1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
74,378 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
They're now trying to come up with a "points system" so strict that virtually all current braced pistol configurations are sure to fail. Not only are they looking at the braces themselves, but if you have a hand stop or rifle-type sights on your weapon it will probably make it an SBR. Make sure to light up the circuit boards as soon as the public comment period opens on this one:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1911_Bandit

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
The ATF sent letters approving the parts earlier and now they are saying the same parts will turn the pistols into SBR's. That is sure not right.

I will sure send in a comment and I hope all gun owners do the same. They will end up making every firearm illegal if they can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrokenGrunt

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,796 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFA bans short barreled rifles, because sort = concealable = bad. It says nothing about pistols. How is making a pistol bigger bad? Where is the BAFTE's authority to make big pistols illegal?

-- ML
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts
Well here are the current proposed rules for what the ATF is talking about. The problem is that they are still using the old " we'll know it when we see it" clause in the proposed rules. So even if your AR pistol passes with less than 4 points they can still rule it is a SBR anyway. Thus the rules mean little to nothing as they can rule that everything is a SBR no matter what the rules say. What is ridiculous is having no sights adds points, having flip up rifle sights adds points, and a red dot sight adds points too. A red dot and flip up rifle sights adds three points out of 4 to the total. Apparently ATF doesn't see red dot sights as being used on handguns.

According to the their rules, you can own any of the single items or accessories and it doesn't violate the SBR rules but put them onto a weapon and it violates their rules.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Well here are the current proposed rules for what the ATF is talking about. The problem is that they are still using the old " we'll know it when we see it" clause in the proposed rules. So even if your AR pistol passes with less than 4 points they can still rule it is a SBR anyway. Thus the rules mean little to nothing as they can rule that everything is a SBR no matter what the rules say. What is ridiculous is having no sights adds points, having flip up rifle sights adds points, and a red dot sight adds points too. A red dot and flip up rifle sights adds three points out of 4 to the total. Apparently ATF doesn't see red dot sights as being used on handguns.

According to the their rules, you can own any of the single items or accessories and it doesn't violate the SBR rules but put them onto a weapon and it violates their rules.
What's the date of that document, and where did you find it? I can't find it on the ATF site. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
I honestly think they only ever approved these in this first place because they wanted to deem them illegal after they got common and popular, so they'd be able to incriminate thousands all at once.

I fear this has always been a glorified sting operation. They'll probably start offering free tax stamps, just so they can have registration without needing an actual registration law. Or they'll just demand everyone destroy braces like they did with bumpstocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
If the current admin gets their way there will be zero legal private firearms ownership. They would do it in one shot if they thought they could get away with it. Instead they will try the salami technique, one small slice at a time, until it is all gone. That may work. That is, IMHO, one reason they want to pack the Supreme Court. For practical purposes the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Actual meaning or original intent does not matter to people with an agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts
Is an AR with a Brace, fired shouldered legal ?
With these proposed rules, it could be ruled illegal. The brace instantly makes it a pistol. Even with a 16 inch barrel (it then runs afoul of the overall length). The pull length as well could do it in too. Then the sights would put it over the top.

I do not see any sane intelligent judge that would rule in favor of these rules in a court of law. But can you afford a lawyer to help you get off from being prosecuted under these rules?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
974 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: ca survivor

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
974 Posts
Write your Congress critters. Call your Congress critters.

The BATFE is writing LAW. That's not in the bailiwick. That's the job of Congress.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,487 Posts
There is no rhyme or logic to this proposal. Just how many homicides have been committed by a pistol style AR, with an arm brace, plus a hand stop at the front end and a red dot scope? How many I would like to see some hard numbers?

This will do zilch to end the endemic violence found in the inner cities, in those Democrat blighted urban cesspools where the focus of the Federal government is really needed to arrest and incarcerate gang members and thugs that prey on each other and law abiding people. Instead... they are passing laws to eliminate bail and to defund the police.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,691 Posts
Write your Congress critters. Call your Congress critters.

The BATFE is writing LAW. That's not in the bailiwick. That's the job of Congress.
Congress has been delegating it's powers for years. Except under Trump. Then all the sudden congress wanted all it's powers back.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,899 Posts
Congress has been delegating it's powers for years. Except under Trump. Then all the sudden congress wanted all it's powers back.
Congress has no term limits; the presidency has had term limits for quite some time. So it’s cheaper to leave the tough stuff to the term-limited office.

Even if administrative “law” were constitutional (it’s not*), this kind of abuse would be reason enough, from a libertarianly, practical aspect, to outlaw it. Since it’s already illegal ....
- - - -

*- C.O.T.U.S. delegates legislative power to congress; it explicitly does not delegate to congress the power to delegate legislative power to anybody:

- All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ...


And had it delegated the power to delegate, the framers would certainly have excluded delegating to the other two branches of government: creating dynamic tension and division of powers among the branches being the entire idea for three-branch government. A combination of executive and legislative powers the worst two-part combination in the view of many of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,988 Posts
After typing out a rather opinionated and judgmental entry onto this thread, I've deleted it. Not because of political correctness or absurd sensitivity, but because, added to everything else going on right now, this entire affair is extremely disheartening and the more I typed the angrier I became. Suffice it to say, we're in bad shape, only getting worse, and we're on our own. There's not a single voice of leadership from the supposed 'conservatives' in DC to champion any of our many causes. And just think of it..... this administration is in its infancy! :cautious: :cautious: :cautious:
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top