New proposed pistol brace rules

[scott.str]

Ofcourse I just picked up a 300blk pistol to carry while hunting for pigs and seems they are trying to call it an SBR now.

The ATF is really annoying just changing rules back and forth. We are felons now, then we arnt. Really hard to know if we should all be in prison or not, especially when no one votes on it. New laws seem to just happen with them.

Hope this doesn’t go through as arrows are expensive on pigs. The pistol suppressed would save some money and time on those pigs and fit in my backpack.

[BLACKFINTURKEY]

It’s all a crock of poop! Sbrs and sbs should not require any special permission to own!

[okrattler]

As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any restrictions on weapons whatsoever if you have the cash to pay for it. Evil will do what evil does. Good will do what good does. Regardless of what they own. And evil will find a way if it doesn't. I don't own a pistol with a brace or an SBR or even a suppressor. But I think the laws pertaining to such things are stupid.

It's just my opinion but as far as I'm concerned I should be able to go buy any one of those things at the store right now if I was inclined to do so. Because the last I checked this was America. Even if it's hard to tell sometimes.

[muzzlebrake]

Just like silencers. There's no such animal as a silencer. Even the best so-called silencers are not capable of suppressing noise below 120db at the shooters ear even when subsonic. Bolt cycling noise alone is right at 100-110db on an AR.
.22 rimfire might get down to 35db subsonic suppressed but can still be clearly heard from 50 yards away. Supersonic suppressed are mostly up near 140db for the average can. Some are louder. They need to be below 130 to keep from causing hearing loss problems. It's all about control and taxes or vice versa.

[okrattler]

To be honest I think if anyone should be de-funded it's the ATF. What do they do besides sit around and dream up dumbass laws that the police have to enforce and put their lives on the line for? And for what? There's no point in it.

[scott.str]

My biggest thing is they just put it into law. Who voted on this and where is my representation? The ATF just does what they ATF does. And they flip flop( brace on shoulder not ok…. Now it’s ok….. maybe it’s ok but we may arrest you if we feel)
Now accessories define an SBR not the actual firearm.

To be honest I think if anyone should be de-funded it's the ATF. What do they do besides sit around and dream up dumbass laws that the police have to enforce and put their lives on the line for? And for what? There's no point in it.

[okrattler]

My biggest thing is they just put it into law. Who voted on this and where is my representation? The ATF just does what they ATF does. And they flip flop( brace on shoulder not ok…. Now it’s ok….. maybe it’s ok but we may arrest you if we feel)
Now accessories define an SBR not the actual firearm.

Exactly, so I think there needs to be a law in place that once something is mass produced and was bought legally it's fair game to own. Shouldn't be any of this back and forth stuff.

I know, I know....proposing another law. But this would actually be to protect the people of the United States. Which is the exact opposite of the laws set in place by the ATF. Those do absolutely nothing.

[scott.str]

They are basically making this rule with no idea how to enforce it or make it so we as the people with it can follow it. Basically leaves it open to them to decide. Even if you follow the law they still have final say whenever they want to arrest you even if you follow the guidelines. Isn’t that just fun.

Exactly, so I think there needs to be a law in place that once something is mass produced and was bought legally it's fair game to own. Shouldn't be any of this back and forth stuff.

[Pushbutton2]

As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any restrictions on weapons whatsoever if you have the cash to pay for it. Evil will do what evil does. Good will do what good does. Regardless of what they own. And evil will find a way if it doesn't. I don't own a pistol with a brace or an SBR or even a suppressor. But I think the laws pertaining to such things are stupid.

It's just my opinion but as far as I'm concerned I should be able to go buy any one of those things at the store right now if I was inclined to do so. Because the last I checked this was America. Even if it's hard to tell sometimes.

This

[muzzlebrake]

So what they have done is try and make a few hundred thousand people guilty of a felony? No way that will stand up in the courts. It will however cost somebody a lot of $$$ to have to fight the charges. I'll bet Beto and Biden are loving this.

[okrattler]

They are basically making this rule with no idea how to enforce it or make it so we as the people with it can follow it. Basically leaves it open to them to decide. Even if you follow the law they still have final say whenever they want to arrest you even if you follow the guidelines. Isn’t that just fun.

So what do they expect a person to do if they bought it legally? There's no way that people are going to turn theirs in. There's no proof of who bought what if they didn't have to get approved to buy a pistol brace. That'd be like outlawing Pepsi or somethin. Who all has Pepsi in their home? Well.....a lot of people. If you catch them drinking one in public they'd be in trouble but aside from that how will you know who's a Pepsi drinker? It makes no sense to criminalize people after you've sold hundreds of thousands of these things. Kinda makes it hard to get them all back I would think. But what do I know?

People are still going to own them. They probably just ain't gonna take those guns out to the public range.

[Mike D]

New proposed pistol brace rules

My biggest thing is they just put it into law. Who voted on this and where is my representation? The ATF just does what they ATF does. And they flip flop( brace on shoulder not ok…. Now it’s ok….. maybe it’s ok but we may arrest you if we feel)
Now accessories define an SBR not the actual firearm.

Where did you see it’s been put in force. The ATF is not a lawmaking branch of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[scott.str]

It hasnt been put in force yet, but it would be a change to the interpretation of the original law. I think its how they skirt getting it passed by congress. Basically they will try to say we interpret it this way and you are now breaking the law.

But like others have said no way now that the cat is out of the bag and they flip flopped so many times can they go back on it now.


I wish all the anti gun people understood just how hard it is to try and be a law abiding gun owner since our rules change all the time.

Where did you see it’s been put in force. The ATF is not a lawmaking branch of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tvc184]

Where did you see it’s been put in force. The ATF is not a lawmaking branch of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I have no clue if it applies to the situation but I do know that both state law and federal law have laws on the books (and I have seen Supreme Court decisions on this) that say a particular agency has the authority to not make laws, but to interpret or change rules. I think maybe Texas Parks and Wildlife has that authority in some situations as an example. While a legislature can certainly make fish bag limits, license fees and such, they normally do not do so and turn that over to someone else. It is legal because there is a law in the books that tells them they have the authority to do it.

Again, I have no clue if it applies here but all rules and interpretations do not have to be passed by Congress whether state or federal.

[das7777]

It doesn't apply if you are a Taliban... then they will give you a Blackhawk!!!!