I watched a couple of You Tube vids about the ATF losing the court decision on braces. In them they mention that the judge that wrote the decision mentioned that SBRs are unconstitutional also. Or maybe thats just the impression I got. Can anyone make sense out of this? Did this make braces legal? Ive never owned one, I have seen ATF reverse itself so many times over the years I knew that this would be mess. Did this ruling really make SBRs legal or does this just pave the way for another law suit to determine the status of SBRs.
Stabilizing brace law????
- Thread starter ebb
- Start date
The way I read it, there is no final judgement as yet. This recent judge, like others, has placed a injunction against the ATF rule so the ATF cannot enforce it against the plaintiff's. In his judgment he questions the SBR as he did the Pistol Brace Final Rule as opposed to violating the 2nd Amendment. He is a lower court judge and nothing is final about the Pistol Brace except the ATF cannot enforce it against the plaintiff's of this case until their is a final court judgement. It's an ongoing legal court process.
SBR's are written into the NFA, a law passed by Congress. The stabilizing brace issue, much like the bump stock issue, was with the ATF pulling a new "rule" out of their rear end - thus bypassing Congress. Two very different and non connected issues.
If you ask me, the ATF is testing the waters with new "rules" to gid rid of things they don't like. Hi cap magazines and black rifles would be next.
If you ask me, the ATF is testing the waters with new "rules" to gid rid of things they don't like. Hi cap magazines and black rifles would be next.
urbanrifleman
Site $$ Sponsor
ATF doesn't write laws. And I would really like to see the law that gave them the power to interpret laws. It's like this dirty secret that no one's allowed to talk about that the ATF is not a regulatory agency and it never was. It is a revenue agency. And I would really like to see the bill from Congress that established it. I don't think it exists. I think it was simply created by the treasury department out of thin air.
urbanrifleman
Site $$ Sponsor
Doing some more quick research it seems that under the Homeland Security Act in 2002 ATF was transferred to the department of Justice from Treasury. That explains a lot.
I'm not sure that anyone who founded this country would understand a government that the executive branch can essentially create its own law enforcement agencies at will. And it's law enforcement agencies can decide what laws they are going to enforce at will. No mandates from Congress just the executive branch essentially being all law enforcement.
It's also explains why Congress actually has no power. Congress has no law enforcement agencies. Congress has no ability to sanction anyone in the executive branch, quite the contrary. But the executive branch can certainly sanction people in Congress. I just don't think that was the way it was supposed to be. Certainly, that is the way it is now.
Congress is supposed to be the direct link to the people, since our government is not a democracy but a representative Republic. In that sense, the people have no law enforcement agencies of their own. All law enforcement ultimately is in the executive.
I'm not sure that anyone who founded this country would understand a government that the executive branch can essentially create its own law enforcement agencies at will. And it's law enforcement agencies can decide what laws they are going to enforce at will. No mandates from Congress just the executive branch essentially being all law enforcement.
It's also explains why Congress actually has no power. Congress has no law enforcement agencies. Congress has no ability to sanction anyone in the executive branch, quite the contrary. But the executive branch can certainly sanction people in Congress. I just don't think that was the way it was supposed to be. Certainly, that is the way it is now.
Congress is supposed to be the direct link to the people, since our government is not a democracy but a representative Republic. In that sense, the people have no law enforcement agencies of their own. All law enforcement ultimately is in the executive.
Last edited:
farmerjohn
Gold $$ Contributor
Are the short barrel AR's legal without the brace now? In other words, can you just remove the brace and be legal? Thanks John
John, no they are not. According to what I understand and the excellent explanation by eagle 6 and others here, the judge just said that SBRs could violate the 2nd amendment. I have a semi auto sten I would love to put a butt stock on without doing a tax stamp. I hope someone will put and end to the ATFand the power grab they are attempting.
The problem is the back and forth and flimflam talk coming out of the ATF. Yes, simply take off the brace and the AR pistol is legal, no wait the brace has to be destroyed, and destroy the gun as well, or register with the NFA, well we are not sure, yes, no, maybe!!
Judges, attorneys and especially the ATF are all confused and cannot provide nor can they get definitive answers. That is the problem. This recent judge related that the SBR itself may be a violation of the 2nd Amendment regardless if it was passed by congress. He is also the only judge that referenced the Final Pistol Brace Rule as violating the 2nd Amendment. But he has not made a final court ruling other than an injunction that prohibits the ATF from enforcing the Pistol Brace Rule against the plaintiff's of this case. His primary reason for the injunction is that pistol braces are in common use and to force those in possession to destroy the brace, or weapon, or force registration harms the defendants.
Unfortunately, the more I read the constitution (as a layman, without all the new understanding of the many laws created since) I find that most of the laws passed by our congress are unconstitutional. Problem is, nobody, including in my opinion, my the supreme court, even knows that the document exists, let alone how to interpret it without looking at who donated to their wealth over the years.
farmerjohn
Gold $$ Contributor
Not quite sure that I know what to do here... hypothetically speaking of course...
BobT
Gold $$ Contributor
As long as there is no brace, vertical fore grip or buttstock then it's still considered a pistol, a weapon designed to be fired with one hand. If designed to be fired from the shoulder and has a barrel less than 16" it's an SBR and requires a tax stamp.
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.