National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[CamoDeafie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664751890339356674

Wonder how much this applies...

Over 2.1 million suppressors registered. Over 630,000 SBRs registered prior to amnesty thing. Just about 189,000 transferable MGs... the NFA should have been overturned

 

[GrayGoose]

So they have a ~1% compliance rate. Gold star for the ATF!

Excellent... seems that the majority are smart enough to know that you can't comply your way out of tyranny.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Excellent... seems that the majority are smart enough to know that you can't comply your way out of tyranny.

"Never ascribe to civil disobedience that which is adequately explained by laziness."

 

[sobo]

"Never ascribe to civil disobedience that which is adequately explained by laziness."

 

[Flopsweat]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1664751890339356674

Wonder how much this applies...

"Common use" is clearly less than 200,000 or the SC would have specified a number. It seems they felt that a "bright line" was not necessary.

 

[CamoDeafie]

"Common use" is clearly less than 200,000 or the SC would have specified a number. It seems they felt that a "bright line" was not necessary.

Um I think it's the other way around

In Caetano;

The state of Massachusetts argued the following;

That stun guns were "Dangerous and unusual weapons"

And also that "because stun guns did not exist at the time of the writing of 2A, they are not protected by 2A ", as "interpreted from Heller"

They used these arguments to justify the Statewide Prohibition of stun guns.


Case went up to SCOTUS who vacated and remanded it back to State.

State of Massachusetts dropped all charges, thereby making it moot.

The Opinion written states that because over 200,000 stun guns were possessed for lawful purposes; they are Commonly owned and used for lawful purposes, and cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual".



The case of Ramirez vs Massachusetts resulted in the overturn and removal of Massachusetts's ban of stun guns.



Because Caetano did not result in. SCOTUS Decision/Ruling; there have been no usage of its Opinion as doctrine applied against firearms, by the SCOTUS.

And because it was "only pertaining to stun guns"; the major Gun Rights groups seem to have completely forgot about it until now

 

[Flopsweat]

Um I think it's the other way around

In Caetano;

The state of Massachusetts argued the following;

That stun guns were "Dangerous and unusual weapons"

And also that "because stun guns did not exist at the time of the writing of 2A, they are not protected by 2A ", as "interpreted from Heller"

They used these arguments to justify the Statewide Prohibition of stun guns.


Case went up to SCOTUS who vacated and remanded it back to State.

State of Massachusetts dropped all charges, thereby making it moot.

The Opinion written states that because over 200,000 stun guns were possessed for lawful purposes; they are Commonly owned and used for lawful purposes, and cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual".



The case of Ramirez vs Massachusetts resulted in the overturn and removal of Massachusetts's ban of stun guns.



Because Caetano did not result in. SCOTUS Decision/Ruling; there have been no usage of its Opinion as doctrine applied against firearms, by the SCOTUS.

And because it was "only pertaining to stun guns"; the major Gun Rights groups seem to have completely forgot about it until now

I see different here. Where is the opposite? I'm not trying to be flip; I really don't see it.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I see different here. Where is the opposite? I'm not trying to be flip; I really don't see it.

Easy. Caetano Opinion says the threshold for "dangerous and unusual" should be less than 200,000 nationwide, because firearms and arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

In the first several pages of the DOJ assertions of the Final Rule, they use the term "Dangerous and Unusual" to describe Short Barreled Rifles and firearms with pistol braces attached that are equipped with under 16" rifled barrels.


But because no lawsuits have ever been brought up against the NFA (ATF/US); for any of it using the Caetano opinion as the argument, the SCOTUS have not been able to set a hard limit on what constitutes "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

The NFA exists as law because at the time of 1934; Machine Guns, sawn off shotguns and rifles, concealable weapons other than pistols were all "Dangerous And Unusual" weapons, "favored greatly by gangsters and other criminals"

 

[Flopsweat]

Easy. Caetano Opinion says the threshold for "dangerous and unusual" should be less than 200,000 nationwide, because firearms and arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

In the first several pages of the DOJ assertions of the Final Rule, they use the term "Dangerous and Unusual" to describe Short Barreled Rifles and firearms with pistol braces attached that are equipped with under 16" rifled barrels.


But because no lawsuits have ever been brought up against the NFA (ATF/US); for any of it using the Caetano opinion as the argument, the SCOTUS have not been able to set a hard limit on what constitutes "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

The NFA exists as law because at the time of 1934; Machine Guns, sawn off shotguns and rifles, concealable weapons other than pistols were all "Dangerous And Unusual" weapons, "favored greatly by gangsters and other criminals"

I also said it should be less than 200,000.

 

[RX-79G]

Easy. Caetano Opinion says the threshold for "dangerous and unusual" should be less than 200,000 nationwide, because firearms and arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

In the first several pages of the DOJ assertions of the Final Rule, they use the term "Dangerous and Unusual" to describe Short Barreled Rifles and firearms with pistol braces attached that are equipped with under 16" rifled barrels.


But because no lawsuits have ever been brought up against the NFA (ATF/US); for any of it using the Caetano opinion as the argument, the SCOTUS have not been able to set a hard limit on what constitutes "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

The NFA exists as law because at the time of 1934; Machine Guns, sawn off shotguns and rifles, concealable weapons other than pistols were all "Dangerous And Unusual" weapons, "favored greatly by gangsters and other criminals"

They were favored by gangsters because a rifle with a short barrel is not so great at being a rifle but works really well as a heavy concealed weapon.

Our argument always ends up being "Whatever. 2A says I can have a bazooka." And that means that all this stuff about whether the barrel is 15.5 or 16" inches is pretty comical when you ought to be able to buy a tactical nuke.

It is only after you decide to buy into the idea that some guns are more 'antisocial' than another would the NFA or any other gun law become reasonable to discuss. SBRs can be useful for several things, but as a general issue militia rifle or as a sporting arm for hunting, they really aren't that great - except for size. From that lens, it isn't such a stretch that the general public is not at a loss because they are being restricted to give more leverage against criminals.

But if you don't think anything is a bad idea, why wade into the minutia?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I also said it should be less than 200,000.

You specifically said

"Common use" is clearly less than 200,000

Whereas that is not what SCOTUS opinion has said for Caetano.
A weapon according to SCOTUS. Cannot be both "commonly possessed for lawful purposes" and "Dangerous and unusual weapons"


@RX-79G

The US military has for general issue, both Machine Guns (automatic setting for either 3rd burst or full auto depending on submodel on M4s and M16s), and Short Barreled Rifles (M4 Carbine).

The text of the NFA and GCA both are explicit that to be a SBR, a gun needs to be under 16" barrel, or be of under 26" OAL (whether fully open with stock, or folded stock, I dont know; California says closed, Feds says to end of firearm?).

if you can show me an abundance of cases where "unregistered SBRs/sawn off rifles" have been used in crimes compared to standard handguns.... maybe there would be a point .

Strawman. Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, even Bruen.. all have affirmed that yes "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" can be regulated.

Bazookas,.missiles, launchers for them, specific explosives (C4 and claymore for example), Tomahawk, and nuclear weapons can all be "dangerous and unusual" and subject to regulation.

 

[RX-79G]

You specifically said

Whereas that is not what SCOTUS opinion has said for Caetano.
A weapon according to SCOTUS. Cannot be both "commonly possessed for lawful purposes" and "Dangerous and unusual weapons"


@RX-79G

Strawman. Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, even Bruen.. all have affirmed that yes "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" can be regulated.

Bazookas,.missiles, launchers for them, specific explosives (C4 and claymore for example), Tomahawk, and nuclear weapons can all be "dangerous and unusual" and subject to regulation.

What do you mean strawman? You're the one saying that a class of weapons that didn't exist 10 years ago is not "unusual", and that a weapon favored by gangsters isn't "dangerous".

I'm just pointing out why they got those labels and that it doesn't make much sense to disagree with them if you disagree with ALL gun control.

 

[CamoDeafie]

What do you mean strawman? You're the one saying that a class of weapons that didn't exist 10 years ago is not "unusual", and that a weapon favored by gangsters isn't "dangerous".

I'm just pointing out why they got those labels and that it doesn't make much sense to disagree with them if you disagree with ALL gun control.

They're pistols
They may be large and relatively unwieldy but still pistols.

They have existed since long before pistol braces were invented.

Even then there was a case Thompson Center Arms versus the United States where the ATF argued that because the Contender rifle kit exists, it is constructive possession to have it with the Contender handgun which was a centerfire handgun shooting rifle calibers. SCOTUS decreed that nope it is protected by 2A and is not constructive possession. As long as the user does not configure it in an NFA firearm. All the way back in 1992. You can find plenty of print ads for the Olympic Arms OA-98, AR15 pistols with the round buffer tube and foam covers... long before 2012.

There's the semiauto MP5 pistols imported before the ban on imported "assault weapons", the Draco AK pistols. And several other examples of large handguns that existed before pistol braces.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

They were favored by gangsters because a rifle with a short barrel is not so great at being a rifle but works really well as a heavy concealed weapon.

You would think if that was correct there would be photos of SBR's that the feds got from gangster's, but what I did find was a bunch of Tommy Guns, semi auto pistols, a couple silencers, sawed off shotguns, full size BAR's and full size Rem #8 rifles.

Gangster's were the excuse, the real target of the NFA was The Poors

 

[RX-79G]

They're pistols
They may be large and relatively unwieldy but still pistols.

They have existed since long before pistol braces were invented.

Even then there was a case Thompson Center Arms versus the United States where the ATF argued that because the Contender rifle kit exists, it is constructive possession to have it with the Contender handgun which was a centerfire handgun shooting rifle calibers. SCOTUS decreed that nope it is protected by 2A and is not constructive possession. As long as the user does not configure it in an NFA firearm. All the way back in 1992. You can find plenty of print ads for the Olympic Arms OA-98, AR15 pistols with the round buffer tube and foam covers... long before 2012.

There's the semiauto MP5 pistols imported before the ban on imported "assault weapons", the Draco AK pistols. And several other examples of large handguns that existed before pistol braces.

What does the history of pistols have to do with my comment on braced pistols being new?

Rifle pistols go a lot further back than what you're talking about. When did the first pistol M1 Carbines come out?

 

[CamoDeafie]

What does the history of pistols have to do with my comment on braced pistols being new?

Rifle pistols go a lot further back than what you're talking about. When did the first pistol M1 Carbines come out?

Everything because if you remove the brace from the firearms in question, they are back to being pistols. Alternatively, if you put a 16" or longer barrel on these firearms, then they have the same status as a rifle. Ergo the Thompson Center Arms Contender rifle kit

 

[ilikegunspdx]

They're pistols
They may be large and relatively unwieldy but still pistols.

They have existed since long before pistol braces were invented.

Even then there was a case Thompson Center Arms versus the United States where the ATF argued that because the Contender rifle kit exists, it is constructive possession to have it with the Contender handgun which was a centerfire handgun shooting rifle calibers. SCOTUS decreed that nope it is protected by 2A and is not constructive possession. As long as the user does not configure it in an NFA firearm. All the way back in 1992. You can find plenty of print ads for the Olympic Arms OA-98, AR15 pistols with the round buffer tube and foam covers... long before 2012.

There's the semiauto MP5 pistols imported before the ban on imported "assault weapons", the Draco AK pistols. And several other examples of large handguns that existed before pistol braces.

Agree there were tons of them. Vz61, m76, grease gun, sten and others based on it, uzi, mp40 and earlier versions, browning high power, Walther mpl, Luger, Mauser c96, ppsh and earlier versions and a gazillion others.

Another example 1860's ish muzzleloaders (probably replicas but based on the originals).

217D8577-7ABE-425C-A44D-6248B5A89D06.png

• ilikegunspdx
• Nov 4, 2022

 

[eustace_stelio]

You specifically said

Whereas that is not what SCOTUS opinion has said for Caetano.
A weapon according to SCOTUS. Cannot be both "commonly possessed for lawful purposes" and "Dangerous and unusual weapons"


@RX-79G

The US military has for general issue, both Machine Guns (automatic setting for either 3rd burst or full auto depending on submodel on M4s and M16s), and Short Barreled Rifles (M4 Carbine).

The text of the NFA and GCA both are explicit that to be a SBR, a gun needs to be under 16" barrel, or be of under 26" OAL (whether fully open with stock, or folded stock, I dont know; California says closed, Feds says to end of firearm?).

if you can show me an abundance of cases where "unregistered SBRs/sawn off rifles" have been used in crimes compared to standard handguns.... maybe there would be a point .

Strawman. Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, even Bruen.. all have affirmed that yes "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" can be regulated.

Bazookas,.missiles, launchers for them, specific explosives (C4 and claymore for example), Tomahawk, and nuclear weapons can all be "dangerous and unusual" and subject to regulation.

Short barrel rifles have not been used in even a fraction of crimes compared to handguns and I'd bet even full length rifles.

And to say a sbr is considerably easier to conceal than a 16" rifle is just plain stupid. With both you're gonna be about as inconspicuous as a guy with a rifle clearly tucked under your trench coat.

And if sbr were really so terrible you wouldn't be able to easily get a tax stamp to own one...

 

[Flopsweat]

You specifically said

Whereas that is not what SCOTUS opinion has said for Caetano.
A weapon according to SCOTUS. Cannot be both "commonly possessed for lawful purposes" and "Dangerous and unusual weapons"


@RX-79G

The US military has for general issue, both Machine Guns (automatic setting for either 3rd burst or full auto depending on submodel on M4s and M16s), and Short Barreled Rifles (M4 Carbine).

The text of the NFA and GCA both are explicit that to be a SBR, a gun needs to be under 16" barrel, or be of under 26" OAL (whether fully open with stock, or folded stock, I dont know; California says closed, Feds says to end of firearm?).

if you can show me an abundance of cases where "unregistered SBRs/sawn off rifles" have been used in crimes compared to standard handguns.... maybe there would be a point .

Strawman. Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, even Bruen.. all have affirmed that yes "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" can be regulated.

Bazookas,.missiles, launchers for them, specific explosives (C4 and claymore for example), Tomahawk, and nuclear weapons can all be "dangerous and unusual" and subject to regulation.

When you say "it's the other way around" and then bold the "less than 200,000" part I have this tendency to think - you know what, never mind. Clearly we're not talking about the same thing. You're probably right about whatever you're actually talking about.

 

[Knobgoblin]

When you say "it's the other way around" and then bold the "less than 200,000" part I have this tendency to think - you know what, never mind. Clearly we're not talking about the same thing. You're probably right about whatever you're actually talking about.

The masterclass of being a husband right there.
That last sentence is the epitome of being a survivor.