Glock Firearms banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
DOJ Issues Proposed Rule On Pistol Braces, Model "Red Flag" Legislation

Thats right they are back to take more of what "Shall Not Be Infringed."

"In essence the DOJ and ATF are proposing the adoption of a new “worksheet” that the firearms industry and individual gun owners can use to determine if an AR-style pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace will likely be considered by the ATF to be a pistol or a short-barreled rifle subject to registration under the National Firearms Act. I say likely because the agency still hasn’t issued a clear directive one way or the other. If the firearm in question has certain characteristics that the ATF says make it more likely to be shoulder-fired, then the ATF will likely determine that the gun is in fact a short-barreled rifle."


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Whatever it is, violates the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. And what makes it worse is the language and the confusion it creates, enabling them to use the new regulation any way they want.
Yep, all that is needed is nullification of the NFA and there will be confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The NFA is unConstitutional form the start but with over 4 million stabilizing braces being present throughout the United States, crimes involving them are still nonexistent. Combining the fact that 4 million braces exist without increasing or affecting crime with the fact that the BATFE is willing to classify, across the board, every single one of those 4 million AR pistols as strictly-regulated SBR’s (per the BATFE notice on 12/18/20) it would seem to me that the BATFE has made the case to remove SBR’s from the NFA altogether. Surely the BATFE has done extensive research on the lack of impact that SBR’s have had on crime to come to the conclusion that potentially adding over 4 million more SBR’s to the general public would have no adverse affect on crime and public safety. Knowing the BATFE’s primary focus is on public safety, The owners of which would be excited to see the BATFE’s further work on removing SBR’s from the NFA using their own logic and reasoning behind willingly welcoming over 4 million more new SBR’s to the current numbers.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
The NFA is unConstitutional form the start but with over 4 million stabilizing braces being present throughout the United States, crimes involving them are still nonexistent. Combining the fact that 4 million braces exist without increasing or affecting crime with the fact that the BATFE is willing to classify, across the board, every single one of those 4 million AR pistols as strictly-regulated SBR’s (per the BATFE notice on 12/18/20) it would seem to me that the BATFE has made the case to remove SBR’s from the NFA altogether. Surely the BATFE has done extensive research on the lack of impact that SBR’s have had on crime to come to the conclusion that potentially adding over 4 million more SBR’s to the general public would have no adverse affect on crime and public safety. Knowing the BATFE’s primary focus is on public safety, The owners of which would be excited to see the BATFE’s further work on removing SBR’s from the NFA using their own logic and reasoning behind willingly welcoming over 4 million more new SBR’s to the current numbers.”
Only complaint I have, all those M4gurys with a 16” barrel will drop value like a fur coat at a PETA rally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Key Takeaways In CA Assault Weapons Ban Case

Cam Edwards go over the Benitez decision

To me it's worth a listen if you want a through overview of the case/decision.

The final statement in the decision.


This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.
One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this.

Eff the tyrants no matter the state


 
  • Like
Reactions: j102

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
38,820 Posts
The NFA is unConstitutional form the start but with over 4 million stabilizing braces being present throughout the United States, crimes involving them are still nonexistent. Combining the fact that 4 million braces exist without increasing or affecting crime with the fact that the BATFE is willing to classify, across the board, every single one of those 4 million AR pistols as strictly-regulated SBR’s (per the BATFE notice on 12/18/20) it would seem to me that the BATFE has made the case to remove SBR’s from the NFA altogether. Surely the BATFE has done extensive research on the lack of impact that SBR’s have had on crime to come to the conclusion that potentially adding over 4 million more SBR’s to the general public would have no adverse affect on crime and public safety. Knowing the BATFE’s primary focus is on public safety, The owners of which would be excited to see the BATFE’s further work on removing SBR’s from the NFA using their own logic and reasoning behind willingly welcoming over 4 million more new SBR’s to the current numbers.”
I think Democrats and BATFE see 4,000,000 multiplied by $200 and a registration scheme for future confiscation as a win win!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
952 Posts
But do remember this, that there is still hope (even though it might not look like it!).
This action was the result of an executive order not law. Only congress can make law. This is the only thing Biden can do to appease the anti-gun crowd. Surely it will be challenged in the Supreme court if SCOTUS doesn't pick it up themselves. Everyone should know that SCOTUS & DOJ don't use the same playbook.
And the decision from California has not been overturned YET! The judge issued a 30 day STAY & gave the AG 30 days to appeal, & you can bet your arse he will. I look for the stay order to be overturned in the 9th circuit & then go to the SCOTUS.
So Y'all in California, I'd say you go 3 weeks left to do whatever you need to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Save the Brace is a web site with all the information need to write your comment to them.


Save The Brace


With only 38,000 comments,that is a poor showing on a item that there are more than 4 million users of.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Danzig

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Heres a sample letter/comment,that you can use for ideas and or edit with your own thoughts. provided Legally Armed


All of these are yours to keep! This comment is in reference to Docket No. ATF 2021R-08 / AG Order No. 5070-2021 regarding your proposed changes to rulings on legal stabilizing braces. I separated my points below: 1. While all men are created as equals, all men are NOT created equally. To use unmeasurable metrics like “eye relief” is to ignore the fact that arm length and quality of eyesight vary dramatically among all firearm users. As a 6’1” man with a horrible astigmatism, I can assure you that my eye relief is different than the majority of gun owners in America. To assume otherwise is arrogant and ignorant. 2. Attempting to force law abiding gun owners who legally purchased braces and AR pistols with braces to pay an additional $200 to SBR their devices is immoral. As you should already know, Americans legally buy AR pistols mainly for home protection because of their versatility and smaller size that makes it safer to maneuver inside ones home and doorways. As responsible gun owners - not criminals - we hold ourselves accountable for where each projectile from our home defense weapons ends up. That’s why we choose the safer weapons with legal braces on them. But attempting to make honest gun owners into felons for not getting a tax stamp is a veiled attempt at pushing poor people to ignore your new rule because they can’t afford it. 3. ‘Ex post facto” laws are unconstitutional. I legally purchased my braces and any firearm with a brace on it. I’ve done nothing wrong. Congress (the only branch that can legally make laws) is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment. As a bureaucratic organization, the BATFE doesn’t have the authority nor the constitutional clearance to pass retroactive laws. 4. While the ATF has a long history of loose, non-specific wording, it has rarely been on this large of a scale where it would affect millions of Americans overnight. Using arbitrary wording like ‘eye relief’, ‘would be’, ‘may be’, ‘likely designed’, ‘intended to be’, ‘useful for’, and countless others, shows that the ATF isn’t really certain what or how they want to restrict braces or else they’re purposely trying to leave definition non-definitive in order to be able to include anyone under the GUILTY umbrella. If true law enforcement operated the same way, either everyone would be in jail or no one would be in jail. When everything is illegal, nothing is illegal. 5. This new, arbitrary rule is purposely meant to make honest people into criminals. If you aren’t smart enough to know that these changes have zero effect on actual criminals, then you have no business being in ‘law enforcement’ because you are too naive and gullible. All Americans with little more than a fifth grade education knows that criminals could care less about any ATF ruling. Please be smarter. I expect more out of my government servants. 6. Speaking of criminals, if you truly cared about criminals and crime rather than setting up law-abiding Americans, why aren’t you staking out the mean streets of Chicago to rid the streets of actual criminals with illegally obtained weapons? Why aren’t you setting up a sting operation in the nastiest areas of St. Louis? Why does the ATF make thousands of unnecessary visits to perfectly legal FFL dealers annually to harass them and look down on them when they spell a name wrong or put the wrong serial number, yet you avoid high gun crime areas as if you don’t care that they’re high gun crime areas? I realize the ATF helped AG Eric Holder illegally run guns to Mexico, but I honestly thought that ended with that corrupt administration. It almost looks like you’re not concerned with actual crime, but are totally focused on creating new criminals. I appreciate smarter people and wiser minds at the ATF discontinuing this ridiculous, carelessly thought out set of rules regarding legal stabilizing braces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danzig

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
I sent comments to the atf on both the pistol brace and the ghost gun issues. Also contacted both tennessee senators about the issues, sent the doj a comment on it as well
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
38,820 Posts
Heres a sample letter/comment,that you can use for ideas and or edit with your own thoughts. provided Legally Armed


All of these are yours to keep! This comment is in reference to Docket No. ATF 2021R-08 / AG Order No. 5070-2021 regarding your proposed changes to rulings on legal stabilizing braces. I separated my points below: 1. While all men are created as equals, all men are NOT created equally. To use unmeasurable metrics like “eye relief” is to ignore the fact that arm length and quality of eyesight vary dramatically among all firearm users. As a 6’1” man with a horrible astigmatism, I can assure you that my eye relief is different than the majority of gun owners in America. To assume otherwise is arrogant and ignorant. 2. Attempting to force law abiding gun owners who legally purchased braces and AR pistols with braces to pay an additional $200 to SBR their devices is immoral. As you should already know, Americans legally buy AR pistols mainly for home protection because of their versatility and smaller size that makes it safer to maneuver inside ones home and doorways. As responsible gun owners - not criminals - we hold ourselves accountable for where each projectile from our home defense weapons ends up. That’s why we choose the safer weapons with legal braces on them. But attempting to make honest gun owners into felons for not getting a tax stamp is a veiled attempt at pushing poor people to ignore your new rule because they can’t afford it. 3. ‘Ex post facto” laws are unconstitutional. I legally purchased my braces and any firearm with a brace on it. I’ve done nothing wrong. Congress (the only branch that can legally make laws) is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment. As a bureaucratic organization, the BATFE doesn’t have the authority nor the constitutional clearance to pass retroactive laws. 4. While the ATF has a long history of loose, non-specific wording, it has rarely been on this large of a scale where it would affect millions of Americans overnight. Using arbitrary wording like ‘eye relief’, ‘would be’, ‘may be’, ‘likely designed’, ‘intended to be’, ‘useful for’, and countless others, shows that the ATF isn’t really certain what or how they want to restrict braces or else they’re purposely trying to leave definition non-definitive in order to be able to include anyone under the GUILTY umbrella. If true law enforcement operated the same way, either everyone would be in jail or no one would be in jail. When everything is illegal, nothing is illegal. 5. This new, arbitrary rule is purposely meant to make honest people into criminals. If you aren’t smart enough to know that these changes have zero effect on actual criminals, then you have no business being in ‘law enforcement’ because you are too naive and gullible. All Americans with little more than a fifth grade education knows that criminals could care less about any ATF ruling. Please be smarter. I expect more out of my government servants. 6. Speaking of criminals, if you truly cared about criminals and crime rather than setting up law-abiding Americans, why aren’t you staking out the mean streets of Chicago to rid the streets of actual criminals with illegally obtained weapons? Why aren’t you setting up a sting operation in the nastiest areas of St. Louis? Why does the ATF make thousands of unnecessary visits to perfectly legal FFL dealers annually to harass them and look down on them when they spell a name wrong or put the wrong serial number, yet you avoid high gun crime areas as if you don’t care that they’re high gun crime areas? I realize the ATF helped AG Eric Holder illegally run guns to Mexico, but I honestly thought that ended with that corrupt administration. It almost looks like you’re not concerned with actual crime, but are totally focused on creating new criminals. I appreciate smarter people and wiser minds at the ATF discontinuing this ridiculous, carelessly thought out set of rules regarding legal stabilizing braces.
Excellent!
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top