Stabilizing brace ban?
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
Did you catch the slip?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.
I think it’s called “an inconvenient truth”.
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
And, if I'm understanding correctly, you have to effectively destroy it or render it such that it cannot be re-attached.
That's fine. I'm not giving up my pistol. But i try to be legal
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Joined
·
727 Posts
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).
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
You left off this qualifying clause....
I read that to mean that the brace is rendered inoperable. SO that it CANNOT BE reattached.
Joined
·
727 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.😉
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
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.
Joined
·
727 Posts
I'm going with the latter!
Joined
·
5,324 Posts
I would keep it, for now. Do nothing.
This regulation won't live very long before the courts kill it.
Joined
·
5,324 Posts
This exactly !!
But don't give up the discussion here and elsewhere.
The more confusing this new regulation is (or can be made to be), the better.
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.
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.
Joined
·
916 Posts
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
