TexasCHLforum.com

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:55 pm I agree with everything you wrote. My problem is two-fold. First, as I noted in response to another Member's post, once in federal court, the BATFE's opinions, rulings and definitions do not matter one bit. People can rely upon them and land in prison. Secondly, even if the BATFE's "opinions" were authoritative and could be relied upon, one-handed shooting of braced pistols is practiced by a tiny fraction of people owning such weapons. This fact makes it difficult to defend braces while maintaining even a modicum of credibility. If you lose that credibility, you may as well withdraw from the fight to save the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So for credibilities sake, how do you square with the following in court:

- Multiple reputable manufacturers produced and sold AR15 "Pistols" with SBA braces (SOB, SBA3, SBPDW, SBA4) with the full knowledge and approval of the ATF. This is not just about Q manufacturing any more.
- Buyers (including myself) dropped $1200+ on these legally purchased "Pistols" as classified by the ATF.
- Examples: Daniel Defense MK18 Pistol, Springfield Armory SAINT Pistols, S&W just introduced their M&P 15 Pistol (.223 and .22LR), Geissele, Wilson Combat, Palmetto State Armory (shipped I would guess thousands of complete pistols and kits(less lower)), Sig Sauer, PWS, etc.

Now, what do you do with those? Why does one have to defend braces when these firearms were legally sold as configured? It's a legally built and purchased product. It would seem to me a 2nd Amendment supporter would be able to take the position that "this was a legally purchased product under the definition that was in effect and it shouldn't matter if I don't shoot it one handed". Those were the rules, I obeyed the rules, you can't go and changing the rules now. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f ... ted_States

Now for those that build their own guns. If one builds a gun that is an identical configuration to a configuration produced by a manufacturer and presumed to be legal since you are building something that is sold legally - well what do you do with those?

What is the law?
From ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-f ... -under-nfa
[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
# 3 and 4 apply:
3. A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
4. A weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

This law does not apply to a PISTOL, as these defined by ATF itself. They are not rifles, they are pistols.

Rifle is defined in 18 USC 921 as:
(7)The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

So what does "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" mean in relation to Pistol "Braces".

I guess that is what would have to be argued in court. Certainly SB Tactical designed the Brace to be used by attaching it to shooters forearm to assist in shooting one handed. That's how is was designed and intended. So if you don't use it that way in practice - as you are saying, then okay so what?

I just don't think arguing/capitulating for the regulation of these Pistols is consistent with a 2nd Amendment supporter that believes that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Even if "registration" is free.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:33 pm
If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.


Chas.

I did answer your question in post #33.

"I would tell the senator hell yes I'm using the brace loophole created by an agency that violates the 2nd Amendment by its very existence. And by the way senator, what does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? And don't tell me that the Supremes settled that back in US v Miller, we all know why that was decided that way. NFA is unconstitutional in many people's minds as are all gun control laws (shall not be infringed is pretty clear)."

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 8:12 pm

extremist wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:46 pm Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

The ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

You are correct I apologize. In response to Charles' question, I agree with TAM, I would tell the senator hell yes I'm using the brace loophole created by an agency that violates the 2nd Amendment by its very existence. And by the way senator, what does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? And don't tell me that the Supremes settled that back in US v Miller, we all know why that was decided that way. NFA is unconstitutional in many people's minds as are all gun control laws (shall not be infringed is pretty clear).

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:53 pm
Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:49 am There is a small silver lining in this stupid ATF letter, if you can call it that.....

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

I like the way you think, this is a great idea.