MNGunTalk.com

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/feds-finalize-tighter-regulations-on-gun-stabilizing-braces/ar-AA16ktlC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ENTPHB&cvid=470501a9c53a4421b9903c2a4b3d5744
It was only a matter of time but not quite sure what a person is going to have to do if you already own them.

Now we know how they felt in 1934.

Not have read the article , is not an AR with a brace sold as a pistol? I’m guessing the possession of a brace will be a problem.

I hope everyone here is donating to SAF or other groups filing lawsuits against the ATF. With the recent Supreme Court precedent reining in bureaucrats from making law I’m somewhat optimistic.

Sorcerer wrote:Not have read the article , is not an AR with a brace sold as a pistol? I’m guessing the possession of a brace will be a problem.

Not any longer, per the ATF it is now an SBR and was sold illegally, that is the awesome thing about a non-elected set of overlords, they get to make any rules they want. Welcome to socialism!!!!

As far as I can tell you're fine if you simply take the brace off.

And it may take a few years winding its way through the courts but I'm pretty sure this will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional on one or more grounds.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this part of the announcement:



First paragraph suggests disabled individuals can continue to use some braces but not others? Are they planning to evaluate all of them being produced in 120 days so people don’t destroy something they can continue to use?

Ben Rust was nice enough to share a lot of good info.
https://www.facebook.com/minnesotaguntrustlawyer/

I was listening to Matt Goetz on a Tim Pool podcast. Someone asked Goetz about this ATF BS rule. He mentioned that as part of concessions to elect McCarthy they have revived the Holman Rule. It sounds like the ATF will be getting a visit from some House members.

It will be interesting to see if this gets rescinded.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2023/01/house-republicans-introduce-plans-to-revive-holman-rule-in-congress/

House Republicans recommended reinstating the “Holman rule,” a provision that lets lawmakers offer amendments that would make changes to federal agency and personnel functions during the appropriations process. Those changes can include, notably, reductions to federal employees’ salaries, as well as reductions to staffing numbers at agencies.

One thing we need to do is to let our politicians know what we think of this, even the worthless Democrats, as loudly and persistently as possible. Give them facts such as the rule is 260+ pages long, people bought guns from companies such as S&W that are suddenly illegal, and that it's going to create tens of thousands of felons just because many will have no idea that the ATF 'made a rule'. I remember the ATF was forced to pull a rule in the past, I think it was over M855.

Does anyone know if a pistol listed in a trust will also require fingerprints from each trust member (I can't remember if my first sbrs did or it was only for cans)?
I see the $200 "tax" will be waived under certain restrictions

Edit. After looking at form 1 stuff it appears fingerprints are required from each member of a trust

Truth is these braces are being used as stocks, and these "pistols" really are SBRs. The ATF screwed up when they approved them in the first place, and now they're trying to fix it.

But this is the wrong fix.

The barrel length restriction is a historical accident that made sense only in the early drafts of the NRA bill, when handguns we're still included. But handguns were removed from the bill before it passed, and the barrel length limitations should have been removed at the same time.

Remember, the SBR cutoff used to be 18", just like shotguns. Then the CMP sold millions of M1 Carbines to civilian shooters all over the country, and only after realized that they were SBRs and we're covered by the NRA. The fix then was to change the law.

The fix now is to change the law - removing SBSs and SBRs from the NRA. And we should probably remove suppressors at the same time.

Truth is that the anti-gun crowd could probably get a pretty significant bill through, if they bundled it with this kind of NFA fix. But they're too stupid to realize it.

gun_fan111v2 wrote:I am still trying to wrap my mind around this part of the announcement:



First paragraph suggests disabled individuals can continue to use some braces but not others? Are they planning to evaluate all of them being produced in 120 days so people don’t destroy something they can continue to use?

Let me simplify if for you, it depends on if they like you or not. Hunter Biden? No issue, you? Good luck.

Has this regulation been published yet? I understood that it was going to be published to the Federal Register last week. Was it?

If not I wonder whether some of the identified "problems" with it might be the reason...?