Except they are saying the AR pistols with the buffer tubes are now SBRs. Thats no goofy loophole.
I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.
I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.
WAS is right, evidently IS ain’t any more. They changed the rules because it’s their game. It sucks but it is what it is. Write your congressman and senator. When they look up from whatever azz they are currently kissing it might change, but I doubt it. The majority of the DC crowd doesn’t give a rat’s south end about the 2nd Amendment unless they are trying to work around it. They’ve been doing that since 1934 and I’m just amazed that the “tax” is still $200. That was an astronomical amount of money for most folks in 1934 but it ain’t squat now.
but having a less than 16 inch upper in possession without at least 1 SBR in your name is going to cause problems. A disassembled AR pistol will still be an SBR by definition, correct?
"A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:
(a)serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm."
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
So I can prop up my night stand that is missing a leg, with my 10.5" upper. That way its serving another purpose. Next problem!
Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA). In April 2021, at an event with President Biden, the Attorney General directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to address the issue of stabilizing braces.
Here is the first paragraph of the article. Notice in the first sentence the word "submitted". How come I have not seen this on the news? I have registered items with the ATF and have not received any emails from them on this matter.
I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
How any if them are committing crimes with them…thats the rub.
I know that the law and the Constitution are not exactly a popular topic, but….
That sure seems like it violates Article I, Section 9 where it says that no bills of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. I would think that constitutionally it also applies to government agencies who have rule interpreting authority.
I know that the law and the Constitution are not exactly a popular topic, but….
That sure seems like it violates Article I, Section 9 where it says that no bills of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. I would think that constitutionally it also applies to government agencies who have rule interpreting authority.
While I agree with that premise, I am still wondering about the logic.
How many people on TBH have an NFA machine gun, SBR, SBS or suppressor?
How many threads and comments have we seen asking how long the paperwork will be on their suppressor, SBR, etc? How do they get a trust for an NFA, how can it be modified to add people, etc?
So apparently plenty of people have NFA items which are absolutely registered and plenty more have inquired about it.
So now a person can basically have a registered NFA SBR (pistol with a stock/ race) for free or the same person can say, you’re not going to fool me by getting me to register my brace to make an SBR for free. I’m falling for that scam requiring me to register it, I am going out and getting a $200 stamp to get an SBR and register it!!
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).
what makes a guy with a pistol that wants to seize the opportunity to make it a legal SBR a sheep?
We are talking about a defined law that has been law for a long time (<16" = SBR and needs stamp) where a goofy loophole existed when some dude started calling his stock a brace and now they have closed that loophole and are giving people an opportunity to comply.
Everyone put rifle optics and other rifle accessories on these pistols and expected the ATF to keep calling them pistols? They have been SBRs the whole time and now they are ready to enforce it. Fun while it lasted not having to stamp all of them, but this is not a fight I see us winning.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
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.
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?
Comment