Stabilizing brace law????

[tommeboy]

If you were a member of GOA, FPC, and another group before June 1 then the braces are still legal. If not they are illegal. They had 8% of people of the 40 million braces get registered with the free tax stamp before the Jun 1 deadline. It is going to come down to the common use clause. And I think the SBR route is going to go that way too as these were all made into SBR's with the stamp. They consider common use over 250,000 because of the taser lawsuit that went before the SCOTUS.

 

[dontpanic]

SCOTUS is the one that decides if they are legal or not.

That is not in the Constitution. The court gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

There should really be no question, the ATF was concocted out of some left wing fanatic who blew a fuse over the Chicago mob slayings. Most of what the ATF does is in violation of the Constitution. Citizens have been infringed since 1934.

The common use clause in Heller voids the ATF, and in some ways I wonder if the number of tax stamps will now play into "common use"? That would be a funny change of events. hehehe

Even machine guns, get over it. As long as "we the people" allow them to infringe all of us, the left will.

 

[VA_XTC_Shooter]

If you were a member of GOA, FPC, and another group before June 1 then the braces are still legal. If not they are illegal. They had 8% of people of the 40 million braces get registered with the free tax stamp before the Jun 1 deadline. It is going to come down to the common use clause. And I think the SBR route is going to go that way too as these were all made into SBR's with the stamp. They consider common use over 250,000 because of the taser lawsuit that went before the SCOTUS.

Then suppressors should be ruled common uses as well, no?

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Then suppressors should be ruled common uses as well, no?

Yes, actually there is another case for the hearing protection act that is also dependent on whether accessories are covered under the 2A. Not clear if the bill is passed, if that would still leave the onus on the state, that is the way our Government was made up in America, for better or worse.

Standard capacity magazine are another example of an accessories being covered under the 2A, and that is also still pending...Duncan v Bonta.

IMO, the Government has infringed the citizens for many years, but if the citizens get those rights back remains to be seen.

It seems we need at least some definitions at the Federal level, vs the states.

 

[farmerjohn]

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.

That's what I thought, but thought doesn't keep you out of trouble sometimes when dealing with legalized criminals with badges.... thank you, John

 

[urbanrifleman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The problem is that we have an enforcement agency that is specifically tasked with infringing on the right of Americans to bear arms. A tax to own a firearm is by definition a government infringement. There is historically no way around that fact. The ATF claims that it is based in taxation of firearms and it is necessary for the enforcement of that taxation.

It's like having an enforcement agency that calls itself the "Enforcement Agency to Limit Free Speech". Which no one would stand for.

But yet, there is the ATF.

 

[ebb]

Konocti That may have been the reason they gave at the time, but the NFA and the ATF were created because prohibition was ending and the thought of laying off people because the job no longer existed was unthinkable to beauracrats in government. To career government employees government can only get bigger not smaller.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

The problem "we" have, marxist democrats don't believe they are required to follow any court decisions they don't like. Biden as been very vocal about opposing SCOTUS opinions, and this has resulted in putting judges in personal danger. It's no wonder democrats everywhere will vote in unconstitutional laws/regulations. Remember the ATF, FBI, AG chiefs all are political appointees WHO HIRE EMPLOYEES.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Konocti That may have been the reason they gave at the time, but the NFA and the ATF were created because prohibition was ending and the thought of laying off people because the job no longer existed was unthinkable to beauracrats in government. To career government employees government can only get bigger not smaller.

Possibly, that I don't know for certain, just that the ban of machine guns, SBRs and SBSs was unconstitutional at the time. And suppressors as well. The later was explained to all of the people that criminals would use suppressors in order to not be detected during a crime. A bunch of rubbish if you ask me.

We will still be faced with the situation where the state can decide how suppressors fit into law. In theory we're not supposed to be excessively taxed. Does that mean we'll be able to use suppressors without a tax stamp? And if so, how will that play out in states like California that don't allow for tax stamps at all?

Probably lucky we still get to hunt in California...

 

[urbanrifleman]

Possibly, that I don't know for certain, just that the ban of machine guns, SBRs and SBSs was unconstitutional at the time. And suppressors as well. The later was explained to all of the people that criminals would use suppressors in order to not be detected during a crime. A bunch of rubbish if you ask me.

We will still be faced with the situation where the state can decide how suppressors fit into law. In theory we're not supposed to be excessively taxed. Does that mean we'll be able to use suppressors without a tax stamp? And if so, how will that play out in states like California that don't allow for tax stamps at all?

Probably lucky we still get to hunt in California...

A state cannot create a law to override a law that is Constitutionally protected.

Another place the gun owners (and their lack of descent lawyers) fell asleep at the wheel.

Left wing lawyers seem to be able to get anything done. I mean you can declare yourself to be a unicorn as a God given "right", but "we" can't seem to keep the ATF from declaring any stupid thing want to declare to be a "law".

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

A state cannot create a law to override a law that is Constitutionally protected.

In theory, you're correct. But in reality we need to look at how the states used the 2-step approach to move legislation through the system. It is still going on, where the inferior courts are trying to convince the superior court that they're doing it for the safety of the people!

Bruen outlined that the 2-step approach couldn't be used, nor the EPA either. It seems like the green new weenie never ends...

Another place the gun owners (and their lack of descent lawyers) fell asleep at the wheel.

But somehow I feel like we're finally at a point that the 2A is going to change a lot in America, but it doesn't seem clear yet if the left will muscle their way around the Constitution.

Left wing lawyers seem to be able to get anything done.

We seem to keep getting the short end of the stick and it doesn't seem there is too much we can do. But we haven't been able to get stuff up to the Supreme Court in a number of years. If the Rahimi case can stand, it will show that things are changing.

I mean you can declare yourself to be a unicorn as a God given "right", but "we" can't seem to keep the ATF from declaring any stupid thing want to declare to be a "law".

100% agree.

Remains to be seen how the SCOTUS will respond. We must have some rights at the Federal level, although the states will always have the power to legislate their own law, that is how the country was created.

So many states following California...it's a bad sign...but I don't see it any easier to keep overturning the Constitution.

 

[urbanrifleman]

In theory, you're correct. But in reality we need to look at how the states used the 2-step approach to move legislation through the system. It is still going on, where the inferior courts are trying to convince the superior court that they're doing it for the safety of the people!

Bruen outlined that the 2-step approach couldn't be used, nor the EPA either. It seems like the green new weenie never ends...

But somehow I feel like we're finally at a point that the 2A is going to change a lot in America, but it doesn't seem clear yet if the left will muscle their way around the Constitution.

We seem to keep getting the short end of the stick and it doesn't seem there is too much we can do. But we haven't been able to get stuff up to the Supreme Court in a number of years. If the Rahimi case can stand, it will show that things are changing.

100% agree.

Remains to be seen how the SCOTUS will respond. We must have some rights at the Federal level, although the states will always have the power to legislate their own law, that is how the country was created.

So many states following California...it's a bad sign...but I don't see it any easier to keep overturning the Constitution.

I appreciate your thought out reply. Thank you.

 

[LVLAaron]

There was an injunction that applies to FPC members.

There's also a new injunction on force reset triggers.


Please note, the NRA is nowhere on any of this. Send your money somewhere else.

 

[Konocti's Wigwam]

There was an injunction that applies to FPC members.

I am a member of the FPC, they are one of the few folks fighting for us poor folks in California.

Please note, the NRA is nowhere on any of this. Send your money somewhere else

The NRA is the worst. I will never send them another penny. I recommend folks join 2nd Amendment Foundation, FPC and GOA in that order. 2AF has been helping "we the people" longer than any others, IMO. Without Alan Gotlieb we would never be where we are. Still not clear if we'll get a fair shake or not. The 9th district did a boneheaded move in the Duncan v Bonta mag ban case...