1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Or are they just pissing in the wind?

I wrote my Representatives some very pointed messages...laced with profanity that I couldn't repeat here.

I wouldn't recommend profanity, but I hope everyone that cares about keeping a leash on Executive overreach has done the same by now (y)
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
81,055 Posts
If you lace your letters with profanity and threats they usually end up in the waste basket. Try and write a professional-sounding letter next time. Please.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The whole issue is so crazy. The executive branch acting like it’s the legislative branch should be getting more attention but it’s not.
I agree, and that's one point that I pointed out to my Texas reps.

The ATF is officially out of control, and if they can't be contained, they should be abolished. One stroke of a pen could abolish them as easily as they'd have us turned into felons and incarcerated overnight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
The whole issue is so crazy. The executive branch acting like it’s the legislative branch should be getting more attention but it’s not.
We have seen some improvement on that front.

The West Virginia vs EPA, found that the EPA must work within the confines to control pollution as it was defined in the clean air act. They could not mandate something that outside of the power to law gave them, no matter how effective it might be or how important climate change is.

The fifth circuit also overturned the bump stock ban holding that 1) machine guns are specifically defined in law and the ATF doesn’t just get to redefine them. 2) even if the definition was ambiguous (which the court held the law was not) the ATF can’t just decide that the law means a different thing suddenly and that the rule of lenity would apply.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
2) even if the definition was ambiguous (which the court held the law was not) the ATF can’t just decide that the law means a different thing suddenly and that the rule of lenity would apply.
"Ambiguous" is a very good word for what's being attempted here.

"Unconstitutionally vague" is another term that has won us victory in court. "Surface area" with no defined measurements? Good luck in court.

One popular Texan profanity is "S*** or get off the pot".

So are we doing this, or not?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
I’m trying to find out precisely how they measure the barrel. I have a friend who manufactures 50 Cal barrels for military around the world. He is hooked up with an ATF liaison. I’ve asked him to check on my question. If it were possible to permanently pin and weld a lengthy flash suppressor on the end of a 10 1/2 inch barrel, that might be an easy solution.

I’m just not sure what their position is , I have seen where they talk about adding a “16 inch rifled barrel” but I just don’t know if they measure the flash suppressor.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,424 Posts
I’m trying to find out precisely how they measure the barrel. I have a friend who manufactures 50 Cal barrels for military around the world. He is hooked up with an ATF liaison. I’ve asked him to check on my question. If it were possible to permanently pin and weld a lengthy flash suppressor on the end of a 10 1/2 inch barrel, that might be an easy solution.

I’m just not sure what their position is , I have seen where they talk about adding a “16 inch rifled barrel” but I just don’t know if they measure the flash suppressor.
It is SUPPOSED to be the length measured from the breech face of a closed bolt to the muzzle. Of course, since the ATF seems to want to change their minds at the drop of a hat, and make millions into instant felons because of it, you can't guarantee that the current standard will be legal tomorrow.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
"Ambiguous" is a very good word for what's being attempted here.

"Unconstitutionally vague" is another term that has won us victory in court. "Surface area" with no defined measurements? Good luck in court.

One popular Texan profanity is "S*** or get off the pot".

So are we doing this, or not?
I live in Texas as well. But, it's a waste of time for me to write letters to my representatives. My congress person is Eddie Bernice Johnson, a known demokrat - I live behind enemy lines. One of my senators is John "Milquetoast" Cornyn, the sorry weasel who McConnell tasked with working with that friggin demokrat weasel, Murphy to draw up some anti-2nd Amendment laws for them to pass in the senate. Cornyn has always been a pathetic, weak, faux Republican, and I don't know how he continues to get re-elected with his extremely poor performance.

My other senator is Ted Cruz. I don't need to write him a letter because I know that he already supports the 2nd Amendment and doesn't need any letters asking him to do his job. He's already doing it. In spite of this I did complete the GOA link to sending e-mails to all of them.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
17,521 Posts
Sure, if you want to permanently extend the barrel length to 16", it is now a rifle and you can use any stock you want plus even a fore grip. Its my understanding that a pistol can become a rifle but a rifle cannot become a pistol. It does not have to be a rifled barrel extension which is mechanically impossible, or shall I say something which is simply not done. All manner of devices have been used to extend to the legal barrel length, such as flash hiders, faux silencers, extended muzzle brakes, etc. The approved attaching procedure is to pin after installation and to weld the pin into place.
I don't want to do this - I want to be able to have my rifle-caliber pistols and use them. However if this goofy ban stands, I have some ideas for keeping them legal.
The AR pistol in particular is interesting because it must have a lower receiver extension (buffer tube) in order to be functional, so that cannot be included in banned devices, although it cannot be the type that has the mount for a stock/'brace' on it. Seems like a plain 'pistol' buffer tube with a foam rubber cover on it for use as a cheek rest for aimed fire would be okay based on what I have read in the text of the ruling. But, you must keep in mind that most of the people writing this crap don't know jack about guns in the first place.
The bump stock ban's wording conflicting with NFA1934 is something I wrote about pre-Covid, and I'll give you the gist of it; NFA1934 is very clear on what constitutes a 'machine gun', and in a nutshell, it must fire more than once for each manipulation of the trigger. The bump stock does not cause doubling or other uncontrolled multiple firing - the trigger re-sets after every shot and must be pulled again for the next shot - the bump stock is just a toy that makes this easier to do. Shooters have been 'bump-firing' with just their trigger finger since self-loading rifles were invented over a hundred years ago. Nothing is new, and none of them became 'machine guns' when bump-fired.
Okay, so when they wrote this ruling up, they justified calling it a 'machine gun' because it caused multiple shots to be fired without separate trigger pulls. Since this is obviously an impossibility and hence a false statement, now the entire portion of NFA1934 relating to machine guns is rendered obsolete since the new rule has a different and nonsensical definition for 'machine gun' which could never stand up to a simple mechanical demonstration.
You could say that the way to ban the bump stock without affecting NFA1934 would be to simply ban any kind of device that aids in rapid firing. Of course, that would be extremely weak and would amount to simply banning rapid fire beyond that which can be accomplished by hand and using no devices, a rather inane exercise and one sure to fail in any court.
This is why they had to pollute NFA1934 with the ridiculous notion that a bump-firing device is a machine gun, so that those who didn't know any different would support it.
So, how long can this stupidity hope to survive scrutiny by anyone with two brain cells to rub together? Apparently, by the recent court decision against it, that time is running out.

The 'pistol brace' deal is a different matter. A long-gun 'pistol' with any of the popular 'braces' on it, has the exact form, fit and function of an SBR. Anyone being honest has to have seen that coming from day one. So, even though I hate this, it is obvious to me that it would be exceptionally easy to prove this in court, and so the 'pistol brace' is a thing of the past - it definitely is on my pistols. Look, they don't allow stocks on handguns either, right? So can you imagine fitting a 'brace' to your 1911 or any other handgun that looks like a stock and which you put to your shoulder when firing? Its not going to be allowed! Sure, it would be great to vacate these sections of NFA1934 so SBRs were everyday guns, but until that happens, we are going to have to live with it - but we shouldn't have to live with patently ridiculous rulings like the bump-stock ban.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,424 Posts
Sure, if you want to permanently extend the barrel length to 16", it is now a rifle and you can use any stock you want plus even a fore grip. Its my understanding that a pistol can become a rifle but a rifle cannot become a pistol.
Actually, (at least according to CURRENT ATF rules), if the item was bought/made as a pistol initially, you can add a 16" upper and a stock and convert to a rifle, THEN you could remove the stock and 16" upper and go back to a pistol.

Of course, the ATF seems to be changing their minds about what it "legal" at the drop of a hat, which is why SCOTUS needs to reign them in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duane_wade

· Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Well said, saxman. I read the whole rule and need to go read a couple more times for clarity. I’m getting a lot of people calling me, asking about alternative methods of complying without being in violation. As I have said, a barrel change can be done for about $100 if you have the tools. The buffer tube is necessary for operation,you’re probably safe there.

If someone wanted to keep an AR pistol for home defense, if they removed any shoulder pad, removed any sights that were designed to be lined up while shouldering the weapon and maybe added a bright green laser, they may survive the rule change unscathed. This idea was floated to me and I need to read the rules again with these modifications in mind.

It’s difficult indeed, too know how to make your behavior comport with the rule or law, when even lawyers cannot agree on what it says.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,424 Posts
I was planning on moving mine to a trust today.
Better hurry then! If you want to SBR it under a trust, it has to be IN the trust before the rule goes into effect.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
81,055 Posts
Update...

 
  • Helpful
Reactions: riposte191145
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top