What are people likely to do with their AR pistols after Augusts rule change?

[thompal]

What? and get rid of an important fundraising opportunity? If they actually do all the things, what platform do they have to ask us for money for reelection campaigns?

Look at Dudley at NAGR. He fundraises like hell, then in the middle of a bill's debate process, does things to torpedo the bill. In Colorado the magazine ban progress was going great. Then he Leroy Jenkins and suddeny the bill passes. "Aw shucks, I guess y'all will have to give us more money to fight this to get it repealed!" He did the same thing here with one of our bills.

I dont even want to call it the swamp anymore because thats offensive to swamp creatures. At least those things have a functional purpose in the ecosystem and a positive benefit.

The Democrats do the exact same thing with their favorite issues. Obama made a campaign promise that if people would donate and elect him, codifying Roe would be his #1 priority. He had a super-majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House, and did nothing. Biden said he would work to codify it on "day #1." And did nothing. Then The Supremes strike it down, and the Democrats' response is "send us $15 and vote for us in November."

Trump promised to "drain the swamp." Other than giving us the bumpstock ban, what did he do? Did he roll back the ATF? Do away with the Patriot Act? Comment on GCA 68? Machine gun limitations? But, we are told "send us money and vote for us in November."

It's a racket.

 

[gregr]

The Democrats do the exact same thing with their favorite issues. Obama made a campaign promise that if people would donate and elect him, codifying Roe would be his #1 priority. He had a super-majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House, and did nothing. Biden said he would work to codify it on "day #1." And did nothing. Then The Supremes strike it down, and the Democrats' response is "send us $15 and vote for us in November."

Trump promised to "drain the swamp." Other than giving us the bumpstock ban, what did he do? Did he roll back the ATF? Do away with the Patriot Act? Comment on GCA 68? Machine gun limitations? But, we are told "send us money and vote for us in November."

It's a racket.

The phrase, "drain the swamp", was directed at politicians, not policies or departments. And a president is limited in what they can do as far as rescinding policies, or removing departments regardless of what so me try to make you believe.

 

[xwing]

What have previous Republican administrations done to roll back the out of control bureaucracies or eliminate the departments which exist only to infringe people's rights?

A Republican president and a Republican senate led to the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Maybe you noticed their recent ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen? A Democrat president and Democrat senate led to Ketanji Brown Jackson. How do you think she's going to rule on gun rights? The same way that Sonya Sotomayer and Elena Kagan did, also appointed by a Dem president with a Dem senate.

There's a pattern here...

We need to get a Republican president and we need the Republicans to take back control of the Senate.

Also, the ATF was less outright hostile to gun owners, and president Trump seemed to try to roll-back some of the overreach in federal agencies with limited success. But far better than Biden who has directly pointed them against Americans in so many ways.

 

[nagantoid]

I see no slow down in people building/buying AR pistols when we full well KNOW they're about to become felonies to own in any capacity that they're actually usable.

I've avoided them for the last year because I assumed everyone would cave like we (be honest) always do and just take it up the rear.

But I don't see that happening. So many friends and people on here going to town on their new pistol builds when in less than a month 4999 is coming and I can't figure it out.

Do people just not know? Not care because nobody has gotten arrested yet?

Everyone wants to be a keyboard revolutionary and say things like "shall not be infringed" but we're so far past that and I doubt these guys are converting their ARs to all have fun switches because it's legal in their own mind - because it should be.


I'm not going to ask anyone to incriminate themselves by asking what YOU are going to do with yours but what do you think the majority will do when the ruling comes?

For me, it's obvious that this isn't the hill to die on. I'm not losing my rights and going to prison over a few inches of barrel length.

For every "come and take them" I hear I imagine only 1% of are serious about their willingness to go to prison over this line in the sand.

I read the scoresheet. This appears to apply ONLY to AR/AK pistols (and presumably anything else built the same way) THAT HAVE A "SHOULDER BRACE". So, if you own an AR/AK pistol and a shoulder brace, sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the brace and you're good. No unlawful weapon, no constructive possession of components - free and clear.

Hence the argument here isn't about AR/AK pistols, it's about those (I think stupid) shoulder braces. Those things are like bump stocks - a ridiculously uncomfortable attempt to do a definitional end-run around ATF weapon categories. Made-as-a-pistol builds like the Zastava PAP are unaffected.

 

[BJHay]

What exactly is a "hill to die on" then...

It's like defining pornography.
I can't describe it but I'll know it when I see it.

 

[DDadams]

I read the scoresheet. This appears to apply ONLY to AR/AK pistols (and presumably anything else built the same way) THAT HAVE A "SHOULDER BRACE". So, if you own an AR/AK pistol and a shoulder brace, sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the brace and you're good. No unlawful weapon, no constructive possession of components - free and clear.

Hence the argument here isn't about AR/AK pistols, it's about those (I think stupid) shoulder braces. Those things are like bump stocks - a ridiculously uncomfortable attempt to do a definitional end-run around ATF weapon categories. Made-as-a-pistol builds like the Zastava PAP are unaffected.

While I think braces are stupid compared to stocks - I'd rather not have the limitations that come with SBRs in regards to travel and paying an extra $200 per build is excessive.

So braces compared to stocks, yes, stupid.

But in general? Genius. At least in my opinion.

And they agreed they can be shouldered, so I don't see it as a a run around way to get around their definition.

PLUS - they do BS all the time (like right now) to change definitions and mess with us.

Are you against finding ways to circumvent their illegal acts?

I haven't seen anyone on here defend the ATF before... this is an odd first.



Edit: and the idea of "just get rid of the brace" is not much of an idea at all. The end of the worksheet also states they have sole discretion to deem anything they want an SBR even if it passes the scoresheet. And I haven't seen clarification if it HAS to have a brace to be under attack by this. I'm under the impression that it's ALL shorter than 16" barrel ARs/AKs etc.

And simply 'remove the brace' makes most of these near useless. Have you ever tried to fire a short barrel AR from the shoulder using just a receiver extension?

 

[Ingomike]

Amazed Trump didn’t try this when he first got in.

He literally was trying to get along, thought he could negotiate with TPTB. I would LOVE to see a lame duck second term, he will be ruthless and have not a care that he is.

 

[kBk wz. 1970]

And belt loops. I've seen bump fire done so it's string tied sweat pants for everybody!

Buying string tied sweat pants now becomes *intent*…

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I read the scoresheet. This appears to apply ONLY to AR/AK pistols (and presumably anything else built the same way) THAT HAVE A "SHOULDER BRACE". So, if you own an AR/AK pistol and a shoulder brace, sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the brace and you're good. No unlawful weapon, no constructive possession of components - free and clear.

Hence the argument here isn't about AR/AK pistols, it's about those (I think stupid) shoulder braces. Those things are like bump stocks - a ridiculously uncomfortable attempt to do a definitional end-run around ATF weapon categories. Made-as-a-pistol builds like the Zastava PAP are unaffected.

Keep the pistol, keep the brace, it's only illegal if you attach one to the other. "Constructive possession of components" is a myth (otherwise we'd all be criminals already)

 

[AndreusMaximus]

"Constructive possession of components" is a myth (otherwise we'd all be criminals already)

 

[nagantoid]

Keep the pistol, keep the brace, it's only illegal if you attach one to the other. "Constructive possession of components" is a myth (otherwise we'd all be criminals already)

IDK about myth, maybe it's one of those "add-ons" they use when they either can't get you for anything else but REALLY WANT TO LOCK YOU UP, or it's something they tack on for bonus sentencing when they catch you for something else.

 

[nagantoid]

It's like defining pornography.
I can't describe it but I'll know it when I see it.

And you'll spend however long it takes looking at it, to figure out what it is, right?

 

[AlVine]

If people building pistols have the 4999 checklist and are using it to guide their builds, why should they stop? It won't be a felony to own a pistol with a brace, just SOME pistols with braces. Even then, removing the brace solves the problem. Or registering it as a short-barreled rifle, if you want to do the paperwork, solves the problem too.

 

[nagantoid]

While I think braces are stupid compared to stocks - I'd rather not have the limitations that come with SBRs in regards to travel and paying an extra $200 per build is excessive.

So braces compared to stocks, yes, stupid.

But in general? Genius. At least in my opinion.

And they agreed they can be shouldered, so I don't see it as a a run around way to get around their definition.

PLUS - they do BS all the time (like right now) to change definitions and mess with us.

Are you against finding ways to circumvent their illegal acts?

I haven't seen anyone on here defend the ATF before... this is an odd first.



Edit: and the idea of "just get rid of the brace" is not much of an idea at all. The end of the worksheet also states they have sole discretion to deem anything they want an SBR even if it passes the scoresheet. And I haven't seen clarification if it HAS to have a brace to be under attack by this. I'm under the impression that it's ALL shorter than 16" barrel ARs/AKs etc.

And simply 'remove the brace' makes most of these near useless. Have you ever tried to fire a short barrel AR from the shoulder using just a receiver extension?

Oh, come now. The very top of the form specifies that it is for weapons with accessories commonly known as stabilizing braces. A pistol with no stabilizing brace is inherently not on the scorecard and can't be scored. By your logic, any handgun whatsoever is about to become an illegal SBR. And this battle has been underway for YEARS btw, "braces soon to become illegal by ATF sneaky definitions change" has been a conversation for at least 5-6 years that I can remember, probably more.

And I'm not defending the ATF, in any way shape or form. I just think a) this particular accessory is silly and defeats the purpose of owning a rifle caliber pistol, b) this accessory is the ONLY thing that's under "attack" here and rifle caliber pistols are not - spreading any other message is spreading FUD.

 

[Magyars]

Keep the pistol, keep the brace, it's only illegal if you attach one to the other. "Constructive possession of components" is a myth (otherwise we'd all be criminals already)

We already ARE criminals....one way or another.

 

[nagantoid]

We already ARE criminals....one way or another.

How does the saying go? "Criminal or not is just a matter of timing"?

With that said, I have no interest in running afoul of any laws, so I don't own, or want to own, anything I'm not allowed to. Of course that doesn't mean I won't continue to lobby to make more things allowed (Suppressors for instance are ludicrously over-regulated here. In some countries they're considered semi-mandatory safety equipment, to protect hearing).

 

[JAL]

I read the scoresheet. This appears to apply ONLY to AR/AK pistols (and presumably anything else built the same way) THAT HAVE A "SHOULDER BRACE". So, if you own an AR/AK pistol and a shoulder brace, sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the brace and you're good. No unlawful weapon, no constructive possession of components - free and clear.

Hence the argument here isn't about AR/AK pistols, it's about those (I think stupid) shoulder braces. Those things are like bump stocks - a ridiculously uncomfortable attempt to do a definitional end-run around ATF weapon categories. Made-as-a-pistol builds like the Zastava PAP are unaffected.

It's not a "SHOULDER BRACE". NOWHERE is it called a "SHOULDER BRACE".

End of Message. Period. FULL STOP.

John

 

[nagantoid]

It's not a "SHOULDER BRACE". NOWHERE is it called a "SHOULDER BRACE".

End of Message. Period. FULL STOP.

John

Sigh. So I didn't cut and paste. Doesn't change the facts. The form is not relevant to a firearm not fitted with one of these specified accessories. End of Message. Period. FULL STOP.

 

[thelefthand]

This is all starting to glow a little bit.

Oh ya forgot to answer op’s question.

Put a stock on it since it’s already gonna be a felony and free men don’t ask permission in the first place.

Put the purple where you see fit.

If you ever need help, let me know. There's enough room on that hill for both of us.

 

[HoughMade]

It's not a "SHOULDER BRACE". NOWHERE is it called a "SHOULDER BRACE".

End of Message. Period. FULL STOP.

John

"Brace" then.

...which never goes anywhere near a shoulder. Uh huh.

Look, the SBR law is dumb, but thinking if we call it something else but use it as a stock, everything changes....not quite as dumb, but dumb. This point-system form shows that and the only thing we should be surprised about is that its as "lenient" as it is.

So to respond to the OP, why would anyone be worried about their pistol?