New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Jackpine Savage on Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:31 am

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced a bill to eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) following a controversial ruling that tightens regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces.

The ATF issued its final rule Friday that will treat guns with stabilizing accessories like short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own under the National Firearms Act.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the ruling enhances public safety, but Gaetz said it unfairly punishes disabled gun owners and veterans who rely on stabilizing braces to be able to fire with one hand.

Gaetz introduced H.R.374, the "Abolish the ATF Act," on Tuesday morning in response to the ruling, telling Fox News Digital it was the "final straw."

More at link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-introduces-abolish-atf-act-ruling-against-stabilizing-braces
User avatar
Jackpine Savage
 
Posts: 1698 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:45 am
Location: west central MN

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby jdege on Thu Jan 19, 2023 10:31 am

Bitter Bastard wrote:
jdege wrote:It's called "constructive possession". And people can and have been prosecuted for the possession of pistols and of stocks or pistol grips that were not attached to the pistol.

As long as there is a legal configuration for the parts, you should generally be OK as far as I know. Such as if you have a brace, which now counts as a stock, and an AR-15 rifle you should be clear from a constructive possession rap. Not a lawyer, not legal advice, but that's my understanding.
My advice is generally to avoid lawyers and the necessity of lawyers. Even winning is expensive.

And while you or I might consider it to be reasonable to have both an AR pistol and an AR rifle, even though simply swapping uppers would create a SBR, the world is full of unreasonable people.

And BATFE refuses to create clear definitions for what is and isn't allowed, because they want to be able to use the ambiguity in court.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4453 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Lumpy on Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:02 pm

I think the scofflaw/civil disobedience route is the way to go. Let's see every person they try to prosecute for a SBR violation demand a full jury trial; that'll really jam the system. Hopefully though the courts or Congress will rescue gun owners before it comes to that.
User avatar
Lumpy
 
Posts: 2688 [View]
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: North of Lowry, West of Penn

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby xd ED on Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:24 pm

Lumpy wrote:I think the scofflaw/civil disobedience route is the way to go. Let's see every person they try to prosecute for a SBR violation demand a full jury trial; that'll really jam the system. Hopefully though the courts or Congress will rescue gun owners before it comes to that.


Test cases are for other people.
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9009 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Jackpine Savage on Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:33 am

Here's a video of a GOA lawyer relating his questions to the ATF at Shot Show. RT 12:08

User avatar
Jackpine Savage
 
Posts: 1698 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:45 am
Location: west central MN

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:08 am

jdege wrote:
Bitter Bastard wrote:
jdege wrote:It's called "constructive possession". And people can and have been prosecuted for the possession of pistols and of stocks or pistol grips that were not attached to the pistol.

As long as there is a legal configuration for the parts, you should generally be OK as far as I know. Such as if you have a brace, which now counts as a stock, and an AR-15 rifle you should be clear from a constructive possession rap. Not a lawyer, not legal advice, but that's my understanding.
My advice is generally to avoid lawyers and the necessity of lawyers. Even winning is expensive.

And while you or I might consider it to be reasonable to have both an AR pistol and an AR rifle, even though simply swapping uppers would create a SBR, the world is full of unreasonable people.

And BATFE refuses to create clear definitions for what is and isn't allowed, because they want to be able to use the ambiguity in court.


By this logic though having a registered SBR and an AR wound constitute the same thing because you could make an SBR with another serial number with just the upper of the one. In fact if we carry this to full fruition, owing a file constitutes the ability and intent to manufacture a full auto.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12467 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Rip Van Winkle on Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:10 pm

Holland&Holland wrote:By this logic though having a registered SBR and an AR wound constitute the same thing because you could make an SBR with another serial number with just the upper of the one. In fact if we carry this to full fruition, owing a file constitutes the ability and intent to manufacture a full auto.

And all they need to convict you is 12 city urban liberal types on the jury, that hate you.
I will never apologize for being an American.
Post 435 Gun Club
North Star Rifle Club
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
48 down, Still in the hunt for a heavy!
President's Hundred (#48 2018)
Certified NRA RSO
User avatar
Rip Van Winkle
 
Posts: 4160 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Unfashionable end of the western spiral arm, Galaxy Milky Way

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:54 pm

Rip Van Winkle wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:By this logic though having a registered SBR and an AR wound constitute the same thing because you could make an SBR with another serial number with just the upper of the one. In fact if we carry this to full fruition, owing a file constitutes the ability and intent to manufacture a full auto.

And all they need to convict you is 12 city urban liberal types on the jury, that hate you.


Well they have that so...
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12467 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Lumpy on Sat Jan 21, 2023 5:43 pm

xd ED wrote:
Lumpy wrote:I think the scofflaw/civil disobedience route is the way to go. Let's see every person they try to prosecute for a SBR violation demand a full jury trial; that'll really jam the system. Hopefully though the courts or Congress will rescue gun owners before it comes to that.


Test cases are for other people.


At this point I'm old and sick enough that prison would be a retirement home.
User avatar
Lumpy
 
Posts: 2688 [View]
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: North of Lowry, West of Penn

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Rowdy Roddy on Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:16 am

jdege wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:
warrlac wrote:My understanding is that an AR-15 pistol without a stabilization brace is simply a pistol.


Unless it isn't. If they can find a picture of someone shouldering it online, then it is an SBR.


Or they find something can be used as a brace in your possession.

It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.


This is incorrect. A brace can be installed on a rifle with a 16" barrel, according the compliance criteria. Therefore they cannot prosecute you for posessing a brace. They also state in the same criteria that a brace must be rendered inoperable. They are contradicting themselves and that will not hold up in court. As long as you also posess a legal rifle, or for that matter the "intent" to build a 16" or greater barreled rifle there is no legal reason that you cannot posess a brace.

Constructive intent is a F'n joke anyway. If you have a 16" rifle and a "legal" pistol you can simply pop the pins and swap the uppers and BOOM, you have an unregistered SBR. Or, since your pistol can retain the 6-position buffer tube you could merely pull the stock off the rifle and install on the pistol. Anybody who wishes to do harm to others isn't going to give 2 s@#!s about whether his firearm is AFT compliant.
Last edited by Rowdy Roddy on Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rowdy Roddy
 
Posts: 185 [View]
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:02 pm
Location: F/M

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Jackpine Savage on Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:51 am

I was listening to Stephen Halbrook the other day and mentioned the Thompson Contender SBR case. I think you're right that constructive intent is garbage and has been shot down already. But the law doesn't seem to mean anything to the jackboots at the AFT.

https://stephenhalbrook.com/thompson/
User avatar
Jackpine Savage
 
Posts: 1698 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:45 am
Location: west central MN

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:07 pm

Rowdy Roddy wrote:
This is incorrect. A brace can be installed on a rifle with a 16" barrel, according the compliance criteria. Therefore they cannot prosecute you for posessing a brace. They also state in the same criteria that a brace must be rendered inoperable. They are contradicting themselves and that will not hold up in court. As long as you also posess a legal rifle, or for that matter the "intent" to build a 16" or greater barreled rifle there is no legal reason that you cannot posess a brace.

Constructive intent is a F'n joke anyway. If you have a 16" rifle and a "legal" pistol you can simply pop the pins and swap the uppers and BOOM, you have an unregistered SBR. Or, since your pistol can retain the 6-position buffer tube you could merely pull the stock off the rifle and install on the pistol. Anybody who wishes to do harm to others isn't going to give 2 s@#!s about whether his firearm is AFT compliant.


So, did you file this legal brief or are you still working on it?
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12467 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Rowdy Roddy on Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:21 pm

Holland&Holland wrote:
Rowdy Roddy wrote:
This is incorrect. A brace can be installed on a rifle with a 16" barrel, according the compliance criteria. Therefore they cannot prosecute you for posessing a brace. They also state in the same criteria that a brace must be rendered inoperable. They are contradicting themselves and that will not hold up in court. As long as you also posess a legal rifle, or for that matter the "intent" to build a 16" or greater barreled rifle there is no legal reason that you cannot posess a brace.

Constructive intent is a F'n joke anyway. If you have a 16" rifle and a "legal" pistol you can simply pop the pins and swap the uppers and BOOM, you have an unregistered SBR. Or, since your pistol can retain the 6-position buffer tube you could merely pull the stock off the rifle and install on the pistol. Anybody who wishes to do harm to others isn't going to give 2 s@#!s about whether his firearm is AFT compliant.


So, did you file this legal brief or are you still working on it?



Were you born an A-hole or did you study the subject?
Rowdy Roddy
 
Posts: 185 [View]
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:02 pm
Location: F/M

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:26 pm

Rowdy Roddy wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:
Rowdy Roddy wrote:
This is incorrect. A brace can be installed on a rifle with a 16" barrel, according the compliance criteria. Therefore they cannot prosecute you for posessing a brace. They also state in the same criteria that a brace must be rendered inoperable. They are contradicting themselves and that will not hold up in court. As long as you also posess a legal rifle, or for that matter the "intent" to build a 16" or greater barreled rifle there is no legal reason that you cannot posess a brace.

Constructive intent is a F'n joke anyway. If you have a 16" rifle and a "legal" pistol you can simply pop the pins and swap the uppers and BOOM, you have an unregistered SBR. Or, since your pistol can retain the 6-position buffer tube you could merely pull the stock off the rifle and install on the pistol. Anybody who wishes to do harm to others isn't going to give 2 s@#!s about whether his firearm is AFT compliant.


So, did you file this legal brief or are you still working on it?



Were you born an A-hole or did you study the subject?


It is an acquired skill. Like playing a lawyer on the interwebs.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12467 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Previous

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron