National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[Member 53328]

The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well

Believe whatever you want. Haha.
















Fantasy land.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm just glad that I live in a State with a Second Amendment Sanctuary law

The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well

Fine, but have there been cases where the Federals were actively prevented from enforcing Federal laws in these Sanctuary cities/States like drug enforcement and border/ICE enforcement?

 

[Yarome]

Fine, but have there been cases where the Federals were actively prevented from enforcing Federal laws in these Sanctuary cities/States like drug enforcement and border/ICE enforcement?

I haven't looked really deeply into sanctuary cities/states, but my basic understanding is that, until recently, they had no authority to interfere with fed activities and being a "sanctuary" (in varying degees based on what laws they put in place) simply ranges from not providing assistance or information, not providing logistic support, not allowing use of state resources or facilities, etc. to any fed activity within their states.

I say "until recently", because we now see state laws with more teeth coming onto the books. IE., Making enforcement of fed regulations against the 2A within their state a criminal and arrestable offense. IOW, they WILL interfere, arrest and charge under state law any federal agent attempting enforcement action within their state. Will it fly? Meh... maybe just posturing, but it still sounds BEAUTIFUL!

On another unrelated note for sanctuary states... Texas just kicked another major bank with anti-2A policies (Citicorp) out of their state municipal bonds market. That makes the body count 2 now.

That kind of action really kicks em in the nards and shows... when TX says they are a sanctuary state... they actually mean it!

 

[Lu1555]

So re the end of the world stuff, let me see if I understand:

#1 issue is the crazy 88 days which seems like it's the end of the world but actually is just some procedural deal that won't affect anything.

#2 is the 922r issue which apparently is real and will screw up everything and atf is witholding publishing the rule in the Fed register due to this?

Is that where we stand at the moment (note, I'm purposely ignoring all other issues, major and minor, for this post)?

I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.

 

[nwslopoke]

ATF " yes it is designed to be a brace and it is not a stock."
ATF " yes even putting it to your shoulder from time to time is not making it a re-designed stock, it is still a brace."
ATF "yes just about any brace is now a stock and you are in violation of the law."
me " hmmmm should i take the potential bait? or do i just spend the $200 to SBR the ones i really want and remove the brace?"
Reality " the brace was a SBR workaround you know it they know it ATF finally reutilized it, so
remove the brace till all the krap settles.
leave the brace on till all of the krap settles.
get your "free" stamp and all the potential trap that it might or might not be.

remember the Atkins accelerator? first not a MG then because of a spring ATF said it was an MG
flip flop

9th circuit court after the ban, yes an individual can still make an MG for them self's as long as it does not effect interstate commerce,
get's all the way to SCOTUS, SCOTUS says "sure sounds great except a few things let's send it back to the 9th,
9th no you can not make an MG any more period.
flip flop

9th mag ban is un constitutional, 9th few months latter, Mag ban is perfectly ok.
flip flop

and on and on

It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.

Now, politics to, "do something " overrides something legally decided (with receipts). It's messy because it's wrong. Making something legal (with receipts) illegal should be hard. This is what we're seeing.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.

It does seem to be unsourced. Best I could find that related to 88 days is the FBI's deletion of open (unresolved) BG checks if they aren't resolved by day 88; but whether it does or doesn't result in the ATF auto-denial, I do not know, because supposedly now the ATF is doing their own BG checks for NFA submissions and not the FBI anymore.

 

[wired]

88

I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.

Dont worry about that. Total clickbait. If the background check part goes past 88 days "someone at the ATF" said they'll stop the check and consider it failed. BGC's normally take a few minutes at the longest not 88 days.

 

[wired]

It does seem to be unsourced. Best I could find that related to 88 days is the FBI's deletion of open (unresolved) BG checks if they aren't resolved by day 88; but whether it does or doesn't result in the ATF auto-denial, I do not know, because supposedly now the ATF is doing their own BG checks for NFA submissions and not the FBI anymore.

They use the same database with their own examiners .

 

[CamoDeafie]

There are articles and reports of how many BG checks the FBI didn't complete over the last few years with the statement that the FBI deletes the open/unresolved BG checks at 88 days to make way for new ones, and thus a small but not insignificant number of BG checks are never completed for whatever reasons. Some FFL will honor the 3 day rule, some won't, and will tell the customer to try again with new 4473?


Back on topic; with the revelation of 26 USC 5848, I think people have much less to worry about "self-incrimination" on submitting forms

 

[Lu1555]

There are articles and reports of how many BG checks the FBI didn't complete over the last few years with the statement that the FBI deletes the open/unresolved BG checks at 88 days to make way for new ones, and thus a small but not insignificant number of BG checks are never completed for whatever reasons. Some FFL will honor the 3 day rule, some won't, and will tell the customer to try again with new 4473?

But that is not the ATF. The ATF uses their own people to perform BG checks. And the 3 day rule doesn't pertain to NFA items as far as I can find. I could be wrong that's why I am asking in here to see if other have more data. I plan on making my decision based on the evidence that is out there.

 

[Yarome]

Here we go..... including cited statute and likely to only be applicable for 4473's.. or rather... only applied when doing a 4473 to satisify the 90 day data purge requirement.

The nutshell, IMHO: Valid statute, but for purposes of the Form 1 for SBR application process... a "non-issue".

 

[CamoDeafie]

But that is not the ATF. The ATF uses their own people to perform BG checks. And the 3 day rule doesn't pertain to NFA items as far as I can find. I could be wrong that's why I am asking in here to see if other have more data. I plan on making my decision based on the evidence that is out there.

Right, I'm saying that it's likely where the "88 day auto denial" rule comes from, although the ATF and FBI both use the same database, so I ain't sure how the 88 day FBI thing is applicable to the ATF with regards to NFA items. Yes I am aware that the 3 day Federal rule doesn't apply to NFA submissions.

 

[Lu1555]

Right, I'm saying that it's likely where the "88 day auto denial" rule comes from, although the ATF and FBI both use the same database, so I ain't sure how the 88 day FBI thing is applicable to the ATF with regards to NFA items. Yes I am aware that the 3 day Federal rule doesn't apply to NFA submissions.

And I completely agree with your point of most people making too big of a deal out of this thought of self incrimination. There are laws set in place limiting when it can be used against you when you are directly following rules set for you to be legal.
Before I make a decisions like this I just try and gather all the info I can.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.

Now, politics to, "do something " overrides something legally decided (with receipts). It's messy because it's wrong. Making something legal (with receipts) illegal should be hard. This is what we're seeing.

Yep the atf reversed course a total of 4 times on this as I understand it. Each time was based on politics, not public safety, and not the law.

This is an enforcement agency saying someone can go to jail for 10 years based on a redefinition of the law based on the way the political winds are blowing. Congress can change the law but ATF can't just make it up based on their director trying to kiss bubblegum of the president of the moment who appointed him. ATF needs to be slapped back, and hard.

Here is a pretty short thumbnail sketch of the whole brace story (including atf reversals) from start to finish from the man who invented them. Having worked with (not for) multiple federal agencies the details of atf's behavior that he is talking about makes perfect sense because I have seen similar over and over.

 

[Yarome]

And I completely agree with your point of most people making too big of a deal out of this thought of self incrimination. There are laws set in place limiting when it can be used against you when you are directly following rules set for you to be legal.
Before I make a decisions like this I just try and gather all the info I can.

There are "protections" from self incrimination when you are complying with federal law, but that is also predicated that the protective law will be obeyed and does that protection actually extended to compliance with an agency "rule" vs. "federal law" compliance(??) Prudent questioning remains.

I fully agree with you though. Any information deserves due consideration and investigation... vs... foolishly/blindly complying with the alphabets narrative, "Trust us".

 

[wired]

Any questions of self incrimination went out the window for me when this came up.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section5848&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[User 1234]

Not to stir the pot, but not all applicants are natural persons. All RP's submitting RPQ's are natural persons however. And here's the even more interesting part. Trusts are not entities the way an LLC or corporation is. Will the ATF ever try to use NFA applications against someone? Doubtful.

If the person files with false information this statute does not apply to shield from prosecution for that perjury.

 

[Yarome]

Any questions of self incrimination went out the window for me when this came up.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section5848&num=0&edition=prelim

Yeah. I don't necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theorists and they are intentionally creating traps for prosecution, but it can beg to question... if the final rule is thrown out and that "requirement to register" condition is removed... does that protection still remain for those that are then considered to have "voluntarily" submitted incriminating information(?)

I think there is still a defense if you "reasonably believed... at the time" you were complying with a goobermental requirement, but healthy skepticism isn't always a bad thing or completely baseless.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah. I don't necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theorists and they are intentionally creating traps for prosecution, but it can beg to question... if the final rule is thrown out and that "requirement to register" condition is removed... does that protection still remain for those that are then considered to have "voluntarily" submitted incriminating information(?)

I think there is still a defense if you "reasonably believed... at the time" you were complying with a goobermental requirement, but healthy skepticism isn't always a bad thing or completely baseless.

As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer... yes the 5th Amendment and that specific law still applies because at that time you are trying to comply legally even if it may be found unconstitutional; it still has possible force of law/regulations according to the DOJ.

 

[wired]

As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer... yes the 5th Amendment and that specific law still applies because at that time you are trying to comply legally even if it may be found unconstitutional; it still has possible force of law/regulations according to the DOJ.

To me that statute is a game changer. That is what allowed for the 68 amnesty. They didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.