Appeals court slaps Biden and ATF over braces

pistol braces..... became a loophole exploited by gunmakers to make weapons more deadly.

Click to expand...

How exactly does a brace make a gun more deadly? Bullet goes faster, expands better is more accurate (lol) what a load of malarkey.

Even if it's completely misused, neither the gun or the shooter is any more deadly. I miss actual journalism.

You forgot the initial bit of info...

A federal appeals court dealt a legal setback to the Biden administration on guns Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging tighter regulations on stabilizing braces, an accessory that has been used in several mass shootings in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Apparently braces are bad because they've been present during mass shootings. Forget the shoes, socks, and cell phone the shooters also had present during the mass shootings... all of which had about the same effect on the outcome. But yes, the lamestream news media will do anything to twist words and make it sound like pistol braces somehow make the weapons they're attached to more deadly.

If the gov't banned everything that was misused, everything would be banned.
It is nice to see 'setbacks' but what we need is the courts to flat out reiterate 'shall not be infringed'.

flechero said:

How exactly does a brace make a gun more deadly? Bullet goes faster, expands better is more accurate (lol) what a load of malarkey.

Even if it's completely misused, neither the gun or the shooter is any more deadly. I miss actual journalism.

Click to expand...

That's the narrative of the Biden administration, heard from The Big Guy himself, AG Garland, and that ATF guy who doesn't know his own "rule".
Because NFA registers and taxes machine guns, anything on the registry is equated with machine guns.

It will be the courts that save us from the party trying to destroy the country.
The Democrats are going to continue their ongoing assault on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for as long as they are able. It’s who they are.

FDM1 said:

It will be the courts that save us from the party trying to destroy the country.
The Democrats are going to continue their ongoing assault on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for as long as they are able. It’s who they are.

Click to expand...

I mentioned this in the New Jersey thread: they only exist to make each other feel good. Even when they lose they position it so they feel good about losing. There is a thick line between winners and losers. While everyone loves to win, winners hate to lose.

flechero said:

How exactly does a brace make a gun more deadly? Bullet goes faster, expands better is more accurate (lol) what a load of malarkey.

Even if it's completely misused, neither the gun or the shooter is any more deadly. I miss actual journalism.

Click to expand...

Because it makes the gun more "accurate." Using a gun steadied with two hands and the stability of a stock or in this case a "brace," improves your accuracy. If you can hit the bad guy that you are aiming at instead of missing him/her because your gun is less accurate, then it actually is more deadly to the bad guy (if you actually hit him/her).

In other words the demokrats don't want you to be able to hit the thug. They want you to miss and be more likely to hit an innocent bystander, which would increase their phony argument that guns are unsafe (because you hit innocent third party, instead of the thug). Which bolsters their BS goals of attaining a ban on all publicly owned firearms in order to disarm law abiding citizens to install their communist police state with them in charge. Demokrats/communists/Jackass Party member's true goals should already be known to everyone that is paying attention and are not fooled by their fake, dishonest cries for public safety. They don't give a Frack about public safety. They're liars.

INV136 said:

Because it makes the gun more "accurate." Using a gun steadied with two hands and the stability of a stock or in this case a "brace," improves your accuracy. If you can hit the bad guy that you are aiming at instead of missing him/her because your gun is less accurate, then it actually is more deadly to the bad guy (if you actually hit him/her).

In other words the demokrats don't want you to be able to hit the thug.

Click to expand...

But if that were the case, they would just outlaw stocks and sights.

Going after the brace is akin to only discriminating against those with disabilities...

A .223/5.56 is no more deadly if fired from a braced vs stocked weapon.

The entire SBR classification only exists because they WANTED to register handguns in the NFA too, and having a "sawed-off" short barrel rifle or shotgun was seen as a loophole, so they regulated them as well, but then the part requiring handguns to be NFA was removed, but the SBR/SBS provisions still went through.

INV136 said:

Using a gun steadied with two hands and the stability of a stock or in this case a "brace," improves your accuracy.

Click to expand...

Of course, just using a rifle is more accurate as well.

It seems the point of the rule is to harass legal gun owners. One week left before scheduled implementation. I guess we'll see what happens.

flechero said:

But if that were the case, they would just outlaw stocks and sights.

Going after the brace is akin to only discriminating against those with disabilities...

A .223/5.56 is no more deadly if fired from a braced vs stocked weapon.

Click to expand...

Except, and the most important part here, stocks on rifle caliber pistols with barrels under 16" are already illegal unless they are on their NFA registry. Braces weren't until Biden added them recently.

I registered my arm brace pistol because it was cheap and easy (for me). I'd love to see the numbers on folks who bothered to lift a finger to register theirs before the deadline. I doubt we'll see an accurate or factual "official" number out of this snake den of Fed corruption any time soon.

If there is justice, and this thing gets shot down, I hope that the folks that didn't register theirs are fully vindicated.

I also hope the Feds have the nuts to risk getting their little skulls thumped and press an issue like this with the Supreme Court. But I seriously doubt they do. There are still too many even-handed judges that interpret the law, vs. legislate what they wish it were. They'll wait.

ether said:

I registered my arm brace pistol because it was cheap and easy (for me). I'd love to see the numbers on folks who bothered to lift a finger to register theirs before the deadline. I doubt we'll see an accurate or factual "official" number out of this snake den of Fed corruption any time soon.

If there is justice, and this thing gets shot down, I hope that the folks that didn't register theirs are fully vindicated.

I also hope the Feds have the nuts to risk getting their little skulls thumped and press an issue like this with the Supreme Court. But I seriously doubt they do. There are still too many even-handed judges that interpret the law, vs. legislate what they wish it were. They'll wait.

Click to expand...

I just bought a 16" upper. AFAIK, currently it's STILL legal to put a 16" upper and a stock on a pistol lower, (making it a rifle), then to remove the stock and 16" upper and go back to being a pistol.

I'll wait to see how the legal battle shakes out. As long as I also own a 16" upper for it, I can keep the brace, (since ATF is considering it a "stock" anyway.) If and when this gets shot down, I can put the brace back on with the pistol upper at the same time.

ether said:

…I'd love to see the numbers on folks who bothered to lift a finger to register theirs before the deadline...

Click to expand...

Not registering is not a question of being lazy. It’s more about not wanting to submit to an illegal mandate.

dsk said:

99% of them were used as a stock, and owners treated their guns just like an SBR. It was a legal loophole and everyone took advantage of it, and now everyone's upset because ATF finally decided to fix their mistake of allowing them in the first place

Click to expand...

A rare admission on a gun board.
Obvious to anybody who has seen them being shot.
I have only seen one consistently used as a face-arm brace.

parallax said:

I just bought a 16" upper. AFAIK, currently it's STILL legal to put a 16" upper and a stock on a pistol lower, (making it a rifle), then to remove the stock and 16" upper and go back to being a pistol.

I'll wait to see how the legal battle shakes out. As long as I also own a 16" upper for it, I can keep the brace, (since ATF is considering it a "stock" anyway.) If and when this gets shot down, I can put the brace back on with the pistol upper at the same time.

Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well.

Thig said:

Not registering is not a question of being lazy. It’s more about not wanting to submit to an illegal mandate.

Click to expand...

No, please don't take that the wrong way. It was "easy" for me because all I had to do was call my local Class 3 dealer and ask them to email me my finger print file so that I could upload it to the ATF. The ATF already had it, but what the heck? I was approved sooner than most. I don't blame anyone for not lifting a finger, and I hope court decisions prove that I did it in vain.

I just removed the arm brace from mine. I probably should have registered it but that just rubbed me the wrong way. When I bought the Sig it came with a letter responding to Sig’s request for clarification from the ATF stating that the factory pistol with an arm brace could be occasionally fired from or near the shoulder.