Brace Ban

[Kelvin995]

There is a second wave of brace ban right now, but I just don't know how the ATF gonna make all of those braces illegal out there

 

[Kelvin995]

According to some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:

• Incorporation of rifle sights;
• Utilization of "rifle caliber ammunition" (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);
• Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1
• The “weapon’s heavy weight;”
• Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and
• Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”

Is this means some pistol caliber and rimfire rds are fine???

 

[Cameramonkey]

According to some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:

• Incorporation of rifle sights;
• Utilization of "rifle caliber ammunition" (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);
• Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1
• The “weapon’s heavy weight;”
• Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and
• Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”

Is this means some pistol caliber and rimfire rds are fine???

Maybe. Maybe not.


And I can put 30 round sticks (or bigger drums) in my Glock. (that I bought for my Glock fed AR9)So what does that mean for my pistol? (somewhat purple)

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

According to some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:

• Incorporation of rifle sights;
• Utilization of "rifle caliber ammunition" (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);
• Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1
• The “weapon’s heavy weight;”
• Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and
• Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”

Is this means some pistol caliber and rimfire rds are fine???

The weapons heavy weight: Wouldn't that be more of an opinion ? What is heavy to some is not to others.

Front heavy imbalance: Again a personal opinion. You give a smaller person that all they shoot is a pocket rocket 9mm a full size steel 1911 and yes they are going to think there is some front heavy imbalance.

More ATF BS................

 

[Ggreen]

Take your politics out of this thread please. Keep it to notifications of new rules and sharing ways to communicate to legislators.
.

 

[OneBadV8]

Take your politics out of this thread please. Keep it to notifications of new rules and sharing ways to communicate to legislators.
.

I'm going to remove some of these posts. If you want to have political discussions, move them to the politics forum.

 

[jd4320t]

Take your politics out of this thread please. Keep it to notifications of new rules and sharing ways to communicate to legislators.
.

 

[KG1]

Take your politics out of this thread please. Keep it to notifications of new rules and sharing ways to communicate to legislators.
.

Exactly. Political arguments in this thread are not productive. Stay focused on the task at hand.

 

[Ingomike]

Take your politics out of this thread please. Keep it to notifications of new rules and sharing ways to communicate to legislators.
.

The brace issue is politics and if one reads the whole thread it has been all along. If you want action it is best to stimulate action in an active thread. Use it to promote action to those that might not look here if posting wasn't so active.

Or you can have a thread no one looks at sitting there...

 

[OneBadV8]

The brace issue is politics and if one reads the whole thread it has been all along. If you want action it is best to stimulate action in an active thread. Use it to promote action to those that might not look here if posting wasn't so active.

Or you can have a thread no one looks at sitting there...

You can discuss action items, ATF issues, etc. But when it start going down the Trump vs Biden road, R's vs D's, etc... it belongs in the Politics forum. If you can't separate the talking points, just scroll to a different thread and don't comment so that it doesn't derail this one. Thanks

 

[Ingomike]

You can discuss action items, ATF issues, etc. But when it start going down the Trump vs Biden road, R's vs D's, etc... it belongs in the Politics forum. If you can't separate the talking points, just scroll to a different thread and don't comment so that it doesn't derail this one. Thanks

It belongs in the politics forum. Go look at the first page of this thread, politics started on post 5 and constitute about one third of the posts. My point is this issue will never be separated from politics because it is caused by the unelected political ruling class. Promoting contacting politicians is politics. This thread has never been free of politics...

 

[OneBadV8]

It belongs in the politics forum. Go look at the first page of this thread, politics started on post 5 and constitute about one third of the posts. My point is this issue will never be separated from politics because it is caused by the unelected political ruling class. Promoting contacting politicians is politics. This thread has never been free of politics...

Which is exactly why I stated the following (bolded) in the post you quoted.

You can discuss action items, ATF issues, etc. But when it start going down the Trump vs Biden road, R's vs D's, etc... it belongs in the Politics forum. If you can't separate the talking points, just scroll to a different thread and don't comment so that it doesn't derail this one. Thanks

 

[jamil]

I think the lines are fairly drawn and pretty clear to me, but I hope the line is drawn where I think it is.

I can see a politician's impact on this issue being a natural and relevant part of the discussion. So, discussing a fact that Trump possibly Biden in the fiture, did this such thing which had that such effect on the rules, and so we need to/don't need to take some kind of action, is squarely inside the line. It's objectively relevant to the issue. But when it becomes this politician is better than that politician on this issue, there are many other threads in the political section for that. That seems squarely outside the line for this thread.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Exactly. Political arguments in this thread are not productive. Stay focused on the task at hand.

Yep. And as for voting its not like we have a better alternative than Trump in this area. Our choices are Meh or OH GOD HELL NO! (pure fact based on stated agendas, not politics)

Keep writing boys! (And girls)

 

[Ggreen]

It belongs in the politics forum. Go look at the first page of this thread, politics started on post 5 and constitute about one third of the posts. My point is this issue will never be separated from politics because it is caused by the unelected political ruling class. Promoting contacting politicians is politics. This thread has never been free of politics...

But in the interest of keeping people informed on the issue we drew a line in the thread pages ago asking people to keep polycarbonate banter off this thread. This is meant for information sharing not debating

 

[ajeandy]

Oh yay...another political post on a gun forum.

 

[worddoer]

There are a portion of gun owners that are willing to let others guns be taken away.....as long as they get to keep the guns they want. Cough...cough...those arguing AR/AK pistols and/or pistol braces should be forced to the NFA like their SBR's.

If someone is not willing to defend someone else's rights, then they don't deserve the rights they themselves have. Most soldiers who give their lives for this country do so with the knowledge that they were defending the rights of others.... rights they themselves may never use. Selling out the rights of others because you don't personally use that right is a self centered and narcissistic thing to do.

There appear to be even some here that don't see the inconsistency of supporting restrictions and obstacles to the practice of a natural right to the ownership of firearms (like the NFA) while rejecting any restrictions to other rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those same people would most likely be quite upset if they had to submit a report for government pre-approval and pay a $200 fee each time they would like to exercise their freedom of speech or their freedom of religion. Restrictions on freedom and liberty are wrong...all of them.

Many of these people don't even know how restricted our firearms freedoms have become in the last 100 years. Many including myself have learned this information and have had enough. We will no longer stand by and let our freedoms be further taken away. We will become even more active and politically involved and take every legal measure necessary to maintain and if at all possible regain our natural rights.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done and are still trying to reinstate it.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2020 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." And right now we are seeing a stirring to ban pistol braces and all larger pistols. Are we once again going to idly stand by and let this happen like all the others? Those who do, those who refuse to defend the freedom of others even if they don't use that freedom, those are self centered, narcissistic people.

As you can see above, we have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side gave nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough. They only continue to ask for more and more and more.

After losing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 7 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. And those who think that the anti-gun crowd will not ban NFA items the instant they have enough control are foolish. They have stated publicly many times they would LOVE to remove the NFA and ban all those items. How will that little $200 stamp save you when that happens?

The anti-gun crowd hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of American's in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise (including the NFA) is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time during their next election cycle. We will do everything we can to elect pro gun people into office and get these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

 

[worddoer]

California DOJ sues ATF to make 80% lowers illegal nationwide

We must keep an eye on this case. It seems the California DOJ is suing the ATF and a 80% lower manufacturer in California...but in federal court instead of California court.

California DOJ is suing to have the ATF "re-define" incomplete lowers as firearms. The ATF seems real good at redefining things lately.

Based on the ATF's recent actions, it would not surprise me if they throw this case and don't push a negative ruling to a higher court.

ATF in their best feigned voice: "Oh my....looky there....somehow we forgot to protect freedom and now this big bad meany court is forcing us to ban 80% lowers. Oh well."

https://www.80percentarms.com/content/California_vs_ATF.pdf

 

[Cameramonkey]

Personally I think the 80% trick was a stretch and should never have been allowed. But you do you. I'm not going to fight against allowing them.

 

[Sigblaster]

Personally I think the 80% trick was a stretch and should never have been allowed. But you do you. I'm not going to fight against allowing them.

Allowed by whom? The unelected bureaucrats at the ATF?

Personally, I believe the GCA shouldn't exist AT ALL, but since the congressional knuckleheads who wrote the unconstitutional law failed to properly define the terms "frame" and "receiver", it was up to the ATF to define them. They came up with the 80% rule.

What percentage would you suggest they use? 50%? 25%? 0%?

At what point is a brick of metal or plastic machined enough to go from being a paperweight to a frame or receiver?