January 20, 2023, 02:49 PM | #201 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the receiver was first assembled as a pistol it may be reconfigured as a rifle and subsequently reconfigured as a pistol. Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||
January 20, 2023, 03:00 PM | #202 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,540
|
Quote:
The term used in the agency literature is enforcement discretion.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 20, 2023, 03:18 PM | #203 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 299
|
Here is a quote fro BATF's FAQ site on their brace ban rule.
" No, a “stabilizing brace” is an accessory and ATF does not regulate accessories. However, a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” may be subject to registration if it is an SBR because it is “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” as described by the amended definition of “rifle” in the Code of Federal Regulations and has a barrel(s) of less than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches." BATF FAQs So, I would assume as mentioned by other earlier, this is where they would use the old "constructive possession" for possessing the brace? |
January 20, 2023, 04:20 PM | #204 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
And that's the problem -- we don't know what they're going to do.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 20, 2023, 04:59 PM | #205 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,077
|
Quote:
Looking at this, it's going to be a mess. The amnesty is for 120 days from the publishing date. But look how long it takes them to process the forms right now. There are at least 4 million of these braces in circulation. They're not going to be able to register all of them in time, and the NFRTR is going to be a chaotic mess. It doesn't help that the form itself is going to be confusing to people, and a LOT of those applications are going to get rejected.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 20, 2023, 06:30 PM | #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,713
|
Am reading on various places where individuals are already using the the new application process for braces, even before the rule is published. Am wondering what would happen if atf is forced to modify the rule before it gets published?
|
January 20, 2023, 07:58 PM | #207 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,731
|
Quote:
|
|
January 20, 2023, 08:36 PM | #208 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
January 20, 2023, 10:34 PM | #209 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,668
|
Quote:
I always understood the rule about the receiver/frame (serial# part) being legally the "firearm" because without it you cannot build a functional firearm. Did not realize that what I always considered an "accessory part/assembly" that could not fire a round was, all on its own a firearm under Federal law. The inventiveness of our laws never ceases to amaze me....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 20, 2023, 11:06 PM | #210 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,721
|
Where the new rules are going to bite a lot of people is the fact that "Other" doesn't just mean a frame or a receiver that has not yet been assembled into a handgun or a rifle. "Other" refers to any firearm that is not a pistol or a rifle, and that's what Stag Arms and other makers of AR-15s have been selling: complete, functional firearms that by virtue of having a "brace" rather than a "shoulder stock" and a vertical grip handle attached to the fore end, manage to fall into that gray area between handgun and rifle. And that, I believe, is what the BATFE is really after with this new rule.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
January 21, 2023, 12:03 AM | #211 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,500
|
So, what is the enforcement strategy? I mean, they know where 90% are at by credit card records…..
Also, who is making the legal effort right now to block? |
January 21, 2023, 12:11 AM | #212 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,278
|
Quote:
Quote:
To show that a pistol is an SBR, then, it is necessary to use the law to show that it is illegal. Trying to work things the opposite way is a path to confusion. Quote:
That said, what I think is that it's possible to get into an interminable state of paralysis by analysis, either by intent or otherwise and end up badly confused and confusing others if the focus is lost. If the claim is that this rule expands the law, then it must be possible to come up with examples of things that are illegal under this rule that were not illegal under the NFA. If that is not possible, then all the "unpacking" and analysis in the world can't prove that the law has been expanded.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
January 21, 2023, 02:32 AM | #213 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
https://www.stagarms.com/products/st...g15002411.html
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 21, 2023, 03:32 AM | #214 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,447
|
Quote:
Even though my pistols have always had bare buffer tubes--though I did try out that ridiculous $250 rubber ducky thing when it was first introduced--I guess the best thing is just convert everything to a rifle (all my AR pistols started life as a pistol--though there's a bit of a catch 22 here--if you retain eveidence that the receiver was originally used for a pistol--then how can you keep the evidence without running afoul of "constructive intent" ?!)
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! Last edited by stagpanther; January 21, 2023 at 03:52 AM. |
|
January 21, 2023, 03:50 AM | #215 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,278
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
January 21, 2023, 08:43 AM | #216 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,540
|
Quote:
Quote:
You have drawn an incorrect inference. I did not imply that his pistol was an SBR because it is not possible to show that it is legal using the rule. Quote:
Your "bottom line" about the presumption afforded a criminal defendant isn't a comment on the structure of the rule. Quote:
The item that indisputably meets that standard that it was not an NFA regulated weapon under the NFA and now may be is a scoped pistol with the original sig brace. It was a weapon not designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder. No one needs to wonder whether it was “designed or intended to fire a weapon from shoulder” because the agency found that it wasn’t more than a decade ago. Accordingly, it was legal to possess. Such a pistol would have a “surface area” that “allows” shouldering. Under the terms of the new rule, it is a matter of agency discretion whether it is a rifle, so anything within that discretion can be a rifle. Those two characteristics shunt the weapon agency evaluation. Can anyone find a rifle of weight or length “consistent” this weapon’s length? Clearly, that is not a length or weight by which any possessor can determine whether his weapon is subject to NFA classification, because it is not a length or weight. Can anyone find a rifle with a length of pull “consistent” with this length of pull? Since that is not a length of pull distance, finding something “consistent” will pose no obstacle to an examiner’s discretion and is not a reasonable metric by which any possessor can determine whether his weapon is subject to NFA classification. The weapon has a scope with high relief. Since the agency provides no specific high relief that would drive NFA classification, this will be a matter of examiner discretion. The additional surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from shoulder is created by something other than the buffer tube; the brace is not necessary for the cycle of operation. Does the agency possess any information by which it could find that people other than the possessor are using the weapon in a manner the examiner disfavors? Does this change over time so that a possessor might think in March that he possesses a weapon not subject to the NFA, but in June he possesses an untaxed short barrel rifle? Significantly, any single one of these exercises of agency discretion can be the basis of an agency determination under the new rule. For instance, if the weapon has a scope, that alone can classify it as a rifle under the regulation, but not the NFA.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 21, 2023 at 11:45 AM. |
||||||
January 21, 2023, 09:56 AM | #217 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 12,447
|
In other words, when is an SBR not an SBR--but really is an SBR.
I'm beginning to see why this is somewhat perplexing.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
January 21, 2023, 11:04 AM | #218 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,713
|
|
January 21, 2023, 11:11 AM | #219 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2005
Location: Bora Bora
Posts: 932
|
When did an Agency “Rule” become law?
When did we elect the ATF to govern? Unconstitutional from nearly any angle. |
January 21, 2023, 11:28 AM | #220 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,540
|
Quote:
The problem may be easier to understand by analogy to speed limit signs. A road has a 35mph speed limit sign. Most people will understand that going 42mph exposes them to a criminal penalty, a ticket. But what if the local traffic code reads. "A vehicle shall not travel at a speed greater than 35mph" but is amended to include "A vehicle may be deemed to travel at a speed greater than 35mph if it allows a driving position in which one may speed and -its weight or color is consistent with car that sped -it has racing stripes not required for operation -vehicle marketing suggests that the vehicle can speed -other people with a car like that are likely to speed." You might be alarmed by this odd amendment. Your police chief is well known for writing bad tickets and you think if he went to the effort of redefining the speed limit, he did it for a reason other than the previous speed limit. Reminds me of the Steven Wright joke. He was yelled at by a highway Patrolman who advised that the speed limit is 55 miles an hour. He protested that he wasn't going to be driving that long.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 21, 2023 at 11:57 AM. |
|
January 21, 2023, 02:13 PM | #221 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,668
|
Quote:
You CAN get a ticket, at ANY speed, if the issuing officer believes your speed is excessive for existing conditions. And, if contested and the judge agrees with the issuing officer you ARE paying the fine (and, perhaps court costs). So, if you've got something you call a brace, and the maker calls it a brace, but the ATF says its a stock, and stock rules apply, then you go to court. The judge (and jury if its a jury trial) listen to your arguments, your cites, and all the evidence you present, and then rule its a duck, because to them, it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, so it IS a duck, and your arguments aren't all they're quacked up to be.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 21, 2023, 02:48 PM | #222 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,278
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, UNLESS those opinion letters changed the law, something you say the BATF is not allowed to do, then the NFA still applies and should be the only basis for evaluating the current rule. You can't argue that the rule expands the law compared to the now invalidated opinion letters because they have been invalidated and, more to the point, they were never law to begin with. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before any weapon can be classified as a rifle under the rule, it must have: "...an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder..." That's only the first step. Then it must have "other factors" as well. One of those factors is a "scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed..." So not just "a scope" "alone". Not even an accessory, component or other rearward attachment providing shouldering capability plus a scope. The scope must be one that is can only be used (due to eye relief limitations) if the gun is shouldered. The two factors, a scope that is intended to be used when the gun is fired from the shoulder, plus provisions for shouldering the gun would certainly indicate that the firearm fits the definition of rifle under the NFA since the resulting firearm would certainly be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||||||
January 21, 2023, 03:58 PM | #223 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,278
|
Quote:
This is why I keep saying that there is no legal change in definition (no change to the law) as long as the rule (regulatory material under the CFR) does not step outside the boundaries provided by the NFA (federal law). If you read the rule, you (or anyone) will see that it is very careful to point out that the changes are made to the regulations, to the CFR. The BATF is not only allowed to change those regulations, they are responsible to do so when it they feel it to be necessary. Changes to those regulations are NOT changes to the law, although they do have to be consistent with the law. Yes, they amended the regulatory definitions in the CFR. That is not a problem unless the rule goes beyond the boundaries of the NFA. That's why it's so important to judge the rule based on the NFA--that's the only standard that it needs to meet.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
January 21, 2023, 05:05 PM | #224 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,540
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 21, 2023, 05:41 PM | #225 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,713
|
Quote:
Am more familiar with the changing of my states statutes, codes and guidances. As our DOJ specifically and repeatedly informed me directly, changing the definition used in a law, changes the law. And as our elected representatives repeatedly informed us, we needed their approval to do so. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|