Florida Concealed Carry banner
21 - 40 of 68 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
7,923 Posts
Everyone knows it's politically motived and does/will do nothing for gun violence just like all their other "sensible gun control" drivel. All they care about is their agenda. :rolleyes:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
Everyone knows it's politically motived and does/will do nothing for gun violence just like all there other "sensible gun control" drivel. All they care about is their agenda. :rolleyes:
Did you catch the slip?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
17,046 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
Off with the brace I guess.
And, if I'm understanding correctly, you have to effectively destroy it or render it such that it cannot be re-attached.
Font Brand Number Monochrome Graphics
 

· Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
And, if I'm understanding correctly, you have to effectively destroy it or render it such that it cannot be re-attached.
View attachment 79214
But does it though? The clause reads "Permanently remove or alter...", which is not the same as effectively destroying it or rendering it such. It is an "or" statement.

The author may have made a serious language mistake that - despite the ATF's possible intention - permits simply the removal of the brace from the weapon. That is, of course, unless there is a clause elsewhere that makes the mere possession of a brace illegal (and I confess to not having read the full document).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
"Permanently remove or alter...", which is not the same as effectively destroying it or rendering it such. It is an "or" statement.
You left off this qualifying clause....
Rectangle Font Brand Parallel Number


I read that to mean that the brace is rendered inoperable. SO that it CANNOT BE reattached.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
You left off this qualifying clause....
View attachment 79216

I read that to mean that the brace is rendered inoperable. SO that it CANNOT BE reattached.
Well, I interpret everything before the "or" as resolution option 1 and everything after the "or" as resolution option 2. The word "and" is not in the sentence.

But - as you - IANAL. I just have opinions and like a good dialogue from time to time, and as time permits.😉
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
Well, I interpret everything before the "or" as resolution option 1 and everything after the "or" as resolution option 2. The word "and" is not in the sentence.

But - as you - IANAL. I just have opinions and like a good dialogue from time to time, and as time permits.😉
It really just goes to show that either the folks that write these rules / laws are either morons and illiterates.... or it's very much intentionally obtuse.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,324 Posts
The video I posted in #24 is really worth the 15 minutes to watch. (Especially starting at the 10:08 mark.)
Ian does a fantastic job describing how things got to this point.

Essentially,
Way back when... anti-gunners proposed a $200 tax stamp on firearms. (many multiples of what the actual firearms / suppressors cost at that time).
All firearms (at least as originally envisioned).
And as there was no provision in the regulation to adjust the fees, it's still $200 today.

But then, prior to enactment, handguns were carved out of the NFA -- essentially leaving a solution with no corresponding problem.
That specific problem being: People cutting down rifles to make concealable handguns.
Which, you wouldn't do if you could just buy a handgun.

So -- all this wrangling over short-barrels, and pistol braces is totally meaningless.
Ian, in his video does this subject much better justice that I have here and shows examples of firearms large, medium, and small, with only the one in the middle falling under the proposed NFA restrictions.

Bottom line: There is no reason for the act.

The NFA scheme regarding short-barrels and braces should be dismantled in its entirety.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
The NFA scheme regarding short-barrels and braces should be dismantled in its entirety.
This exactly. The NFA does nothing of any substance at all. So what if you have a SBR? What problem does having a "rifle" with a barrel less than 16" cause? What issue are we trying to prevent by requiring SBRs to be registered with the government. There are so many old antiquated laws tying back to the old gangster society that still exist for no reason at all. And many of the gun laws that restrict ownership of this or that firearm can trace their roots back to a racist intention as well.
 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Top