National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[sobo]

I think a good place to start would be the most popular of the firearms that would be likely to have a brace; the AR-15s.

How many of those are out there? Then apply a percentage to those to get a base number.

Seems an awfully low number to me. At least 20 mil ARs out of 400 mil is 5%. Really???
I'm pretty sure there's more than 20 million AR-pattern rifles in US circulation...

​

The article says there are 20 million guns sold in the US every year, 4 million of which are AR-15s (or 20% of all guns sold). So in just 5 years, that would equate to the same number of ARs that the article claims exist in the US now. I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure Americans have been buying ~4 million ARs/year for longer than just 5 years...

 

[CamoDeafie]

Miller tested the NFA.

Heller 1 added the Common use test, but says "dangerous and unusual weapons are not 2A protected"

Caetano Opinion (with Thomas concurring, kinda key here) says 200,000 is common use therefore stun guns are not "dangerous and unusual" weapons that the State of Massachusetts justified for Prohibition of stun guns.


Even if stun guns aren't under NFA; the point of using Caetano is that if there are under 200,000 arms in one class, that one class could be construed to still be "Dangerous and unusual" weapons.

That the DOJ keeps referring to SBRs as dangerous and unusual weapons is kind of telling.....

 

[Yarome]

Miller tested the NFA.

Heller 1 added the Common use test, but says "dangerous and unusual weapons are not 2A protected"

Caetano Opinion (with Thomas concurring, kinda key here) says 200,000 is common use therefore stun guns are not "dangerous and unusual" weapons that the State of Massachusetts justified for Prohibition of stun guns.


Even if stun guns aren't under NFA; the point of using Caetano is that if there are under 200,000 arms in one class, that one class could be construed to still be "Dangerous and unusual" weapons.

That the DOJ keeps referring to SBRs as dangerous and unusual weapons is kind of telling.....

Shhhhhhhh...!

That doesn't support the compliance/registration agenda narrative so.... we'll just ignore that. Stop rocking the boat with facts!!

 

[wired]

Miller tested the NFA.

Heller 1 added the Common use test, but says "dangerous and unusual weapons are not 2A protected"

Caetano Opinion (with Thomas concurring, kinda key here) says 200,000 is common use therefore stun guns are not "dangerous and unusual" weapons that the State of Massachusetts justified for Prohibition of stun guns.


Even if stun guns aren't under NFA; the point of using Caetano is that if there are under 200,000 arms in one class, that one class could be construed to still be "Dangerous and unusual" weapons.

That the DOJ keeps referring to SBRs as dangerous and unusual weapons is kind of telling.....

I'll believe that when the "common use" thing is applied to NFA firearms. I dont believe it ever will be, The gov like to keep a lock on that stuff. Even SCOTUS.

 

[CamoDeafie]

My issue is that a sitting SCOTUS Judge, plus another sitting SCOTUS Judge concurred; wrote that 200,000 arms are "common use" but the DOJ says 3-7 million plus however many other NFA items (over 3 million my guess, with 2.1 million silencers and 630,000+ SBRs and 640,000 MGs registered) are somehow "Dangerous and unusual"..

I would take a good bet that no less than 2 SCOTUS judges would say NFA strike down to only DDs, AOWs, SBS, and maybe MGs depending on if they view under 200,000 transferable to be the limit..... and with the other "conservative" Judges....?

 

[wired]

My issue is that a sitting SCOTUS Judge, plus another sitting SCOTUS Judge concurred; wrote that 200,000 arms are "common use" but the DOJ says 3-7 million plus however many other NFA items (over 3 million my guess, with 2.1 million silencers and 630,000+ SBRs and 640,000 MGs registered) are somehow "Dangerous and unusual"..

I would take a good bet that no less than 2 SCOTUS judges would say NFA strike down to only DDs, AOWs, SBS, and maybe MGs depending on if they view under 200,000 transferable to be the limit..... and with the other "conservative" Judges....?

What happens with stun guns and what happens with actual NFA regulated guns are two different things.

 

[CamoDeafie]

What happens with stun guns and what happens with actual NFA regulated guns are two different things.

they are arms both stun guns and NFA items including silencers

Edit as far as the 2A is concerned, there are no quantifiable differences in "arms" in Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[wired]

they are arms both stun guns and NFA items including silencers

Sure they are. The common use thing is a total fallacy. Once it trickles up to big boy weapons SCOTUS denies everything. Stun guns . Hahaha. Little more than BB guns

 

[CamoDeafie]

Nobody thought that this SCOTUS would overturn Roe v wade but here we are.

Again, Heller introduced common use.

Has any State since 2008, successfully banned semiautomatic handguns as a whole?

You seem confident that this SCOTUS won't touch NFA.

 

[wired]

Nobody thought that this SCOTUS would overturn Roe v wade but here we are.

Again, Heller introduced common use.

Has any State since 2008, successfully banned semiautomatic handguns as a whole?

You seem confident that this SCOTUS won't touch NFA.

Roe was based on a total fabrication . There is no right to privacy.

I am confident the SCOTUS wont touch the NFA UNLESS there is an attempt to push ALL semi auto mag azine fed firearms into the NFA which I do believe will happen in the next 20 years or sooner. .

 

[Yarome]

My issue is that a sitting SCOTUS Judge, plus another sitting SCOTUS Judge concurred; wrote that 200,000 arms are "common use" but the DOJ says 3-7 million plus however many other NFA items (over 3 million my guess, with 2.1 million silencers and 630,000+ SBRs and 640,000 MGs registered) are somehow "Dangerous and unusual"..

I would take a good bet that no less than 2 SCOTUS judges would say NFA strike down to only DDs, AOWs, SBS, and maybe MGs depending on if they view under 200,000 transferable to be the limit..... and with the other "conservative" Judges....?

You have to realize that, from all that he's said to date, he is arguing on the premise that it is accepted fact that braced pistols are in fact NFA items... because the alphabet decided they are (they always have been in his opinion)... and that SBR's, in general, can't be removed/seperated from the NFA using the common use doctrine.

Your points, along with most of us, are arguing that this class of firearms are not and "may not" be classed as NFA's simply becuase the alphabets say so. Among many valid arguments against it... the common use doctrine also precludes it.

It's just word play but it's really talkin 'bout two different animals, entirely.


There are already some very strong challenges against it filed with more to come. Time will tell how it plays out, won't it.

 

[wired]

You have to realize that, from all that he's said to date, he is arguing on the premise that it is accepted fact that braced pistols are in fact NFA items... because the alphabet decided they are (they always have been in his opinion)... and that SBR's, in general, can't be removed/seperated from the NFA using the common use doctrine.

Your points, along with most of us, are arguing that this class of firearms are not and "may not" be classed as NFA's simply becuase the alphabets say so. Among many valid arguments against it... the common use doctrine also precludes it.

It's just word play but it's really talkin 'bout two different animals, entirely.


There are already some very strong challenges against it filed with more to come. Time will tell how it plays out, won't it.

Challenges mean squat until they are acted on in law and they haven't been. I mean there is that .

 

[Yarome]

Challenges mean squat until they are acted on in law and they haven't been. I mean there is that .

Wow! Really??? I never ever knew that!!

I thought all you have to do is put your "feelings" down on a piece of paper and if you know the right people it's just automatically signed into law!!

Who would have ever guessed there was actually some kind of process!!

 

[Dust2Dollars]

GUNGROKER
* In accordance with Final Rule 2021R-08F items that fall under Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces" have been removed Click here to learn more. *

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Wow! Really??? I never ever knew that!!

I thought all you have to do is put your "feelings" down on a piece of paper and if you know the right people it's just automatically signed into law!!

Who would have ever guessed there was actually some kind of process!!

 

[The Heretic]

Miller tested the NFA.

Heller 1 added the Common use test, but says "dangerous and unusual weapons are not 2A protected"

Caetano Opinion (with Thomas concurring, kinda key here) says 200,000 is common use therefore stun guns are not "dangerous and unusual" weapons that the State of Massachusetts justified for Prohibition of stun guns.


Even if stun guns aren't under NFA; the point of using Caetano is that if there are under 200,000 arms in one class, that one class could be construed to still be "Dangerous and unusual" weapons.

That the DOJ keeps referring to SBRs as dangerous and unusual weapons is kind of telling.....

A screwdriver is an unusual weapon - from the perspective that it is not meant to be a weapon. Same with a hammer. Or a torque wrench. But they are not "dangerous".

I don't know why the criteria is "dangerous and unusual". There is nothing in the Second Amendment (or its history) about an exception for "dangerous and unusual" weapons. The purpose of the Second Amendment is the have a balance of power between the citizenry and the government forces.

Why does the court keep coming up with these excuses for restricting our rights?

Don't answer that - it was a rhetorical question; I know why.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

A screwdriver is an unusual weapon - from the perspective that it is not meant to be a weapon. Same with a hammer. Or a torque wrench. But they are not "dangerous".

I don't know why the criteria is "dangerous and unusual". There is nothing in the Second Amendment (or its history) about an exception for "dangerous and unusual" weapons. The purpose of the Second Amendment is the have a balance of power between the citizenry and the government forces.

Why does the court keep coming up with these excuses for restricting our rights?

Don't answer that - it was a rhetorical question; I know why.

JMHO but it's never not a good time for this clip

 

[sobo]

JMHO but it's never not a good time for this clip

Best argument in favor of the 2A I've heard yet!

 

[wired]

Best argument in favor of the 2A I've heard yet!

Friends of Silvers if that means anything.

 

[Gypsyman]

Got approved for 3 pistol brace eForm 1s

Above link is a Reddit thread. Comparing numbers as of this morning there have been 73,000+ tax free submissions in the last 21 days. Far more than I expected.