Several here have probably seen this 9m 33sec video on the Mrgunsngear Channel, dated November 25, 2020. The video frames both sides of the argument at hand and offers an opinion (not legal advice) on the use of SBA3 and other pistol braces; and if the SBA3 brace in particular when attached to an AR-Pistol makes that AR-Pistol subject to NFA and has been all along. As the video points out, ATF has known for years that various vendors have been selling, what are by now, an aggregate thousands of complete AR-Pistols with SBA3 braces without ATF stepping in and publicly saying that such AR-Pistols are subject to NFA. No arrests have been made either for alleged NFA violations by using said brace on an AR-Pistol sans ATF approval and a tax stamp (the NFA process). However, now that we have a change in Presidential Administrations ...
I tried a couple of setups with them, but disassembled b/c I didn't care for 'em, I have other things of what I need and can use/control.
I know however, that others do like them.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
06-09-2021, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 12:23 AM by lazyengineer.)
After pondering all this, and the various thought out comments here, I think the crux of my letter to the ATF will be this (And do NOT copy/paste, as they auto-delete all copy/paste comments)
-ATF had stated that arm braces are legal, and had done so in writting. And have done so defacto in enforcement action, and inaction.
-The bulk of sellers offering arm-braced firearms, are ATF licensed operators subject to ATF rules and regulations, and inspections. By allowing the continued sale of such arms for years, the ATF has defacto confirmed that their sale and possession is consistent with policy that to-date, a firearm such as an AR15 with a <16" BBL and an Armbrace, is legal to sell and possess. As precedent to ATF ruling of what is and is not proper, note the enforcement upon the Honey Badger model, which egregiously offered an "arm brace" of excessive length of pull; to the point that it was deemed by ATF to be in usage a rifle-stock. Yet all other renditions with shorter length of pull, were continued to be allowed to be sold - defacto confirming those other designs were legal.
-Millions of American's have in good-faith operated under the understanding that ATF considered such firearms of certain common design, to be legal.
-There is legal precedent set by the United States Supreme Court No 18-587 against the Trump Presidential administration, where the court ruled that President Trumps administration could not unilaterally dismantle President Obama administrations DACA policy. This action as written also, which unilaterally will affect millions of Americans, without any change in Federal Law, will face stiff legal challenges.
-While it is ATF's proper duty to evaluate and make determinations on compliance with the NFA and SBR law; it is improper to state an action and system is legal either by design, or by implication of enforcement actions; and then after millions of American's acted in good-faith compliance with that interpretation of the law; to then unilaterally deem millions of Americans as Federal Felon's with serious legal implications. It is not reasonable to assume all the affected parties will be aware of the change in order to act.
-Should the ATF deem many of the common pistol brace systems to in re-evaluation, now be illegal and not in compliance with NFA SBR regulations; then it is only proper for units already purchased in good faith, to defacto be grandfathered with no actions required by the current owners.
Remember that bump stock thing? It was legal until they deemed it not. The brace, and AR pistols in general looked to me to be a ploy or bait and switch to have a reason to raid gun owners and seize their property or punish with fines ($$$ for the Government . I would be leery of even a pin and weld for the same reasons. Logic, fairness, president have no place in Liberal thinking. It's all about power and your guns stand in the way of them taking it so, they have to go.
Thanks for the links biodsl, interesting reading. I hope the bump stock mess is thrown out, It was so unfair. (I don't have or want one.) I am not confident on the courts doing the right thing nowadays but things can change.
StoneHendge Wrote:Can you give one example of this? Don't reference a portion of an ATF letter from a manufacturer, retailer or gun rag. Reference the entire document.
Well.. first off, Google is your friend too. But sure, I can spend the 30 seconds and Google that:
It vacillates some, but this is the linchpin letter that SB Tactical received and posted, that is the basis for most of the modern brace systems we've seen in the last 5 years or so. Arguably SB-Tactical and others have stretched the content of the letter, but only arguably - and it does have line items specifically stating braces are legal in this application. An argument that is validated by the fact they've been able to run for many years without interruption, yet HoneyBadger was shut down almost instantly. Which validates that the ATF has considered the SB Tactical and similar versions to be compliant with the law. In particular, the only criteria denoted as being a violating criteria, is the creation of a length so long such as to have no other purpose than to be a shoulder stock. Which indeed as far as I can tell, has been one of the primary and defining criteria the ATF has been using on the topic... until now.
And that, is the best shot I've got, for writing and submitting your opinion request the ATF either withdraw, or at the least auto-grandfather. Make no mistake - "pistol" owners are so going to loose this fight. The best shot you have now is to try and get route to being grandfathered, or at least getting a free NFA stamp option. And I would suggest writing your letters with that in mind.
It vacillates some, but this is the linchpin letter that SB Tactical received and posted, that is the basis for most of the modern brace systems we've seen in the last 5 years or so. Arguably SB-Tactical and others have stretched the content of the letter, but only arguably - and it does have line items specifically stating braces are legal in this application. An argument that is validated by the fact they've been able to run for many years without interruption, yet HoneyBadger was shut down almost instantly. Which validates that the ATF has considered the SB Tactical and similar versions to be compliant with the law. In particular, the only criteria denoted as being a violating criteria, is the creation of a length so long such as to have no other purpose than to be a shoulder stock. Which indeed as far as I can tell, has been one of the primary and defining criteria the ATF has been using on the topic... until now.
And that, is the best shot I've got, for writing and submitting your opinion request the ATF either withdraw, or at the least auto-grandfather. Make no mistake - "pistol" owners are so going to loose this fight. The best shot you have now is to try and get route to being grandfathered, or at least getting a free NFA stamp option. And I would suggest writing your letters with that in mind.
I can't cut and paste a pdf:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17928[/ATTACH]
Anywhere else?
Imagine this scene in a traffic court and see how it flies over:
Judge: Mr. Engineer, where you travelling at 81 mph at mile marker 210.4 on highway 71 on the evening of May 14, 2021 and are you aware that it is a 65 mph zone
Plaintiff: Yes, but you Honor, I always go 81 mph there and so does everyone else. I've never been pulled over there and been given a ticket before and neither has anyone else.
The two immediate prior posts above actually agree that said "pistol" owners are going to lose this fight, i.e., that the majority of the subject pistol-braced weapons are going to be definitively made subject to NFA per the proposed ATF regs. And, as Lazyengineer said, the most palatable outcome should one choose to be in compliance is to get grandfathered in with a gratis NFA tax stamp, predicated on the confusion that was generated by both sides with this issue (pistol brace makers and ATF).
Make no mistake that this current Presidential Administration is mission-oriented to ban so-called "assault weapons" from citizen ownership. among other measures to gut the Second Amendment. That will be the hill to be in total agreement toward which the US Supreme Court will hopefully soon resolve in favor of a robust Second Amendment.
Imagine this scene in a traffic court and see how it flies over:
Judge: Mr. Engineer, where you travelling at 81 mph at mile marker 210.4 on highway 71 on the evening of May 14, 2021 and are you aware that it is a 65 mph zone
Plaintiff: Yes, but you Honor, I always go 81 mph there and so does everyone else. I've never been pulled over there and been given a ticket before and neither has anyone else.
That's not a great analogy since cops routinely pull over people for 11 over. So enforcement is done. But they never pull over for 71, since that may be within the error of their speed detector. And would likely be dismissed if the plaintif hired a real lawyer and fought.
And again - my point is this is the best shot I've got to try and help pistol owners. I would assume you have similar motive? What would your best shot be?
From the perspective of a 37 year federal LE veteran, and having worked with (not for) ATF over the years, the emphasis of most ATF special agents is with "G&G" (Gangs and Guns). Just a few years ago, via peer polling, well over 75% of the Boston ATF Field Office wasn't about to encroach on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who don't fit G&G (flagrant non-G&G violations aside). On a State level, an overwhelming majority of Counties in Virginia, for example, have become sanctuary for Second Amendment Rights. Doing so isn't rule of law but more symbolic. At the same time, Sheriff's are the Chief LEO in a County and professional courtesy, deconfliction, safety issues, etc., dictate that ATF notify the Chief LEO of a jurisdiction before a warrant is served. In other words, ATF won't be welcome in many jurisdictions for non-G&G enforcement activities.
So, as mentioned, one has to decide either to not comply with the looming pistol-brace regulations, or comply and wait to go all out when there is an attempted ban on AR platform guns, magazine capacity limitations, etc.
Imagine this scene in a traffic court and see how it flies over:
Judge: Mr. Engineer, where you travelling at 81 mph at mile marker 210.4 on highway 71 on the evening of May 14, 2021 and are you aware that it is a 65 mph zone
Plaintiff: Yes, but you Honor, I always go 81 mph there and so does everyone else. I've never been pulled over there and been given a ticket before and neither has anyone else.
A better example was when Montana didn't have a speed limit. All the law stated was drivers had to drive in a safe and prudent manor. Who was to say what a safe and prudent manor is? It caused so many problems in the courts with tickets being thrown out, they went back to posting easy to understand speed limits..
montana Wrote:A better example was when Montana didn't have a speed limit. All the law stated was drivers had to drive in a safe and prudent manor. Who was to say what a safe and prudent manor is? It caused so many problems in the courts with tickets being thrown out, they went back to posting easy to understand speed limits..
An even better example is when the ATF permitted stabilizer braces on AR pistols. All the law stated was that the possessor couldn't design their weapon to be shouldered. Who was to say what a design meant to be shouldered is? It caused so much confusion that they eventually came up with an easy to understand worksheet that allegedly determines what the possessor's intent is.
06-09-2021, 07:06 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 07:10 PM by montana.)
StoneHendge Wrote:An even better example is when the ATF permitted stabilizer braces on AR pistols. All the law stated was that the possessor couldn't design their weapon to be shouldered. Who was to say what a design meant to be shouldered is? It caused so much confusion that they eventually came up with an easy to understand worksheet that allegedly determines what the possessor's intent is.
Calling the worksheet easy to understand, is like posting speed limit signs in Arabic and braille..Here is an easier work sheet to understand. Shall not be infringed..
montana Wrote:calling the worksheet easy to understand, is like posting speed limit signs in arabic and braille..here is an easier work sheet to understand. Shall not be infringed..
I recommend you all go through the GOA website, they have a letter already drafted, to which you can add your own customizations, like LA has above... that's what I did.
My main points along with theirs (a great quote from a 6th Ckt court of Appeals decision they won, by the way), is that it is ludicrous for ATF to posture that it has been unaware of the thousands/millions of pistol kits (not including a lower receiver) being sold successfully, and (tacitly though it may be) legally, and now to whimsically swap over to try to regulate because of a political wish. All those sales and they did NOTHING. For years.
Reminds me of Casablanca, where Frenchy the Prefect d Police suddenly supporting Col Strasser (blowing his whistle in Rick's Cafe) "I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to find out that gambling is going on in this place!!!" "here are your winnings, monsieur" "o thank you"
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
grayfox Wrote:I recommend you all go through the GOA website, they have a letter already drafted, to which you can add your own customizations, like LA has above... that's what I did.
My main points along with theirs (a great quote from a 6th Ckt court of Appeals decision they won, by the way), is that it is ludicrous for ATF to posture that it has been unaware of the thousands/millions of pistol kits (not including a lower receiver) being sold successfully, and (tacitly though it may be) legally, and now to whimsically swap over to try to regulate because of a political wish. All those sales and they did NOTHING. For years.
Reminds me of Casablanca, where Frenchy the Prefect d Police suddenly supporting Col Strasser (blowing his whistle in Rick's Cafe) "I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to find out that gambling is going on in this place!!!" "here are your winnings, monsieur" "o thank you"
I hope I'm not starting to sound too much like Stan, but in January 2025 will it be ludicrous for Border Patrol to try and stop illegal immigration and deport illegal immigrants because for four years, the laws weren't enforced? All because of a political wish? All those illegal border crossings and for years Border Patrol and ICE did nothing!
