Brace Ban

[KJQ6945]

It's never 2 choices. And the bumpstock precedent is a warning being issued from high speed low drag gun rights lawyers and organizations, not just a Ggreen thing. It's a major blow and it never had to be.

Binary decision making is a distraction tactic powerful entities use to control the masses. It has been successful in converting gun owners into subservients fearful of our masters

Well, okie dokie. Great conversation.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sorry but I seem to have missed the part where someone clearly stated whether or not braces are currently acceptable and legal to own/use. I must have overlooked it somewhere between the political bickering. Just wondering if I should expect a curb stopping by my local jack boots next time I go to the range or if I should disassemble any rifle type pistols I may or may not own.

I think the answer is it depends.

The brand of brace, how you use it, the day of the week, what your favorite color is, is the ATF agent currently on their period...

 

[kawtech87]

I think the answer is it depends.

The brand of brace, how you use it, the day of the week, what your favorite color is, is the ATF agent currently on their period...

What is the definition of is today?

 

[Ingomike]

It's never 2 choices. And the bumpstock precedent is a warning being issued from high speed low drag gun rights lawyers and organizations, not just a Ggreen thing. It's a major blow and it never had to be.

Binary decision making is a distraction tactic powerful entities use to control the masses. It has been successful in converting gun owners into subservients fearful of our masters

What were the other choices since it was not a binary decision? All I know is the Trump short circuit or slug it out in the legislature with high emotions shortly after a couple of nasty shootings. Let me know the other options?

If you can cobble together a 51% coalition, to be hard line, no compromise, count me in! Otherwise we no choice but to comprise to the lowest common denominator of gun rights supporters that makes a majority. That or lose them all...

 

[OneBadV8]

Sorry but I seem to have missed the part where someone clearly stated whether or not braces are currently acceptable and legal to own/use. I must have overlooked it somewhere between the political bickering. Just wondering if I should expect a curb stopping by my local jack boots next time I go to the range or if I should disassemble any rifle type pistols I may or may not own.

Pistol Braces are still currently acceptable. UNLESS ​it's the Q model made by Honey Badger

 

[Ggreen]

Sorry but I seem to have missed the part where someone clearly stated whether or not braces are currently acceptable and legal to own/use. I must have overlooked it somewhere between the political bickering. Just wondering if I should expect a curb stopping by my local jack boots next time I go to the range or if I should disassemble any rifle type pistols I may or may not own.

Currently legal. The legality has changed with the q letter and a factory pistol with an Sba3 has been requested for review.

 

[kawtech87]

Pistol Braces are still currently acceptable. UNLESS ​it's the Q model made by Honey Badger

Currently legal. The legality has changed with the q letter and a factory pistol with an Sba3 has been requested for review.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ggreen]

The ATF is saying, in part, that they will not evaluate an accessory as a stand-alone product, but that the characteristics of the entire firearm influence their decision. Characteristics such as optics chosen, magazine capacity, how the gun is marketed, or length of pull will “holistically” determine a firearm’s NFA classification. Moreover, the ATF has, to date, refused to clarify or state what characteristics define a Pistol Stabilizing Brace. They have stated that “they will know it when they see it”.

So not just the honey badger, they are saying every pistol individually needs to be evaluated.

Source

 

[OneBadV8]

So not just the honey badger, they are saying every pistol individually needs to be evaluated.

Source

Right, they gave a huge vague definition so they could change their mind all the time and say it's up to their discretion.

But the only one they've announced publicly across the board recently is the Honey Badger Q

 

[Ggreen]

Yes, but part of qgate ruling is builder intent is now part of the equation. Even including what optics are allowed on a pistol before the installation of an optic changes the classification of the gun. Basically they can determine any pistol is an sbr because of intent, even though every part is compliant as a pistol.

 

[OneBadV8]

Yes, but part of qgate ruling is builder intent is now part of the equation. Even including what optics are allowed on a pistol before the installation of an optic changes the classification of the gun. Basically they can determine any pistol is an sbr because of intent, even though every part is compliant as a pistol.

There's actually a lot of info on Arfcom that I don't really want to look up. But the part about intent and the ATF saying "We'll know it when we see it" has been around a good year I think. I believe this is the first time it's been used to rule on anything though. However, I could be wrong. It happens a lot

 

[Ggreen]

There's actually a lot of info on Arfcom that I don't really want to look up. But the part about intent and the ATF saying "We'll know it when we see it" has been around a good year I think. I believe this is the first time it's been used to rule on anything though. However, I could be wrong. It happens a lot

It was part of the black aces reclass too. The difference is they are going after ar15's. Braced shotguns are really niche, ar's are mainstream

 

[jamil]

OK, just to be certain I understand you. If you alone were given the following choice which do you choose, just one or the other.

A/. A 75 % chance of major gun control and 100% certain legislative bumpstock ban.

B/. A procedural bumpstock ban that the courts may overturn.

A or B?

If you reply "I'm not giving in on either", the default answer to the question for that is A...

That's a false dilemma. I choose C. No, let Trump veto it if congress somehow manages to pass "major gun control".

Option A is ridiculous. Even if the House had enough votes to pass "major gun control", AND somehow it made it past the Senate (fat chance of that, but let's continue to speculate), Trump would presumably veto it. Right? You do trust that he'd veto it don't you? Okay, so Trump presumably vetoes it, and goes back to the House to consider overriding. Doubtful that even the Milquetoast led House at the time would be able to strong-arm enough squishy Republicans to get 2/3's for an override. But the Senate? You think 67 Senators will go along with "major gun control"? Very doubtful any "major gun control" makes it through two Republican led houses of congress in the first place, and not a chance that survives a veto. That is, if Trump would veto it. There's always the chance that he signs it.

And your preference for B is a little disturbing. And I don't mean that personally, but I hear this argument a lot of ardent Trump supporters, that Trump was playing 4 D chess to save us from "major gun control". It's disturbing because a lot rests on the courts knocking this thing down, and it's not clear at all that they will. It's in the 10th circuit's hands now to re-hear it. But it looks to me like all rests on whether they grant chevron deference or not. If it's ultimately upheld by the courts, the Democrats would be exceedingly stupid not to use the same court-approved tactic to include any firearm they don't like. If they can make a piece of plastic that's not even a firearm, a "machine gun", surely they can make anything a machine gun. Checks and balances only work when there is a side that disagrees with the action. Democrats ain't saying ****. It's the gun owners associations who are fighting this. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case until the lower courts hear it again, and even then there is no guarantee Robert's court will take this up.

 

[jamil]

All bumpstock rules have been upheld in lower conservative courts.

Well, not exactly. The full 10th circuit is re-hearing it last I heard, and currently the ban is in limbo until they make a ruling on it. So it's doubtful there would be any prosecutions for possessing a bump fire stock now, not that I'd advocate that people keep them. I think it could go either way. Hopefully the court strikes it down because if they don't, then I'm sure the same strategy will be used by President [STRIKE]Ho[/STRIKE] Harris.

 

[Ggreen]

Well, not exactly. The full 10th circuit is re-hearing it last I heard, and currently the ban is in limbo until they make a ruling on it. So it's doubtful there would be any prosecutions for possessing a bump fire stock now, not that I'd advocate that people keep them. I think it could go either way. Hopefully the court strikes it down because if they don't, then I'm sure the same strategy will be used by President [STRIKE]Ho[/STRIKE] Harris.

They have already prosecuted at least 1 person for possession. I think it was in Texas too

 

[Ingomike]

That's a false dilemma. I choose C. No, let Trump veto it if congress somehow manages to pass "major gun control".

Option A is ridiculous. Even if the House had enough votes to pass "major gun control", AND somehow it made it past the Senate (fat chance of that, but let's continue to speculate), Trump would presumably veto it. Right? You do trust that he'd veto it don't you? Okay, so Trump presumably vetoes it, and goes back to the House to consider overriding. Doubtful that even the Milquetoast led House at the time would be able to strong-arm enough squishy Republicans to get 2/3's for an override. But the Senate? You think 67 Senators will go along with "major gun control"? Very doubtful any "major gun control" makes it through two Republican led houses of congress in the first place, and not a chance that survives a veto. That is, if Trump would veto it. There's always the chance that he signs it.

And your preference for B is a little disturbing. And I don't mean that personally, but I hear this argument a lot of ardent Trump supporters, that Trump was playing 4 D chess to save us from "major gun control". It's disturbing because a lot rests on the courts knocking this thing down, and it's not clear at all that they will. It's in the 10th circuit's hands now to re-hear it. But it looks to me like all rests on whether they grant chevron deference or not. If it's ultimately upheld by the courts, the Democrats would be exceedingly stupid not to use the same court-approved tactic to include any firearm they don't like. If they can make a piece of plastic that's not even a firearm, a "machine gun", surely they can make anything a machine gun. Checks and balances only work when there is a side that disagrees with the action. Democrats ain't saying ****. It's the gun owners associations who are fighting this. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case until the lower courts hear it again, and even then there is no guarantee Robert's court will take this up.

Maybe you forget the political ferver around bump stocks and gun control. Democrats had won the house, so they would pass a bad bill, and senate republicans were caving. Trump had not yet sealed his bonafides with republican senators it was an ugly time for 2A supporters. Maybe it could have worked the way you say, but the other thing I think is Trump was not ready to go to the mat over a piece of plastic just prove 2A loyalty. It also has a sense that NRA may have been a part of this...

There may have been other options for this but not many...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Some are imposters when they are actually one trying to be the other. And thats why its being corrected with todays laws.

I don't understand this response?

I'll help you..... When you have a "Pistol" that has an adjustable stock with a rear in the shape of a regular buttstock and doesn't even have the courtesy of wrist straps and the open lenght of pull is pushing or beter than 13" its a buttstock.
And the company and some folks that own them have a spr posing as a pistol...
For one to think and believe its a pistol are only kidding themselfs with the laws that have been on the federal books since i was a kid...
You want to play in the nfa world pay the tax stamp...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

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

Much more "gooder"

You have to get this right for the full effect.

Both of you all's Spanish is horrible... Its More Better...

 

[Ggreen]

I'll help you..... When you have a "Pistol" that has an adjustable stock with a rear in the shape of a regular buttstock and doesn't even have the courtesy of wrist straps and the open lenght of pull is pushing or beter than 13" its a buttstock.
And the company and some folks that own them have a spr posing as a pistol...
For one to think and believe its a pistol are only kidding themselfs with the laws that have been on the federal books since i was a kid...
You want to play in the nfa world pay the tax stamp...

This is disgusting honestly. How democratish of you.

 

[jamil]

Maybe you forget the political ferver around bump stocks and gun control. Democrats had won the house senate republicans were caving. Trump had not yet sealed his bonafides with republican senators it was an ugly time for 2A supporters. Maybe it could have worked the way you say, but the other thing I think is Trump was not ready to go to the mat over a piece of plastic just prove 2A loyalty. It also has a sense that NRA may have been a part of this...

There may have been other options for this but not many...

The shooting was in October 2017. The ATF wrote the notice on the redefinition December 26, 2017. At that time both houses were controlled by Republicans. If we're going to believe that with Republicans in control of both houses of congress that they would override Trump's veto on an issue of importance to Republican voters, I think we'd also have to believe that the President was as incompetent as his detractors claimed. I think the House may have had enough Republicans to side with Democrats on some kind of AWB. But I doubt there would be 60 Senators that would make it filibuster-proof. And I seriously doubt that either the House would have had 2/3s to override a veto.

I think this whole scenario repeated often by ardent Trump supports is not much more than a rationalization of Trump's actions because they don't want to believe that Trump can actually do bad ****. Everything Trump does that's questionable is rationalized as such. But c'mon. It's okay to admit it. You can still be ardent Trump supporters while acknowledging that he did something bad. And this was pretty bad.

There's no guarantee the 10th circuit will overturn it. And if it ever does make it to SCOTUS, which is isn't at all sure, I think Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would be solid votes to overturn the bump stop ban. Maybe Kavanauigh, but that's not certain. I have no idea how Barret would rule if she even makes it to the court. I have serious doubts that Roberts would overturn it. So I think we'd have to rely on Barret, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas to save the legitimate worry about President Harris ordering the BATFE to redefine "machine gun" to enforce a defacto AWB. I think if there's a doubt of which way things would go, the most uncertainty is with the courts, not with the Republican led House and Senate and Trump's veto power.