I would really be concerned, but after my boat sank with all my guns on board, I just don't seem to care. ANY infringement is unconstitutional, so I just ignore the morons, I'll listen to the founders of this country before some liberal moron that believes they know better. I send a nice single finger salute to them.
DON'T FALL FOR THE TRAP
- Thread starter jghoghunter
- Start date
Fox are guarding the hen house
The insane are running the asylum
The CRIMINALS are guarding the prison
If there were no laws at all other than the simple, clear unambiguous Second
Amendment, what exactly would WE be afraid of??? Because it's already happening
NOW!
The insane are running the asylum
The CRIMINALS are guarding the prison
If there were no laws at all other than the simple, clear unambiguous Second
Amendment, what exactly would WE be afraid of??? Because it's already happening
NOW!
I think we have to say PLEEEEEZE "CAN I" MASSA.
Chipping away at the Second Amendment is definitely what they want.
If you own a dog and a pistol brace, please send the dog to a relatives house. That dog will never survive an ATF encounter.
6BRA
Gold $$ Contributor
Sonar is pretty incredible now days? What body of water?
ATF is well aware of that criticism and tried to avoid it. Part of the document is them explaining why they think they're within their delegated authority and did not rewrite legislation. Ostensibly the rule is simply guidance on interpreting the law. Personally I think they'll pass on that. Some 2A lawyers will try it.
The rule is very vague and it's practically impossible for anybody to know what's legal without ATF ruling. Maybe it could fail on that.
The fix section says remove the tube so it can't be reattached.
But another section says braces in themselves are perfectly legal.
They say constructive possession can only be determined on a case by case basis.
A brace specific tube is probably a bad thing.
A bare pistol brace is probably fine but don't have a brace that mounts on a bare tube in the same safe or vehicle.
A micro tube is even more probably ok.
dcali
Bullet Maker
You can’t. It has to be a braced gun as of the date the rule goes into effect. Believe me. I had the same thought. Lol. I’m not sure if it counts if it’s a non braced unregistered SBR, but I don’t care to find out. (Note to ATF- I do not have any unregistered SBRs).
How on earth they’d go about figuring that out is another matter. But seems like a heck of a hornets nest to kick for $200.
Last edited:
History lesson for the EXTREMELY Slow Learners:
1911 Turkey disarms its citizens.........shortly after, 1.5 million Armenians are murdered.
1929 Russia disarms its citizens.......Over the next 24 years 20 million Russians are murdered.
1935 China disarms its citizens..........Between 1948 and 1952 20 million Chinese are murdered.
1938 Germany disarms its citizens.......over the next 7 years, 6 million Jews are murdered.
1956 Cambodia disarms its citizens......1975-1977 1 million people are murdered.
1964 Guatemala Disarms its citizens...........Then goes on to murder 100,000 Mayans
1970 Uganda disarmed its citizens.........over the next decade 300,000 Christians are murdered.
2012 Venezuela disarmed its citizens...........Right now we are seeing the results.
The Communist Democrats are working tirelessly to disarm American citizens......Why would they want to do that?
Dusty Stevens
Shiner
What are they going to do? The AFT are not elected reps and do what they want when they want. They make laws more efficiently than the people elected to make laws
Technically congress can reject an administrative rule like this.
Can't recall the name of the Act right now.
BUT it would require the First Senile's signature and he's the one who told atf to do this so ...
dcali
Bullet Maker
I’m no lawyer and am just a dude with an opinion, but this strikes me as a strategic blunder politically for the gun control folks. They have made millions of felons over night. Even some of my gun owning friends have no idea about this new rule. Non compliance out of sheer ignorance is going to run into the millions. There is no practical way to enforce it. It’s political red meat for gun friendly states. The rubber hits the road in 120 days and the government will be forced to flinch. There aren’t enough court rooms, prosecutors, cops, and prison cells. The only option is non enforcement, and that opens up a whole can of worms. We’re not talking about a handful or machine guns like back in the day.
I suspect it will get thrown out as it works its way through the courts for any of a million reasons. And if a big enough stink is made, states like Wyoming will pass NFA nullification laws (like Colorado and others did for marinuana, and we know how that’s going for the feds). I honestly don’t see how they thought this would work in their favor. All they’re going to do is highlight the futility of the NFA and it’s implementation/enforcement. Hell, this may actually trigger some pragmatic reforms like pulling suppressors and sbrs out of it and leaving it to collectors items like it should be.
They basically said the quiet part out loud. That the whole NFA is a dysfunctional sham.
Last edited:
My rep is Trotsky
My Senators are Stalin and Mao
The entire NFA, in its entirety, MUST be repealed. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty damned clear.
Read the decision in US v. Miller,
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendmentguarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
and,
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In the Miller case, no one was there to argue for the defense. If someone had shown that a short barreled shotgun was an arm of military utility, the Court would have said, "...the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
The second Amendment SPECIFICALLY protects the right to own military grade weapons! Read the above in context. In "common use" by whom? One might interpret this phrase to equate to "...of the kind typically used at the time". Typically used for military service! I say again, "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves". The militia is required to show up for service bearing military arms supplied by themselves! We, as Americans are required, duty bound, to possess arms of military utility.
Your fine Weatherby hunting rifle worth $3000-5000, might not be protected by the Second Amendment, but your M-16 and you BAR most certainly are!
This is the supreme law of the land!
Jeepers... you think the enforcers at AFT (Sleepy Joe's words) just don't know?
Read the decision in US v. Miller,
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendmentguarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
and,
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
In the Miller case, no one was there to argue for the defense. If someone had shown that a short barreled shotgun was an arm of military utility, the Court would have said, "...the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
The second Amendment SPECIFICALLY protects the right to own military grade weapons! Read the above in context. In "common use" by whom? One might interpret this phrase to equate to "...of the kind typically used at the time". Typically used for military service! I say again, "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves". The militia is required to show up for service bearing military arms supplied by themselves! We, as Americans are required, duty bound, to possess arms of military utility.
Your fine Weatherby hunting rifle worth $3000-5000, might not be protected by the Second Amendment, but your M-16 and you BAR most certainly are!
This is the supreme law of the land!
Jeepers... you think the enforcers at AFT (Sleepy Joe's words) just don't know?
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.