Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Comfort While Cycling
How much does comfort while cycling influence your overall race performance?
View Results


Home > Forum > Lavender Room > New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces.

Lavender Room

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout
Jan 31, 23 9:19
Post #101 of 157 (1281 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/31/2023-01001/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces


The rule was just published.

Let the lawsuits begin.

I can't see this lasting very long under heavy scrutiny/pressure.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Jan 31, 23 13:19
Post #102 of 157 (1248 views)
At least two lawsuits were filed today.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [Constantine] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
waytooslow
Jan 31, 23 15:36
Post #103 of 157 (1229 views)
** how is it possible for the ATF process millions of “brace applications “ ?.?., once you file and after 88 days of a open back ground check is a automatic disapproval then comes a enforcement action.
Now you have a SBR and you are a criminal.

The above is the gem of this entire thread. The ATF has no ability to process these applications timely. You submit an application and you have incriminated yourself.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [waytooslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Constantine
Jan 31, 23 16:01
Post #104 of 157 (1222 views)
waytooslow wrote:
** how is it possible for the ATF process millions of “brace applications “ ?.?., once you file and after 88 days of a open back ground check is a automatic disapproval then comes a enforcement action.
Now you have a SBR and you are a criminal.

The above is the gem of this entire thread. The ATF has no ability to process these applications timely. You submit an application and you have incriminated yourself.

Don’t not Comply.
5 States don’t allow SBR
Also ATF can’t make Laws
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [waytooslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout
Jan 31, 23 17:15
Post #105 of 157 (1206 views)
waytooslow wrote:
** how is it possible for the ATF process millions of “brace applications “ ?.?., once you file and after 88 days of a open back ground check is a automatic disapproval then comes a enforcement action.
Now you have a SBR and you are a criminal.

The above is the gem of this entire thread. The ATF has no ability to process these applications timely. You submit an application and you have incriminated yourself.

My impression is that you would have to submit the application within 120 days, not that you'd have to have the tax stamp in hand.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tri_yoda
Jan 31, 23 19:52
Post #106 of 157 (1188 views)
Yeeper wrote:
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.

Just curious why you have a problem with a private business controlling the use of firearms on property they control or own? I don't separate "use" from "carrying", carrying is part of overall use, you don't carry unless you are prepared to use it.

Do you feel your right to bear arms supersedes the rights of others to have full control over their property? Like if you went into a business and just started shouting obscenities would you feel it's unfair if they asked you to leave? I would feel like a business having the ability to control firearms (behavior of customers they feel is objectionable or unsafe) is in the same spirit. All the state did is make this easier for businesses to implement by stating the default is "not allowed".
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [tri_yoda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
svennn
Feb 1, 23 6:13
Post #107 of 157 (1157 views)
tri_yoda wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
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.


Just curious why you have a problem with a private business controlling the use of firearms on property they control or own? I don't separate "use" from "carrying", carrying is part of overall use, you don't carry unless you are prepared to use it.

Do you feel your right to bear arms supersedes the rights of others to have full control over their property? Like if you went into a business and just started shouting obscenities would you feel it's unfair if they asked you to leave? I would feel like a business having the ability to control firearms (behavior of customers they feel is objectionable or unsafe) is in the same spirit. All the state did is make this easier for businesses to implement by stating the default is "not allowed".

A private business has every right to control their property. It's generally accepted if they post a sign saying no firearms, then you either don't carry in that establishment or don't enter. The difference here is that the state is saying all business are no carry.

Maryland is doing the same thing as NYS. There is a bill in the senate that essentially makes MD a gun free zone. It's an over reaction to the Bruen decision turning MD into a shall issue state. Lawsuits are prepped and ready if it passes. I'm sure everyone shooting each other in Baltimore will gladly disarm if it passes....
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [tri_yoda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout
Feb 1, 23 8:48
Post #108 of 157 (1141 views)
tri_yoda wrote:
Yeeper wrote:
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.


Just curious why you have a problem with a private business controlling the use of firearms on property they control or own? I don't separate "use" from "carrying", carrying is part of overall use, you don't carry unless you are prepared to use it.

Do you feel your right to bear arms supersedes the rights of others to have full control over their property? Like if you went into a business and just started shouting obscenities would you feel it's unfair if they asked you to leave? I would feel like a business having the ability to control firearms (behavior of customers they feel is objectionable or unsafe) is in the same spirit. All the state did is make this easier for businesses to implement by stating the default is "not allowed".

Which other constitutionally protected rights do you lose upon entering a private business?

That's the likely argument anyway.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 9, 23 16:40
Post #109 of 157 (1032 views)
State of Texas, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Brown vs. BATFE, United States Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach (Director of the BATFE)


This lawsuit was filed today in the 5th Circuit and appears to be the most comprehensive of all the lawsuits filed so far.


Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J-No
Feb 9, 23 17:17
Post #110 of 157 (1026 views)
Thanks for update. Im waiting for now.

I went to a couple shops this weekend. Im not really sure of the process, aside that I need to fill out a form1.

I think there are some photo and fingerprinting involved. And a notary.

Do I need to get the pistol engraved with a new serial number?

I was hoping there was a local shop that could guide me through the transaction for a small fee.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [J-No] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 9, 23 17:34
Post #111 of 157 (1021 views)
I would highly recommend not filing a Form 1 until the 120 days is almost up. The pistol brace rule is going to be stopped by all of the lawsuits.

The easiest thing to do is remove the brace from your pistol and put it somewhere that isn't close to the pistol (maybe even at a friend or relative's house).

Another option would be to remove the upper receiver from your pistol and install a new upper receiver that has a barrel that is 16 inches or longer. It would then be a regular rifle and not subject to this rule.

Your pistol has a serial number and does not need another one.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eb
Feb 9, 23 22:19
Post #112 of 157 (1000 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
I would highly recommend not filing a Form 1 until the 120 days is almost up. The pistol brace rule is going to be stopped by all of the lawsuits.

The easiest thing to do is remove the brace from your pistol and put it somewhere that isn't close to the pistol (maybe even at a friend or relative's house).

Another option would be to remove the upper receiver from your pistol and install a new upper receiver that has a barrel that is 16 inches or longer. It would then be a regular rifle and not subject to this rule.

Your pistol has a serial number and does not need another one.


I'm sure all of this is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 9, 23 23:10
Post #113 of 157 (993 views)
eb wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
I would highly recommend not filing a Form 1 until the 120 days is almost up. The pistol brace rule is going to be stopped by all of the lawsuits.

The easiest thing to do is remove the brace from your pistol and put it somewhere that isn't close to the pistol (maybe even at a friend or relative's house).

Another option would be to remove the upper receiver from your pistol and install a new upper receiver that has a barrel that is 16 inches or longer. It would then be a regular rifle and not subject to this rule.

Your pistol has a serial number and does not need another one.


I'm sure all of this is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended.


If you read what the framers wrote, you would know that all firearms would be allowed to be owned by the people.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
southpaw
Feb 9, 23 23:20
Post #114 of 157 (990 views)
What? That's not at all what the framers wrote.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eb
Feb 10, 23 0:44
Post #115 of 157 (983 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
eb wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
I would highly recommend not filing a Form 1 until the 120 days is almost up. The pistol brace rule is going to be stopped by all of the lawsuits.

The easiest thing to do is remove the brace from your pistol and put it somewhere that isn't close to the pistol (maybe even at a friend or relative's house).

Another option would be to remove the upper receiver from your pistol and install a new upper receiver that has a barrel that is 16 inches or longer. It would then be a regular rifle and not subject to this rule.

Your pistol has a serial number and does not need another one.



I'm sure all of this is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended.



If you read what the framers wrote, you would know that all firearms would be allowed to be owned by the people.

That's absurd, like many of your claims about firearms.

Just for starters, the 2nd Amendment does not mention "firearms". Nor does it support unlimited access to arms.
I'm a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter who is appalled by fetishists like you.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [eb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 10, 23 9:51
Post #116 of 157 (958 views)
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/...the-2nd-amendment/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CArms%E2%80%9D%20comes%20from%20Middle%20English,in%20the%2014th%20Century.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Feb 10, 23 10:07
Post #117 of 157 (950 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/30/what-does-the-word-arms-mean-in-the-2nd-amendment/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CArms%E2%80%9D%20comes%20from%20Middle%20English,in%20the%2014th%20Century.

For example the article has the following quote from George Mason:

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,–yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,–what chance is there for preserving freedom?

But it is obvious that George Mason was flat out wrong here. Personal firearms only hurt freedom in the country.

Just seems odd to point to an article that is basically “hey the founding fathers were wrong, let’s listen to these wrong people.”
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 10, 23 13:43
Post #118 of 157 (929 views)
How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on assault weapon bans?
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [southpaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 10, 23 14:05
Post #119 of 157 (923 views)
southpaw wrote:
What? That's not at all what the framers wrote.


What did they write?
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Feb 11, 23 9:02
Post #120 of 157 (879 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on assault weapon bans?

Ohh, well that question is divorced from history, logic, and law. That is a question of politics.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 11, 23 11:53
Post #121 of 157 (881 views)
What is your opinion on the likelihood of upholding the bans?
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J-No
Feb 12, 23 14:10
Post #122 of 157 (835 views)
Removed the brace from my 9mm “pistol”.

Not going to bother with the pistol buffer tube. Inoperable for now. See how this shakes out.

It’s a 10.5” barrel. May just get a suppressor pinned on there permanently, bringing me to 16”, vs new upper/barrel.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [J-No] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Feb 12, 23 16:50
Post #123 of 157 (821 views)
Just make sure that the brace isn't anywhere near the pistol.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Constantine
May 25, 23 10:06
Post #124 of 157 (606 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
State of Texas, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Brown vs. BATFE, United States Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach (Director of the BATFE)


This lawsuit was filed today in the 5th Circuit and appears to be the most comprehensive of all the lawsuits filed so far.



It worked in the 5th Circuit 💪🏽
More to follow
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s rule from going into effect for the gun owners and groups who filed the lawsuit. The order came shortly before a deadline that would have required people to register stabilizing braces and pay a fee, or remove the braces from their weapons.
Quote Reply
Re: New ATF ruling on Pistol Braces. [Constantine] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh
May 25, 23 10:14
Post #125 of 157 (601 views)
Constantine wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
State of Texas, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Brown vs. BATFE, United States Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach (Director of the BATFE)


This lawsuit was filed today in the 5th Circuit and appears to be the most comprehensive of all the lawsuits filed so far.




It worked in the 5th Circuit 💪🏽
More to follow
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s rule from going into effect for the gun owners and groups who filed the lawsuit. The order came shortly before a deadline that would have required people to register stabilizing braces and pay a fee, or remove the braces from their weapons.

That's the key part of your post. The 5th didn't extend their temporary block beyond those who participated in the lawsuit.
Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Prev Next
Back To ForumPrint Thread

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.