Brace Ban

[jamil]

I think that's nonsense. They can pass all the legislation they wanted. They did not have a veto-proof majority.

 

[JettaKnight]

Let me preface my response to the part I highlighted by saying that I fully support the total repeal of the NFA and GCA. Repeal without replacement, and nullification of all state level gun control through federal preemption.

However, I never believed for a second that pistol braces were designed to be anything other than a shoulder stock that skirts the NFA. I don't have a problem with that. I didn't have a problem with AWB ban-era neutered ARs either. The government makes a loophole, I'm all in favor of driving a freight train through it.

But let's be honest. Braces were designed to be shouldered, while thumbing our collective noses at the letter of the law. If you claim otherwise, you're being disingenuous.

You've expressed my feelings... but much more good.

 

[churchmouse]

You've expressed my feelings... but much more good.

Much more "gooder"

You have to get this right for the full effect.

 

[Ggreen]

Throughout this thread and the short lived dupe thread, several have blamed Trump for the bumpstock ban, and I agree he did that. What is missing is perspective on the situation at the time. I posted this in another thread when this topic came up and wanted to add it here.

I still believe that the bumpstock deal was a Solomon esque decision to me. I believe republicans were about to cave and really let the democrats pass some big time gun control. ( Remember republicans had the house, but it was Paul Ryan and 40 RINO's that are gone now.) One needs to step back and look at the political landscape at the time, it was not good for our side. The move by Trump short circuited the gun control drive and the fuse was snipped giving time for emotions to subside and with them the momentum for gun control.

No, one doesn't negotiate with rights for perceived safety or political gain that's called treason. That's like saying certain books should be banned when quoted on a suicide note or a on a post made before a murder. The bumpstock ban came after Vegas was out of the news cycle. All it did was lead to the executive guidance that allows the atf to make anything nfa they want at their whim.

Momentum never subsided for gun control, the pig just keeps eating. The bumpstock fiasco is the biggest threat to the 2a since Reagan.

 

[ajeandy]

No, one doesn't negotiate with rights for perceived safety or political gain that's called treason. That's like saying certain books should be banned when quoted on a suicide note or a on a post made before a murder. The bumpstock ban came after Vegas was out of the news cycle. All it did was lead to the executive guidance that allows the atf to make anything nfa they want at their whim.

Momentum never subsided for gun control, the pig just keeps eating. The bumpstock fiasco is the biggest threat to the 2a since Reagan.

I'll have to disagree here. The "bump-stock" was not a firearm. I do not think the majority of people want anything full auto unregulated. IDK about you, but I've seen numerous police body cam videos of them getting pulled on by a perp and the perp only getting 1-2 shots off, sometimes killing the officers. If full auto was un-regulated and any thug on the street could obtain one as easily as they can obtain a common handgun I think we'd have a lot more casualties to senseless violence.

 

[JettaKnight]

We shouldn't quietly accept gun control in any manner period. If braces made even halfway decent "stocks" why don't people use them on rifles? It's not a loophole it's an accessory that has been cleared for the last decade by the very office that is now saying they are illegal. Anyone here who has this argument that sympathizes with fed infringement needs to take a long hard look in a history book. This is just a stepping stone that conditions your mind to accept their control. What happens when they limit length of barrels capable of firing steel core ammo to keep its velocities at a safe level for armor? If your legislating intentions sports cars should be illegal, that Camaro was made to go over 80mph, they are just closing a loophole. Stop normalizing and enabling government overreach just because you like its current ceo

To me the better analogy is that GM attached a weed wacker to the hood of that Camaro - "Nope. That's not a sports car, it's a lawn mower. We don't need to register it."




I'm not hearing anyone here say they support the NFA laws in any way. If you can get around the law by adding some velcro straps, well, good for them.

The overreach happened in 1934; now the ATF is just pointing out the obvious attempts to skirt the law.

 

[Ggreen]

I'm not hearing anyone here say they support the NFA laws in any way. If you can get around the law by adding some velcro straps, well, good for them.

The overreach happened in 1934; now the ATF is just pointing out the obvious attempts to skirt the law.

Look up. Gun people on here are literally begging for enforcement.

And atf approved the brace designs and incidental shouldering. The braces are not designed to be shouldered effectively. The only support they have is at the top of the brace which is the part of a stock that doesn't index into your shoulder generally we use the bottom 1/4 of a stock to shoulder which indexes your cheek

 

[Ggreen]

I'll have to disagree here. The "bump-stock" was not a firearm. I do not think the majority of people want anything full auto unregulated. IDK about you, but I've seen numerous police body cam videos of them getting pulled on by a perp and the perp only getting 1-2 shots off, sometimes killing the officers. If full auto was un-regulated and any thug on the street could obtain one as easily as they can obtain a common handgun I think we'd have a lot more casualties to senseless violence.

So if a bumpstock is not a firearm how is it a machine gun? And machine guns should be as available as semi autos. The 2a is pretty clear.

 

[JettaKnight]

No, one doesn't negotiate with rights for perceived safety or political gain that's called treason. That's like saying certain books should be banned when quoted on a suicide note or a on a post made before a murder. The bumpstock ban came after Vegas was out of the news cycle. All it did was lead to the executive guidance that allows the atf to make anything nfa they want at their whim.

Momentum never subsided for gun control, the pig just keeps eating. The bumpstock fiasco is the biggest threat to the 2a since Reagan.

Have you forgot about the AWB? Or all the 10 round limits enacted in states all over? Or GHWB import ban in 1989? Or...
You're more upset about something that affects a tiny fraction of gun owners?

 

[churchmouse]

Look up. Gun people on here are literally begging for enforcement

On here. Are you nuts. Dont paint us with that broad brush please.

If you are referring to other forums/places please be just a bit more clear.

I am a prolific reader in this forum. Goes with the chair.

 

[JettaKnight]

Look up. Gun people on here are literally begging for enforcement.

And atf approved the brace designs and incidental shouldering. The braces are not designed to be shouldered effectively. The only support they have is at the top of the brace which is the part of a stock that doesn't index into your shoulder generally we use the bottom 1/4 of a stock to shoulder which indexes your cheek

OK, so you get around the law by making ****ty ergonomics.


Analogy: Remove the Camaro's windows; "See, it's not a car, it's a tractor!"

 

[Ggreen]

Have you forgot about the AWB? Or all the 10 round limits enacted in states all over? Or GHWB import ban in 1989? Or...
You're more upset about something that affects a tiny fraction of gun owners?

The bumpstock ban set a precedent that allows the atf to make rules without process or external input. The awb had an expiration the precedent set by the executive directive to reevaluate accessories for inclusion into nfa without grandfathering or amnesty is a direct path to forced confiscation of property based on an internal decision from the atf. So yes, legally speaking is the most damaging bit of gun control since Reagan took away open carry from Californians.

 

[Ggreen]

On here. Are you nuts. Dont paint us with that broad brush please.

If you are referring to other forums/places please be just a bit more clear.

I am a prolific reader in this forum. Goes with the chair.

Was literally referring to a post on this page, not yours.

 

[churchmouse]

Was literally referring to a post on this page, not yours.

Not me but the forum in general. That was the take I got from your post.
Not a knock. The discussion is rolling right along and a lot of points/opinions are being shared.

 

[Ggreen]

Not me but the forum in general. That was the take I got from your post.
Not a knock. The discussion is rolling right along and a lot of points/opinions are being shared.

There is always a justification and normalization of infringements made when the collective "likes" the executive. If this was happening under a dem leader no one would be siding with the atf. It's scary for the future of freedom to see people willing to justify infringements of any type on our bill of rights.

 

[JettaKnight]

Was literally referring to a post on this page, not yours.

Then maybe you should have said, "gun person".

The bumpstock ban set a precedent that allows the atf to make rules without process or external input. The awb had an expiration the precedent set by the executive directive to reevaluate accessories for inclusion into nfa without grandfathering or amnesty is a direct path to forced confiscation of property based on an internal decision from the atf. So yes, legally speaking is the most damaging bit of gun control since Reagan took away open carry from Californians.

I'm just not seeing any evidence of this assertion.

To me, the ATF saying, "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a...", isn't the same as making up rules out of whole cloth.

 

[Ggreen]

Then maybe you should have said, "gun person".



I'm just not seeing any evidence of this assertion.

To me, the ATF saying, "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a...", isn't the same as making up rules out of whole cloth.

They literally forced the turn in of bumpstocks, personal property. They have done it now with black aces, fostech, and q. How much evidence do you need?

 

[jamil]

Have you forgot about the AWB? Or all the 10 round limits enacted in states all over? Or GHWB import ban in 1989? Or...
You're more upset about something that affects a tiny fraction of gun owners?

Well hold on, there is some truth in his statement. I don't think it's the rights that were lost at issue there. It's the way they're being lost. The AWB was legislation passed by congress and signed by the president. We can argue about constitutionality, but it did follow the prescribed process for enacting laws. That doesn't make it any less an egregious loss of rights. It was huge. GHWB's import ban was by executive order is arguably still within a president's authority. Again, huge impact, but arguably lawful. Trump's bump stop ban redefined a term already defined by congress in duly passed legislation. By banning it Trump changed enacted law without congress. THAT's a huge threat to the 2A. It's a precedent that President Harris will certainly avail herself of in the future if she can keep the white powder out of her nose long enough to sign the order. Trump got away with it thus far. Why wouldn't Harris?

 

[OneBadV8]

To me, the ATF saying, "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a...", isn't the same as making up rules out of whole cloth.

If you look at Arfcom, which I wouldn't recommend , there are NUMEROUS examples of people getting letters from the ATF stating things are one way, and the months later they flip flop and magically change the definition. They (ATF) do it constantly. I think most people's issue is that the 2nd Amendment and what's legal/illegal can be made up and enforced on the fly without any oversight or clear definitions. So if I had legally obtained bumpstocks, or one of these Honey Badger Q pistols, which the ATF was perfectly fine with, now suddenly I'm a felon if I don't separate the two pieces?

And if they're allowed to do this stuff with something like a buttstock (pistol brace, whatever), what else can they redefine at will? Especially when they have someone in the high chair that encourages or maybe pushes them to do such things? There isn't any questioning, oversight, pushback from lawmakers, etc.

There should be a process, it should be followed, and if things were obtained legally and now have been redefined, probably should be at least an amnesty period to register item for free as a legal NFA item as it was obtained legally at the time. Or something.... But there are none of these options. There's no process. Just "Hey, we said people could legally shoulder pistol braces and it wouldn't redefine the gun as a rifle. But now people are actually doing that, we should make some of these illegal now"

 

[JettaKnight]

Well hold on, there is some truth in his statement. I don't think it's the rights that were lost at issue there. It's the way they're being lost. The AWB was legislation passed by congress and signed by the president. We can argue about constitutionality, but it did follow the prescribed process for enacting laws. That doesn't make it any less an egregious loss of rights. It was huge. GHWB's import ban was by executive order is arguably still within a president's authority. Again, huge impact, but arguably lawful. Trump's bump stop ban redefined a term already defined by congress in duly passed legislation. By banning it Trump changed enacted law without congress. THAT's a huge threat to the 2A. It's a precedent that President Harris will certainly avail herself of in the future if she can keep the white powder out of her nose long enough to sign the order. Trump got away with it thus far. Why wouldn't Harris?

OK, that makes the position much more persuasive - it's isn't what was banned, but how it was banned.

If you look at Arfcom, which I wouldn't recommend , there are NUMEROUS examples of people getting letters from the ATF stating things are one way, and the months later they flip flop and magically change the definition. They (ATF) do it constantly. I think most people's issue is that the 2nd Amendment and what's legal/illegal can be made up and enforced on the fly without any oversight or clear definitions. So if I had legally obtained bumpstocks, or one of these Honey Badger Q pistols, which the ATF was perfectly fine with, now suddenly I'm a felon if I don't separate the two pieces?

And this explains a bit more.

There should be a process, it should be followed, and if things were obtained legally and now have been redefined, probably should be at least an amnesty period to register item for free as a legal NFA item as it was obtained legally at the time. Or something.... But there are none of these options. There's no process. Just "Hey, we said people could legally shoulder pistol braces and it wouldn't redefine the gun as a rifle. But now people are actually doing that, we should make some of these illegal now"

Now that would be great!