Brace Ban

[DadSmith]

Not that I can see.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rty-and-praising-the-religiously-unaffiliated

 

[KellyinAvon]

OK INGO peeps, here's a draft to fire off to our elected officials to remind them we are paying attention. I'll bump in the AM since I realize its nearly 0100 in the AM.


Senator/Representative,
I am writing to urge your support in keeping pistol stabilizing braces legal. The fact that this accessory exists is a direct reaction to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the subsequent bureaucracy created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).
While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the DC v Heller decision (2008), citing US v Miller (1938) concerning rights affirmed by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment.
Legislation passed under emotional situations is rarely logical and tends to only impact the law-abiding. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is a prime example of such legislation. The $200 Tax Stamp required to take possession of firearms and accessories considered NFA-items was put in place to effectively double the price of a Thompson submachine gun. In 1934 very few law-abiding citizens could afford a Thompson, which was so connected to prohibition-era criminals. The Police, the Military, and criminals had Thompson submachine guns.
The Thompson was designed out of a necessity from trench warfare in World War I. However this gun was so expensive due to its machining and wood components, the M3 submachine gun (known as the Grease gun because of its appearance) was introduced during World War II. At that time the Thompson cost $250, the M3 (which was made from stamped metal by an automobile headlight manufacturer) cost $15. Who was (and is) affected by an additional $200? It is not the criminal who acquires weapons by illegal means. The Military and Law Enforcement pass the cost along to law-abiding tax payers. In comparison of today’s standards, the Ford Model A from 1928 has been obsolete for decades. The Thompson submachine gun from 1928 is still an outstanding firearm. With a 10.5-inch barrel, the Thompson is (according to the NFA of 1934) a short-barreled rifle. Even a semi-automatic version of the Thompson requires a $200 tax-stamp, and a lengthy wait for the bureaucratic wheels to turn in order to take possession of this NFA-item.
The notorious criminals Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow’s reign of terror ended on May 23, 1934. The NFA of 1934 was introduced five days later, and signed into law June 26, 1934. There were 10 firearms in the car with Bonnie and Clyde on the morning of May 23, 1934, five of the weapons possessed by this duo would be NFA-items today. It is doubtful any of them were acquired legally, the three Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) were stolen from National Guard Armories.
The wait to take possession of another firearms accessory known as a suppressor (which decreases the decibel-level of a firearm to that of a jack-hammer) is now nearly a year. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an unnecessary delay and a large market for the accessory commonly called a stabilizing brace. According to the regulations promulgated by the BATFE, a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length with no stock is in fact a handgun. If obtaining a short-barreled semi-automatic rifle could be accomplished without an additional $200 cost and a lengthy wait, there would be no pistol stabilizing brace. This is because there would be no market for such an accessory if there was no NFA of 1934 creating a bureaucratic delay to take possession of a short-barreled rifle.
One incredibly violent act in Dayton, Ohio in the early morning of August 6, 2019 took the lives of nine individuals. This is why there is a movement to ban stabilizing pistol braces. The murderer in Dayton, Ohio was suspended from high school because he had “kill” and “rape” lists. This individual also considered someone who attempted to fire-bomb an ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington a martyr.
Make no mistake, a ban on stabilizing pistol braces will not make anyone safer, nor will it will stop the onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created our current reality. The answer to bad government is not more government.
Thank you,

Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[churchmouse]

Kelly thats good. Copy/past in my documents. Printer needs ink. When I get some I will start snail mail bombing the elected idiots with this.
Even money says they all see file #13 and are never read in total.

 

[DadSmith]

OK INGO peeps, here's a draft to fire off to our elected officials to remind them we are paying attention. I'll bump in the AM since I realize its nearly 0100 in the AM.


Senator/Representative,
I am writing to urge your support in keeping pistol stabilizing braces legal. The fact that this accessory exists is a direct reaction to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the subsequent bureaucracy created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).
While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the DC v Heller decision (2008), citing US v Miller (1938) concerning rights affirmed by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment.
Legislation passed under emotional situations is rarely logical and tends to only impact the law-abiding. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is a prime example of such legislation. The $200 Tax Stamp required to take possession of firearms and accessories considered NFA-items was put in place to effectively double the price of a Thompson submachine gun. In 1934 very few law-abiding citizens could afford a Thompson, which was so connected to prohibition-era criminals. The Police, the Military, and criminals had Thompson submachine guns.
The Thompson was designed out of a necessity from trench warfare in World War I. However this gun was so expensive due to its machining and wood components, the M3 submachine gun (known as the Grease gun because of its appearance) was introduced during World War II. At that time the Thompson cost $250, the M3 (which was made from stamped metal by an automobile headlight manufacturer) cost $15. Who was (and is) affected by an additional $200? It is not the criminal who acquires weapons by illegal means. The Military and Law Enforcement pass the cost along to law-abiding tax payers. In comparison of today’s standards, the Ford Model A from 1928 has been obsolete for decades. The Thompson submachine gun from 1928 is still an outstanding firearm. With a 10.5-inch barrel, the Thompson is (according to the NFA of 1934) a short-barreled rifle. Even a semi-automatic version of the Thompson requires a $200 tax-stamp, and a lengthy wait for the bureaucratic wheels to turn in order to take possession of this NFA-item.
The notorious criminals Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow’s reign of terror ended on May 23, 1934. The NFA of 1934 was introduced five days later, and signed into law June 26, 1934. There were 10 firearms in the car with Bonnie and Clyde on the morning of May 23, 1934, five of the weapons possessed by this duo would be NFA-items today. It is doubtful any of them were acquired legally, the three Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) were stolen from National Guard Armories.
The wait to take possession of another firearms accessory known as a suppressor (which decreases the decibel-level of a firearm to that of a jack-hammer) is now nearly a year. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an unnecessary delay and a large market for the accessory commonly called a stabilizing brace. According to the regulations promulgated by the BATFE, a firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length with no stock is in fact a handgun. If obtaining a short-barreled semi-automatic rifle could be accomplished without an additional $200 cost and a lengthy wait, there would be no pistol stabilizing brace. This is because there would be no market for such an accessory if there was no NFA of 1934 creating a bureaucratic delay to take possession of a short-barreled rifle.
One incredibly violent act in Dayton, Ohio in the early morning of August 6, 2019 took the lives of nine individuals. This is why there is a movement to ban stabilizing pistol braces. The murderer in Dayton, Ohio was suspended from high school because he had “kill” and “rape” lists. This individual also considered someone who attempted to fire-bomb an ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington a martyr.
Make no mistake, a ban on stabilizing pistol braces will not make anyone safer, nor will it will stop the onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created our current reality. The answer to bad government is not more government.
Thank you,

Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

Thanks. I just got 3 of these sent off.

Sent to:
Representative Pence
Senator Braun
Senator Young

 

[KellyinAvon]

Kelly thats good. Copy/past in my documents. Printer needs ink. When I get some I will start snail mail bombing the elected idiots with this.
Even money says they all see file #13 and are never read in total.

You're out of ink too? Seems to be going around. Man, I was up past bedtime on this one. I failed my "keep it all on one page" rule but I had a hard time with this one. When in doubt, add more words

 

[churchmouse]

You're out of ink too? Seems to be going around. Man, I was up past bedtime on this one. I failed my "keep it all on one page" rule but I had a hard time with this one. When in doubt, add more words

Yeah it ran into 2 pages.....

 

[NyleRN]

You're out of ink too? Seems to be going around. Man, I was up past bedtime on this one. I failed my "keep it all on one page" rule but I had a hard time with this one. When in doubt, add more words

Maybe it's a sign you wait on sending any of these letters

 

[Ggreen]

Reopening.
"We understand that ATF is currently considering restricting one arm brace model owned by over 700,000 Americans,"

Link

 

[Cameramonkey]

Reopening.
"We understand that ATF is currently considering restricting one arm brace model owned by over 700,000 Americans,"

Link

My question is "why?"

What are bad people doing with them that warrants them being made illegal? Its no different than saying "I think bagpipes are awful. So even though no harm is being done, I'm going to ban them anyway proactively. Nobody needs bagpipes. I guess somebody COULD do something bad in the future, so why not? "

 

[T.Lex]

Speaking of "why" - why would the ATF be drafting "secret" rules on braces under a pro-2A POTUS?

 

[Ggreen]

Speaking of "why" - why would the ATF be drafting "secret" rules on braces under a pro-2A POTUS?

RIP bumpstocks

 

[Expat]

Speaking of "why" - why would the ATF be drafting "secret" rules on braces under a pro-2A POTUS?

[FONT=&quot]"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."[/FONT]

Yeah, it is a head scratcher.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Speaking of "why" - why would the ATF be drafting "secret" rules on braces under a pro-2A POTUS?

How do these 2,000 page laws appear to be voted on in only a matter of days? Easy. Those that want them have them written. When the time comes, they are presented. That time may be a month later, it may be years later.

If true, it sounds like somebody could be preparing for what we here would call a negative outcome in November.

 

[T.Lex]

How do these 2,000 page laws appear to be voted on in only a matter of days? Easy. Those that want them have them written. When the time comes, they are presented. That time may be a month later, it may be years later.

If true, it sounds like somebody could be preparing for what we here would call a negative outcome in November.

To riff on that, I kinda see it as preparation for a "successful" (to him) outcome in November. Such secret anti-2A rules will create problems for POTUS in November. The only time it makes sense to make that move is after re-election.

 

[indyartisan]

I want my cake back.

 

[Cameramonkey]

To riff on that, I kinda see it as preparation for a "successful" (to him) outcome in November. Such secret anti-2A rules will create problems for POTUS in November. The only time it makes sense to make that move is after re-election.

That would definitely make sense. braces are close cousins to bump stocks, and of no importance. Nobody NEEDS either, right? That and other useless to them products could be put to pasture as he does some lame duck do-goodery. If he doesnt perceive it to be NECESSARY then why not get rid of it? Its give and take as part of the political process. The dems want them ALL gone, and he could be willing to throw them a bone and ban a few things he doesnt think are necessary and then both sides are giving up stuff.

 

[1nderbeard]

Heard a good statement on a podcast yesterday. The left pushes until they feel resistance. They'll eat up everything they can that no one cares about, and if no one (or not enough people) express outrage they will continue.
Culture, Religion, Employment rights (see the SC decision this week?), 2a issues, the list goes on.
It will not stop until the country is remade in to their socialist "paradise."

 

[T.Lex]

I want my cake back.

The cake is a lie.

 

[JettaKnight]

Heard a good statement on a podcast yesterday. The left pushes until they feel resistance. They'll eat up everything they can that no one cares about, and if no one (or not enough people) express outrage they will continue.
Culture, Religion, Employment rights (see the SC decision this week?), 2a issues, the list goes on.
It will not stop until the country is remade in to their socialist "paradise."

So, one group of people pushes to have the nation's laws, culture, etc. be in a way that they find favorable? And they do this through politics, maybe some boycotts, activism, lobbying groups? And they keep working till they achieve their agenda (which keeps moving as they make progress)?


No kidding.


Wait, what does this have to do with brace bans?

Oh, I know, gun owners (well, gun accessory manufacturers) created a gizmo that no one cares about, then kept pushing till they met resistance from the BATFE. And only when enough people expressed outrage did it stop.

 

[Ggreen]

.


Wait, what does this have to do with brace bans?

Oh, I know, gun owners (well, gun accessory manufacturers) created a gizmo that no one cares about, then kept pushing till they met resistance from the BATFE. And only when enough people expressed outrage did it stop.

I hope purple was implied..