|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 16, 2015, 05:39 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
|
ATF open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”
I just received this email from ATF:
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 16, 2015, 07:04 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
|
I don't see this ending well for the ATF
|
January 16, 2015, 07:12 PM | #3 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
They are the proverbial 800lb Gorillas..... they can and will do what they want. Who's going to stop them? Are you Spartacus? Or even TJIC? |
|
January 16, 2015, 07:27 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
|
Jim while I agree.... I fail to see 1) how they plan to enforce it. 2) it is all based on INTENT, how do they prove I INTENDED to build a SBR vs a Pistol (Keep in mind they already stated if you built a pistol with one, and occassionally mis-use it that is fine, and 3) That would make anyone who fires a handgun with two hands also creating a AOW.
I will be interested to see how this plays out, and I am sure they will be challenged in court. Sig already challenged them in court over the MPX barrel shrouds, so I am assuming someone will step up to the challenge. Also this would imply shouldering a pistol buffer tube to be creating a AOW, and seeing as you can't remove the buffer from the design, whats that leave us with? I fail to see how they plan to tell us how to USE something. |
January 16, 2015, 07:35 PM | #5 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
It'd be like playing football and the other side gets as many paid players as it wants with no salary cap .... and you have whomever you can convince to step onto the field with you..... and your finite bank account + any donations. |
|
January 16, 2015, 07:38 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
|
I would assume Sig will probably as it will most likely hurt their sales, and they are currently taking them to court already.
You don't need to talk down to me, just simply stating I can see this going against the ATF, doesn't matter how big they are, doesn't make it right. |
January 16, 2015, 07:44 PM | #7 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
I did not intend to sound like I was was "talking down to you"..... sorry if I came off that way ....just in a kind of funk lately ....
Quote:
|
|
January 16, 2015, 07:49 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
|
While I generally agree, personally with this one I think they are backing themselves into an awfully awkward corner or trying to dictate how you USE a piece of gear vs making an item like the old bump fire devices (before the stocks) that were outlawed due to mechanical design not "misuse" or "redesigning" it based on how its held.
Like I said, their legal definition of a handgun is to be fired with one hand, does that mean we along with all other ATF and LEO agents have been re-designing our handguns into illegal AOW's? I understand where you are coming from, I just feel like this one will have a lot of pushback and issues. |
January 16, 2015, 09:36 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
They may not bust people for it. They probably won't. The problem is, they can at any time.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 16, 2015, 11:36 PM | #10 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
The flip side of the coin is that some folks just have to push things to see how far they can go, like drop-in auto sears and "lightning links" used to make machineguns out of semi-auto rifles, or making "flare guns" with steel barrels that "happen to" fire 12 gauge shotshells. A lot of folks make a game out of violating the law, then when they are caught, they scream "Second Amendment rights" and want us to demand "justice", which means letting them get away with it.
I don't like some of the gun laws, or the BATFE way of enforcing them. But they are laws, and I am bothered by people risking YOUR freedom to peddle questionable gadgets THEY SAY are legal bother me. THEY don't get to say what is legal, nor do YOU. Courts do and when a case goes to court, YOU can go to jail, screaming about the Second Amendment all the way. Meanwhile, the maker of that gadget laughs all the way to the bank. Jim |
January 17, 2015, 12:47 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
I'd like to hear the ATF give an explanation to the following question: Why does shouldering a pistol redesign it as an SBR, but using a two-handed grip on a pistol doesn't redesign it as an AOW?
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
January 17, 2015, 01:05 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,862
|
Well, I guess we can't fire handguns using two hands anymore either without paying a tax, since we are "redesigning" the firearms.
|
January 17, 2015, 01:26 AM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
January 17, 2015, 02:13 PM | #14 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
|
Quote:
2. ATF hasn't said that shouldering a pistol redesigns it as an SBR. They have said the Sig Arm Brace when used as designed is not a shoulder stock. If you add any contraption to a pistol with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock.....you have an SBR. 3. Using a two handed grip on a handgun is clearly NOT a violation of the NFA. Quote:
Exactly what part of the handgun did you "redesign"?
__________________
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 17, 2015, 07:01 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
|
Can't say I didn't see this coming. I was quite surprised that the ATF cleared these "stabilizers" in the first place.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law or the new guidleines, just that I knew this was coming sooner or later.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor. |
January 17, 2015, 09:19 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
This one, which is public, claims to reverse the first two.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 17, 2015, 10:44 PM | #17 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
You can't controll a law abiding citizen-he's got rights. So you make enough laws (and arbitrary regulations) that you know he'll break at least some , so you can make a "criminal" of him. You can't possibly enforce all these laws everytime they get broken..... but if your goal is not to have a peacable society, but to controll the population...... just selectively enforce your rules on anybody who "makes trouble"- and you get to decide what defines "trouble"- and demonize anybody that tries to work around the law without breaking it .... call them trouble makers, envelope pushers, whatever- for doing something that should not be illegal in the fist place, and is not illegal (technically) when they did it.... and when you "bust them for it", bring the hammer down, pour encourager les autres .... that the fear of similar enforcemnt may cow the others to not only toe the line, but attack others who might feel differently .... I see such things again, right here in this thread! "Don't push the envelope, or they'll take away what we have!" When the Government fears the People, there is Liberty. When the People fear their Government, there is Tyranny. There is fear HERE. |
|
January 17, 2015, 10:45 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Thanks Tom for the link! I needed this.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
January 17, 2015, 11:14 PM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
|
SB Tactical announces more Braces
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-galil-rifles/
More braces for more guns. It's been suggested that the ATF can't hold off merchandisers coming up with more new versions - like these - so they came out with a new letter to taint the perception they would be legal. Out of all the discussions going on the one point I see is that every Brace purchase is a lost SBR stamp sale. There's no doubt that the Brace is the reason that the long wait times have dropped from nearly a year to less than two months - nobody is applying for an SBR stamp. You just sidestep the whole process and get a Brace. If there are fewer stamp applicants there are fewer in Administration to work them. And some supervisor is potentially getting the ax when the employees are laid off and budgets cut. It's not about what new legal ground is being discovered, more like how the ATF can retain a part of their organization in the face of a huge decline in stamp applications. |
January 17, 2015, 11:25 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 525
|
The thing that really gets me going is the fact that we shouldn't even be having conversations about this, because all of these "NFA" items should be just as legal and easy to obtain as a ruger 10/22. It is the ATF that is doing the most game playing with their totally idiotic, confusing, and pointless laws.
Saying that once a rifle barrel goes shorter than 16" it practically gets treated like its a WMD, saying something is legal if used one way but not another... seriously? come on. The ATF is nothing short of a joke.
__________________
I don't always go to the range, but when I do, I prefer dosAKs. They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math. |
January 18, 2015, 03:40 AM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, they're a government entity, and they don't think that way.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 18, 2015, 06:06 AM | #22 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
|
The problem also is who is using it and how. For me I could use the brace anyway that I please under the Adaptive Equipment regulations of the ADA.
|
January 18, 2015, 10:06 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
May I ask a stupid question. . .When did the ATF get in the business of issuing letters?
Case law defines the written meaning, limitations and clarifies misunderstandings. How can the ATF put themselves in the role of LEO and judge? They have way overstepped their bounds in doing this. What if they take me to court for 2 handed firing of my 1911? . . .or using the SIG brace as a rifle stock? The court may not agree with the BATFE letter or no letter. I would think the courts would be quite bothered by the letter game. The BATFE is trying to tell you how the court will rule. Wonder how they determined the SIG brace to be legal? Was it out of concern that SIG had the influence and resources to force the issue? |
January 18, 2015, 10:21 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
This sort of interpretation happens all the time when new laws come out. The law enforcement community, sometimes with the help of lawyers, have to determine what the law means as best they can and then enforce what they think the law to mean. There is no case law until a cases goes to court.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 18, 2015, 11:18 AM | #25 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
|
Congress delegated to them the power of regulation. Same as the EPA and DOT. That way Congress isn't slammed changing and updating specific law all the time about details that only someone with long experience and professional certification can make.
They skipped out on the responsibility and this is what we are left with, agencies who not only write regulation with the force of law, but are also appointed to police it, too. Is that Constitutional? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|