The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 27, 2023, 03:50 PM   #301
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagpanther
Wow! Wouldn't that be cool!
It would be neat to have SBRs cut out of the NFA, but I've noticed that SBRs can be very loud, maybe even dangerously loud. Foresight, safety and due care for people located in the vicinity of ranges would have suppressors off the list too.

Just saying.







zukiphile is offline  
Old January 27, 2023, 09:36 PM   #302
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,941
Totally agree--my tinnitus just keeps getting worse.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old January 27, 2023, 11:11 PM   #303
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
It would be neat to have SBRs cut out of the NFA, but I've noticed that SBRs can be very loud, maybe even dangerously loud. Foresight, safety and due care for people located in the vicinity of ranges would have suppressors off the list too.

Just saying.
Supposedly the reason for regulating short-barreled rifles was to keep "concealable" firearms out of the hands of miscreants. I have never considered a suppressor to be something that makes a firearm more concealable.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 28, 2023, 02:18 AM   #304
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,959
Quote:
I have never considered a suppressor to be something that makes a firearm more concealable.
Think Great Depression and silent poaching....

Or such was the stated reason back then, also silent murder, but then, that ignores bows and knives and clubs and rocks and everything else that can kill without noise...

I am given to understand that there are parts of Europe where "silencers" are required, for hunting.

I don't think the NFA was ever about common sense, or protecting the people. But that's just my personal opinion.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 28, 2023, 07:09 AM   #305
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,061
Quote:
Think Great Depression and silent poaching.
Here in Georgia, we got a law passed about a decade ago to allow silencers while hunting. The biggest opposition came from a group of hunters concerned about poaching. We had a bit of a hurdle explaining there was a big difference between a poacher using an illegal improvised silencer and a law-abiding person using a registered silencer.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 28, 2023, 09:23 AM   #306
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,676
Suppressor's are legal to hunt with in Wi, at least last time i checked. Farmers are more inclined to allow you to use their depredation permits if you use a suppressor. Use of a suppressor allows me to use range outside of normal hours, as the limited noise does not bother the neighbors. They are not very concealable, and appear to be very rarely used in crimes.
zeke is offline  
Old January 28, 2023, 09:30 AM   #307
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,941
Works the same way in France--farms often are within the town limits and maximum effort is used to not disturb the landowners (usually). Interestingly, driving game often is the preferred way of hunting.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old January 31, 2023, 09:03 AM   #308
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,676
https://www.federalregister.gov/agen...losives-bureau

It's on the fed register and the clock is ticking
zeke is offline  
Old January 31, 2023, 12:25 PM   #309
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,581
The best part of this thread is where the blame is being directed at people on YouTube shouldering their brace instead of blaming the overreach of the ATF. Good stuff. Nothing better than gun owners eating their own.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old January 31, 2023, 03:29 PM   #310
kkb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2004
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 403
Looks like the first lawsuit has been filed.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock
kkb is offline  
Old January 31, 2023, 03:55 PM   #311
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,959
Sometimes, people who poke the bear deserve to be eaten....

The way I see it, if the enemy is making a mistake in your favor its stupid to point that out to them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 1, 2023, 05:02 PM   #312
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Joe_Pike The best part of this thread is where the blame is being directed at people on YouTube shouldering their brace instead of blaming the overreach of the ATF. Good stuff. Nothing better than gun owners eating their own.
Oddly, that first determination letter on the SIG arm brace was a complete reversal of ATF policy and previous determinations dating back to 1934. Yet no one complained about ATF's authority to issue that letter.

Now a decade later, ATF changes its opinion and IT'S OVERREACH!!!!
__________________
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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old February 1, 2023, 09:32 PM   #313
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
I'd say, with all the flip-flopping from the ATF, we have a decent argument for "arbitrarily and capricious" lawsuits.
raimius is offline  
Old February 2, 2023, 09:30 PM   #314
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius View Post
I'd say, with all the flip-flopping from the ATF, we have a decent argument for "arbitrarily and capricious" lawsuits.
Several have been filed. I'm not doing anything for a while, at least.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old February 9, 2023, 10:58 PM   #315
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,676
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra...tol-brace-rule

Looks like about 25 states joined in a lawsuit. And it appears the main points being the expanding (changing) the definition of rifle, and the rule is arbitrary.

Last edited by zeke; February 9, 2023 at 11:18 PM.
zeke is offline  
Old February 16, 2023, 08:09 AM   #316
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,676
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzFqLJGbdDE

Maybe an expedited decision by end of March?
zeke is offline  
Old February 16, 2023, 01:02 PM   #317
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
Several have been filed. I'm not doing anything for a while, at least.
My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days. If it hasn't been worked out in court by then, that's the time to start thinking about your options.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 16, 2023, 04:31 PM   #318
Screwball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Location: ME
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days. If it hasn't been worked out in court by then, that's the time to start thinking about your options.

I agree, if you were not planning on SBRing them…

If it gets overturned, I can always build a pistol lower for easier travel out of the state, since I’ll squirrel a brace away for that reason.

Once my approvals come back, stocks for days.
Screwball is offline  
Old February 16, 2023, 06:27 PM   #319
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Aguila Blanca
My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days....
Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.
__________________
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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old February 16, 2023, 10:07 PM   #320
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogtown Tom
Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.
You're in Texas. I'm not.

Every state is different, and the "fit" between federal and state laws is different for each combination.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 17, 2023, 04:00 AM   #321
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,053
There's no need to try to add that additional complication into the mix.

This regulation/rule doesn't change state laws.

State laws can't legalize anything that this rule regulates.
Quote:
Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says.
I agree that the rule is not hard to understand. What people are having difficulty with is that they don't like what it says.

The confusion I'm seeing is that people want the law to tell them clearly that their firearm is not regulated and can't find that information. It's not going to happen. Laws generally don't define the legal/unregulated, they define the illegal/regulated and everything else is automatically legal/unregulated.

Well, then, let's look at what's illegal/regulated. That can't include my "braced pistol", right?

Yeah...

When the federal code in question was written, everyone knew what a "stock" was and that rifles had them and pistols didn't. So there's not even a definition for "stock" in federal law.

Everyone knew what a rifle was and what a pistol was and there wasn't any confusion. So the definitions in federal law are not super-specific. There was simply no need.

But now we have pistols that are exactly like rifles in every respect except for not having stocks and having shorter barrels.

No problem, right? We can tell them apart because rifles have stocks and pistols don't. Except that federal law doesn't actually say that. And it also doesn't define "stock".

Hmmm... What about the short barrels? Nope, that doesn't work either because a short barrel can be present on a rifle (SBR) OR a pistol.

So just how DO we tell them apart, now that we have things that look and function exactly like rifles but that are supposedly pistols and things that look and function like stocks but that are supposedly something else? 300 pages later...
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 17, 2023, 04:04 AM   #322
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,941
Quote:
Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.
I wonder what is meant by "remove the brace so that it cannot be reattached." Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it. If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.
__________________
"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; February 17, 2023 at 04:14 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old February 17, 2023, 04:20 AM   #323
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,053
Quote:
Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it.
If that's how you think the BATF is going to play it, then after you remove it, you should grind the brace up into dust and then put the dust out for the garbage man to carry away.

Practically speaking, I don't think it's that hard to understand what the difference is between being able to directly reinstall an item on something you removed it from vs. modifying it so that it can't be reinstalled.

Think about it like this. If it becomes an issue, then someone would likely demonstrate installing the brace onto the firearm to show that there is a violation.

How do you think it would play for a jury/judge if they have to get out a welder and power tools to get it to fit?

How do you think it would play for a jury or judge if they slide it into place and tighten a nut or it clicks into place?

Act accordingly...
Quote:
If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.
Disposing of the brace is one option, but it doesn't say that's what you have to do. It certainly doesn't say you have to modify the firearm.

If you're already having trouble with the rule, as written, I would recommend not altering it and then trying to figure out what the altered version means.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 17, 2023, 05:26 AM   #324
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,941
My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is. Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one. But I realize this strays off into the minefield of semantics.
__________________
"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!
stagpanther is offline  
Old February 17, 2023, 06:11 AM   #325
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,299
I was initially going to use a Tailhook brace. Its aluminum with a hole bored through to be a snug fit on a pistol buffer tube. There is a pinch bolt feature to secure it. I have not installed it.

My machinist experience tells me that if I put a band of knurling around the buffer tube at the "butt" or closed end, the outside diameter of the buffer tube will increase,by perhaps .010 in. This will make it impossible to install the Tailhook on that buffer tube without cutting the knurling off.
I'm trying to cope with the "constructive possession" thing. The AR pistol in question has a bare pistol buffer tube with no brace. I have no intent to install a brace.
HiBC is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07160 seconds with 8 queries