ATF has made their ruling

[tvc184]

Well suppressors, SBS, et Al have been settled law for a long time so it just goes with the territory.

This is a complete 180 from what has been a legal, unregistered firearm that now all of a sudden they want you to either modify, register, destroy or forfeit.

They are sweetening the pot to get as many of them registered as possible since they can’t “legally” have a general gun registry (nod, nod, wink, wink).

All IMO of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Maybe I misunderstood since I don’t have one but were pistol braces ruled lawful lawful by the ATF and so millions of people bought “legal” braces for their handguns

Quoting your comment:
This is a complete 180 from what has been a legal.

Is that constitutional?

Under the Constitution AI, S9, C3….. can they retroactively make a person a felon?

I understand if they say, from this day forward…..

[cwill]

Maybe I misunderstood since I don’t have one but were pistol braces ruled lawful lawful by the ATF and so millions of people bought “legal” braces for their handguns

Quoting your comment:
This is a complete 180 from what has been a legal.

Is that constitutional?

Under the Constitution AI, S9, C3….. can they retroactively make a person a felon?

I understand if they say, from this day forward…..

Yes sir and some of them even came with a certificate(statement) from the ATF stating they were legal.

[tvc184]

Yes sir and some of them even came with a certificate(statement) from the ATF stating they were legal.

Thank you.

I know that is obviously an emotional (and correct) 2A argument but getting away from that, especially with a document from ATF, how do they now change a law to make a legal act illegal retroactive, considering Article I, Section 9?

Maybe a lawyer will be using a different tactic to get an injunction to stop this from being enforced while it is being decided.

[Drycreek3189]

Thank you.

I know that is obviously an emotional (and correct) 2A argument but getting away from that, especially with a document from ATF, how do they now change a law to make a legal act illegal retroactive, considering Article I, Section 9?

Maybe a lawyer will be using a different tactic to get an injunction to stop this from being enforced while it is being decided.

I imagine GAO is on this now. Hope so anyway. If the last few 2nd A suits that went to the Supreme Court are any indication, it will die if it gets there.

[Artos]

Exactly, using the whole loophole angle is not addressing the actual issues we are having.

Bump Stock mfg submits it's new gadget to DOJ for approval...DOJ approves & millions sold. Bump Stock used in vegas & overnight the same piece of plastic is considered a full auto firearm & banned. Overturned due to captain obvious.

Same with braces...doj approves, MILLIONS sold & then one is used in a crime & not only is the plastic brace now a SBR, the freak'n buffer tube is added to the list.

Mind boggling some cannot see the camel's head working it's way into the tent.

[trophy8]

The Constitution says that a law cannot be enacted that makes a crime of something that happened previously. Basically it is unconstitutional to make a retroactive law. They can make a law that says addresses a crime AFTER the law was enacted.

So if ATF made a ruling (if Congress gave them that authority) that a brace was legal and people purchased them by the millions, what authority do they have to make something illegal retroactively?

From the Constitution:

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
Clause 3 Nullification
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


If Congress can’t constitutionally pass a retroactive law, can the ATF (or anyone else) change a law to make a personal a criminal if he was not a criminal when the act was committed?

Bill of Attainder: Enacted legislation that declares a person a criminal.

Ex Post Facto: An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed.

So does it seem like it should be unconstitutional to make a person a criminal when the act that he committed was not a crime at the time?

10-4. Makes sense. I don’t see it being upheld.

[duckmanep]

If you wanted an SBR then why didn’t you buy an SBR to begin with?

I don’t believe in loopholes. It’s either law or it isn’t. SBRs have been law since the 1930 and pistols have been pistols; until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

My guess is because people don't want to pay $200 and be on a "list". I'm all over the list, so doesn't bother me and I have a few SBRs.

they gave us an inch when saying braces were legal and we took a mile by making them function and look exactly like an SBR. remember when you weren't supposed to shoulder them or they would come kill your dog? now everyone shoulders them so the eye relief on their rifle scope is correct. I see this as them reeling us back in, not really anything more than that.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Nicholson84]

My guess is because people don't want to pay $200 and be on a "list". I'm all over the list, so doesn't bother me and I have a few SBRs.

they gave us an inch when saying braces were legal and we took a mile by making them function and look exactly like an SBR. remember when you weren't supposed to shoulder them or they would come kill your dog? now everyone shoulders them so the eye relief on their rifle scope is correct. I see this as them reeling us back in, not really anything more than that.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

You should go work for the ATF or maybe you do, it would be a great fit. You are missing the whole point of what this means, if this is enforced then where does it end. Now go pay your taxes like a good citizen.

[Artos]

Huge pandoras box...from another site:


And then they weaponize the Sporter Clause in GCA68 which allows them to proibit anything they like as "not suitable for sport." Pretty much you'd be lucky to be left with revolvers, lever actions and break-opens in that scenario... NFA is a nuisance but it's not the biggest elephant in the room

They can & will keep literally 'reeling us in' if we allow them to enforce unconstitutional actions...if the doj thinks they screwed up on hindsight by approving bump stocks or braces, then use the legislative branch to correct. They do not have the ability to create new law enforcing imprisonment of what was considered legal yesterday. What part of the constitution is confusing here??

It's appalling some seem to be condoning the actions because they see some sorta common sense vs the tyranny the govt created by their own actions (hell, maybe it was all on purpose)...I swear, we gun owners are our own worst enemy even in the middle of the fight.

#buffertubelivesmatter

[Mike D]

My guess is because people don't want to pay $200 and be on a "list". I'm all over the list, so doesn't bother me and I have a few SBRs.

they gave us an inch when saying braces were legal and we took a mile by making them function and look exactly like an SBR. remember when you weren't supposed to shoulder them or they would come kill your dog? now everyone shoulders them so the eye relief on their rifle scope is correct. I see this as them reeling us back in, not really anything more than that.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

While I do agree that people having their 15 minutes on social media brought plenty of attention to this, they had previously ruled (twice if I recall correctly) that shouldering was fine.

This is purely a politically motivated stunt. I don’t think it will hold up in court but it’s gonna take a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Quackerbox]

So a gun shop near me sent this email...........I used them once for a transfer and ended up on their email list. Trying to decide how to respond to the email
ATF Pistol Brace Ban is Official!
Find out how it affects you and what you can do.



It’s finally here. The ATF Ruling is now final. I’m sure you’ve already received notices from many pro-2A websites you subscribe to including our friends at Silencer Shop. But there’s a few MAJOR things they’ve left out (maybe because they don’t know yet). And that’s why you shop with us! We have the details…and you’re not going to like them. But we’re here to help.

In short, and as you’ve likely read by now, the ruling goes to great lengths to effectively ban most AR Pistol configurations. There are ways to comply, but they are clear that a violation, as judged solely by them, will be considered a felony worth a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

The solution? Use our e-form 1 service to SBR your AR Pistol and don’t worry about it! Now here’s the rub:



Per every article you’ve received, you’ve seen they are offering a 120-day grace period to convert your pistol to an SBR. They’re even willing to waive the $200 tax stamp! Right? That’s what everyone is saying.



WRONG! (Mostly)



To get the waiver, here are the requirements (that you don’t discover until you start the form 1 process):



The AR Pistol must have been a pistol by Jan 13, 2023.

You, the applicant must have owned it before then (so much for these clearance sale pistol lowers).

(This is the real sneaky one) If you want to register it in a trust, you must be able to prove (by way of notary) that you already put the pistol in the trust prior to Jan 13, 2023!

If you owned it before Jan 13, 2023, expect that you’ll be registering it as an individual and putting your actual name engraved on the receiver if you want the $200 tax stamp waived.



“But I want it in my trust!!”



You can still register your AR Pistol in the trust. You just don’t get the waiver on the fee. You’ll pay $200 just like you ever would to register an SBR.

That said, our e-form 1s have been moving at lightning speed taking just 10-12 days for approval. Realize there will be a FLOOD of applications to SBR the AR Pistols so, like the “90-day eform 4s” that take 8 months, realize your eform 1 could take significantly longer. At least you get to hold on to your AR Pistol while you wait. Maybe. They haven’t been clear on the 120-day grace period if that means that as long as you have it in process then it’s not illegal to possess it while waiting.

Contact us today to get in the queue to start your eform-1. The process can take an hour or more in-house plus the engraving after the approval.



To start the process, email us your request for e-form 1 information at sales@.net. We will send you our starter kit. Keep in mind, we can get you the $200 waiver, but it will almost certainly require you registering as an individual. You can always transfer it to your trust later…for $200. Thanks ATF.

Will this be overturned eventually? Maybe. The bumpstocks only took 4 years. In the meantime, hide your dog under you bed. At least if you register it as an SBR you can take off that silly brace and put a real stock on it.

You heard it here first.



See you soon.

[coker737]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...s-used-convert

heads up gentlemen. so much for "shall not be infringed"

The Last Sentence? "Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols".

[coker737]

And as far as "individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifle". Sorry Registration Leads to Confiscation.....

[coker737]

ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Palmetto State Armory Statement
On January 13, 2023, ATF announced its new final rule on stabilizing braces (Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces,” found at https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces), which appears to subject many of today’s firearms with attached stabilizing braces and the millions of individuals that own them to the provisions and requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Palmetto State Armory opposes this rule that, in many respects, is a complete reversal of years of prior guidance from ATF and represents another example of government overreach and the arbitrary infringement of Americans’ constitutional rights. We will work with our fellow manufacturers and industry partners to challenge this unjust rule, and we look forward to this unconstitutional action being struck down by the courts.

Given the present uncertainty caused by this rule, however, and at the advice of our legal counsel, we are taking action to comply with the rule as we currently understand it and, upon publication of the rule in the Federal Register, will no longer sell or ship pistols with stabilizing braces. Rest assured, we will continue to do everything in our power to legally promote the rights of law-abiding gun owners and maximize individual freedom while this matter makes its way through the judicial system.

[jaime1982]

I wonder how many will do nothing and just wait....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk