weapons); Gonzalez, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 ("Congress specifically found that 'short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.'" (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28)). Thus, Heller and subsequent judicial decisions support the Department's view that the weapons regulated by the NFA, such as short-barreled rifles, were not historically protected by the Second Amendment and thus fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), changes this analysis. 145 See 145 The Supreme Court's decision in Bruen abrogated several circuit court decisions applying a "'two-step' framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges." Id. at 2125. At the first step, courts asked whether the "challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the [Second Amendment] right as originally understood." Id. at 2126 (quotation marks omitted). If so, then the law did not violate the Second Amendment. But if the law did regulate activity within the amendment's scope, then courts applied a means-end test similar to the strict or intermediate scrutiny used to evaluate laws burdening First Amendment rights. Id. at 2126–27. The Court in Bruen largely approved of the first step, which "is broadly consistent with Heller," id. at 2127, but specifically disapproved of the second step, see id. Thus, although Bruen abrogates previous decisions applying the means-end test, the Department does not believe the case casts doubt on courts' prior conclusions that, based on historical tradition, the Second Amendment does not extend to dangerous and unusual weapons. See, e.g.,Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 94 ("the Supreme Court has made clear the Second Amendment does not protect . . . types of weapons" such as "machine guns or short-barreled shotguns—or any other dangerous and unusual weapon"). 186 id at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (reiterating Heller's finding that "dangerous and unusual weapons" are outside of the Second Amendment's protections). Further, the Department also notes that neither the rule nor the NFA bans the possession of the relevant firearms. In regulating short-barreled rifles, Congress only requires the registration of the firearms in the NFRTR and the payment of a making or transfer tax, neither of which prohibits a person's ability to possess these weapons. This rule does no more than clarify the Department's understanding of the best meaning of the relevant statutory provisions.

 

[Hueco]

I tried the ask the expert on the atf website but haven't had a response in over a month, but you seem to be knowledgeable, if I do 3 sbr eform1, can I mail the 1 set of fingerprint card and 1 set of selfie for all 3 eform or do I need individual set of card and selfie for each eform?

That's because @wired went from an atf person of interest to "oh, him again?" to "just assign him his own damn form approver" a long, long time ago.

 

[Gbirk]

making you pay money to practice your right is extortion !!!! this is no different than the mafia or gangs. they are a gang !!
What's next make you pay a tax to say certain words because those words are offensive ? the 1st and 2nd amendment are very cut and clear. Do I need to start paying a tax to be able to type on a keyboard because i'm launching assault sentences ?
not to mention its registration and that in itself is also a violation of privacy and our right !

The new rule allows for a person to register a pistol with a brace without paying the $200 tax stamp. That is not extortion, it is bribery. And it is working.

 

[wired]

That's because @wired went from an atf person of interest to "oh, him again?" to "just assign him his own damn form approver" a long, long time ago.

Thats pretty much the chain of events.

 

[BBQ Guy]

If you've ever paid for a BG check,or filled out Form 4473; the ATF has pretty much all your info anyhow now.. if you've got 80%s and the like... awesome

FIFY.

 

[American123]

Pulled this out of their tome. Of interest to the constitutional types.

Department Response The Department disagrees with commenters that this regulation violates the Second Amendment. Heller and subsequent judicial decisions support the Department's view that weapons regulated by the NFA, such as short-barreled rifles, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in Heller, 554 U.S. at 570, held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense. At the same time, the Court recognized that the rights established under the Second Amendment are not absolute or unlimited. Id. at 595. Heller specifically recognized an "important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms," i.e., that the right is limited to "the sorts of weapons . . . 'in common use at the time.'" Id. at 627. The Court stated that this limitation is supported by "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Id. The Court rejected the "startling" position that "the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939." Id. at 624. Heller thus made clear that machineguns and short-barreled shotguns are "weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," and thus fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood. Id. at 625; see also id. at 627 (accepting that M-16 rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons that may be banned). Indeed, after Heller, lower courts similarly held that short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment because of the danger presented. United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1186 (10th Cir. 2018) ("we take our cue from Heller and conclude that the 185 possession of short-barreled rifles falls outside the Second Amendment's guarantee"); United States v. Gilbert, 286 Fed. App'x 383, 386 (9th Cir. 2008) (approving jury instructions that an individual does not have a Second Amendment right to possess a short-barreled rifle, and observing that, "nder Heller, individuals still do not have the right to possess machineguns or short-barreled rifles"); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 90–95 (explaining that a long gun with a shortened barrel is both dangerous and unusual, because "its concealability fosters its use in illicit activity," and "because of its heightened capability to cause damage" and that the Second Amendment does not provide protection for all types of weapons); Gonzalez, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 ("Congress specifically found that 'short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.'" (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28)). Thus, Heller and subsequent judicial decisions support the Department's view that the weapons regulated by the NFA, such as short-barreled rifles, were not historically protected by the Second Amendment and thus fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Nothing in the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), changes this analysis. 145 See 145 The Supreme Court's decision in Bruen abrogated several circuit court decisions applying a "'two-step' framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges." Id. at 2125. At the first step, courts asked whether the "challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the [Second Amendment] right as originally understood." Id. at 2126 (quotation marks omitted). If so, then the law did not violate the Second Amendment. But if the law did regulate activity within the amendment's scope, then courts applied a means-end test similar to the strict or intermediate scrutiny used to evaluate laws burdening First Amendment rights. Id. at 2126–27. The Court in Bruen largely approved of the first step, which "is broadly consistent with Heller," id. at 2127, but specifically disapproved of the second step, see id. Thus, although Bruen abrogates previous decisions applying the means-end test, the Department does not believe the case casts doubt on courts' prior conclusions that, based on historical tradition, the Second Amendment does not extend to dangerous and unusual weapons. See, e.g.,Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 94 ("the Supreme Court has made clear the Second Amendment does not protect . . . types of weapons" such as "machine guns or short-barreled shotguns—or any other dangerous and unusual weapon"). 186 id at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (reiterating Heller's finding that "dangerous and unusual weapons" are outside of the Second Amendment's protections). Further, the Department also notes that neither the rule nor the NFA bans the possession of the relevant firearms. In regulating short-barreled rifles, Congress only requires the registration of the firearms in the NFRTR and the payment of a making or transfer tax, neither of which prohibits a person's ability to possess these weapons. This rule does no more than clarify the Department's understanding of the best meaning of the relevant statutory provisions.

What gun laws were in place when the bill of rights was written. Surely if the founders wanted arms to be regulated, they wouldn't have purposely chosen the language they did and attempted to be as clear as they could about any type of infringement that was allowed.