I'd operate under the idea that the Youtuber is referencing "b" but potentially it could be ''d'' as well.

Sure, there are organizations that advocate for gun regulation and control. But I imagine that their total expenditures is a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of what the manufacture and sales of guns makes, if that.

I just found it funny (and revealing) that the youtuber called these organizations an "industry."

Maybe a case of the pot calling the kettle black ...

The organizations you listed are not for-profit and aren't creating anything of value. Referring to them as an, "industry" is just projecting.

You wouldn't associate a "lobbying group" with "any general business activity or commercial enterprise?" That seems pretty disingenuous.

The organizations you listed are not for-profit and aren't creating anything of value. Referring to them as an, "industry" is just projecting.

So, you wouldn't consider the NRA part of the gun industry?

501 C 4, the NRA. 501 C 3, the financially embroiled BLM organization. Social influencers getting streaming revenue will get a sole proprietor or self employed 1099.

You all are intentionally being dicks.

The gun industry (makers), the airline industry (plane mfg's and airlines), beverage industry (Coke) have donations on file to political groups with those tax filings.

The break in the chain here is the lack of a profit motive when talking about your citizen groups like MADD. MADD doesn't have a product they're selling. AKA, they don't have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Folks can successfully argue that industry is a part of climate action, people sell renewables tech and people buy it. You cannot do that with the NRA or an anti-gun group, they don't sell guns.

So.......here's how this works:

Product for sale by company (industry) -> influence via money -> lobbying group -> policy makers (conflict of interest is profit motive)
Community action -> influence via money -> lobbying group -> policy makers

If you think you can just keep saying something to try to make it true, you're stupid as fuck. So, keep saying that it's an "industry". It's not, and you look stupid for continuing to try to peddle that nonsense.

If you want to argue industry with information or opinions you're going to have to target Fox, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and the profit centers for the peddling of *(mis) information.

The parents that sued after Sandy Hook............not part of a profit center.

Got it?

501 C 4, the NRA. 501 C 3, the financially embroiled BLM organization. Social influencers getting streaming revenue will get a sole proprietor or self employed 1099.

You all are intentionally being dicks.

The gun industry (makers), the airline industry (plane mfg's and airlines), beverage industry (Coke) have donations on file to political groups with those tax filings.

The break in the chain here is the lack of a profit motive when talking about your citizen groups like MADD. MADD doesn't have a product they're selling. AKA, they don't have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Folks can successfully argue that industry is a part of climate action, people sell renewables tech and people buy it. You cannot do that with the NRA or an anti-gun group, they don't sell guns.

So.......here's how this works:

Product for sale by company (industry) -> influence via money -> lobbying group -> policy makers (conflict of interest is profit motive)
Community action -> influence via money -> lobbying group -> policy makers

If you think you can just keep saying something to try to make it true, you're stupid as fuck. So, keep saying that it's an "industry". It's not, and you look stupid for continuing to try to peddle that nonsense.

If you want to argue industry with information or opinions you're going to have to target Fox, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and the profit centers for the peddling of *(mis) information.

The parents that sued after Sandy Hook............not part of a profit center.

Got it?

Ok, so it's fair to say then that your disagreement with the Youtubers video regarding the recent ATF ruling primarily comes down to his use of the word "industry?" And that otherwise you think what he says makes sense regarding the recent ATF ruling?

I'm not really sure I'm invested enough to have a strong opinion on the ATF ruling. Certainly there are all kinds of regulatory bodies that make rules that don't have to be codified into law to exist. I'm not sure why he is so hung up on that point.

You didn't ask me my stance on guns, but I'll give it anyway so you don't have to lump me in with others. I fully support the 2nd amendment and the right to own guns. I grew up around guns, hunting and clay pigeons mostly. I still own several guns, but haven't fired one in decades. If my FIL dies before I do, I will suddenly own 100s of guns. I don't possess the romantic affection for guns that some have and have trouble understanding it. That's ok. I'm sure many people don't understand how I can have an affection for bicycles.

What I do have a problem with is the kneejerk reaction to any kind of legislation on guns. That's the category I put this video in. I don't think he really cares handicapped users. I don't think he really cares about the rule vs. law issue. I don't think he really cares about people suddenly becoming felons. I don't think he really cares that they are using the definition of amnesty incorrectly. At the risk of overusing the the word, I think these arguments are all disingenuous, just like referring to the anti-gun lobby as an industry. Without knowing anything about the guy beyond this video, I suspect this guy would oppose any new gun regulations. It sounds to me like he is using his legal expertise to make his opposition to this rule sound noble.

This is all just my opinion. Feel free to feel differently. As I said above, I'm not really invested enough in this issue to get into a long debate about it.

Thom wrote:

I don't think he really cares handicapped users. Definitely agree with you. It's an absurd argument.
I don't think he really cares about the rule vs. law issue. I think the main concern is what other rules could be made to chip away at 2a protections. Does this rule open pandoras box of other rules? Too soon to tell.
I don't think he really cares about people suddenly becoming felons. This is personally concerning. A legal action, and possession of a legal object (at the time of its purchase) suddenly becomes a felony with a simple rule change.
I don't think he really cares that they are using the definition of amnesty incorrectly. It has a rather aggressive connotation IMO for people who were within the law in their actions.

I do think there are reasons to be concerned about this rule change even though I fully admit that the "pistol brace" is a laughable work around to avoid the tax stamp and regulation associated with short barrel rifles.

We have to tighten things up where possible. I have no issue other than them circumventing the proper channels (if that’s what happened). $200 seems steep. Make people pay if they already have one and for new ones.

Personally I have a bigger issue with what NYS just did basically making large areas all a “safe space” and in order to carry or exercise you’re constitutionally protected right then the business must specifically put a state approved sign in front saying they allow concealed carry weapons. Otherwise, no sign means no carry. This is an issue to me.

In good news, NYS makes re-registering your permit every 3 years now instead of 5. And in certain areas you must take a course.

People are pissed, but this is the bare minimum as far as I’m concerned. Actually, this isn’t even the bare minimum but that’s just my opinion as a non-carrying CCW holder.

I've read that the $200 NFA stamp is waived so long as you register during the 120 day amnesty period.

Edit: There are a few of ways to looks at this:

1. This is bullshit that a previously legal item will make owners felons overnight. Government overreach! They want to register so they have a database of pistol braces owners. Fuck the ATF!

or

2. 99% of pistol brace users got the brace to not pay the $200 stamp and avoid the hassle etc to form 1 their firearm and register their pistol as a short barreled rifle. The ATF just gave everyone $200 discount to SBR their braced pistol! This is a huge win! Thanks, ATF!

or

3. A little of both.

Not a gun expert, but what is the big advantage to a SBR?


For civilian use.

NTF?

Do you mean National Firearms Act?

Do think the pistol brace is really a work around to SBR? People bought AR pistols well before there were pistol braces. I've never shot an AR pistol, but they had buffer tubes you could rest against you shoulder. Do they have significantly more kick than an ar15 rifle? I suspect they were not uncomfortable to shot, Probably more comfortable than a lot of 30 cal. rifles.

I missed that the $200 was waived. I don't believe your statement that 99% of pistol brace owners got the brace to avoid the tax. AR pistols were very popular before pistol braces were sold. They are a fairly new item being invented in 2012.

Yes, I 100% believe that the brace was a thinly veiled "stock" for a short barreled AR.

As you know, shooting an AR pistol with the "brace" against your shoulder has been, by some interpretations, illegal, because the moment it's shouldered, the brace is a stock and it immediately is an unregistered SBR, which is a felony offense. Does shooting a rifle or shotgun without shouldering it immediately convert the object into a pistol?

ATF has been inconsistent and flip flopping on this issue with conflicting information for years. It's a mess.

I've read it in a couple of locations that the $200 be waived (other places have doubts that the Federal Government would miss a chance for cash), but we might have to wait until the details will emerge until December. (maybe... this was supposed to happen on Aug 1)

As far as the 99%, I admittedly pulled that out of my ass based upon my interactions with those that have them and use them.

The brace was originally conceptualized (maybe?) or under the guise of (maybe more correctly?) to aid one handed shooting for those with a disability. This is exceptionally rare.

And sure there are some advantages that a pistol has that a SBR doesn't (depending upon the requirements), for example:
-you can have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, but you can't a rifle (short barrel or otherwise)
-you can cross state lines with a pistol, but you must notify the ATF if you want to travel across state lines with a SBR (or other NFA firearm/item)
-hunting regulations (not touching that one)

But, come on, there is a reason why so many braces look like stocks... and there is a reason the ATF has been flip flopping on how it is used (shouldering it vs forearm brace) doesn't change the design or classification.

Is your experience different?