The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: armoredman on June 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
-
The pistol brace proposed rule is out.
https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download
From what I read here and elsewhere, there is no way the BREN 2 MS or Scorpion in any form other the carbine will could comply with this proposed new rule. This is, emphatically a proposed rule, NOT an active rule. So if you hear people freaking out, remind them - it's not over yet.
In the meantime, I heard of guys with M4geries who bought barrels with a long flash hider added to the 14.5 inch barrels, silver soldered, which made them perfectly legal as rifles as long as they kept the 26 inch overall length. I wonder if Manticore or others will be bringing this out in a rush? It's a fix, of sorts.
Remember, this is a PROPOSED rule only.
-
This document is way to vague and allows the ATF way to much leeway. Here is one line that is just great:
"Accordingly, ATF must evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether a particular firearm configured with a
“stabilizing brace” bears the objective features of a firearm designed and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and is thus subject to the NFA."
Then how the (*$# are we to know if our pistol is still classified as a pistol, the worksheet is also way to vague:
"REAR SURFACE AREA
Device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device 0
Minimized Rear Surface lacking features to discourage shouldering I
Rear Surface useful for shouldering the firearm 2
Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering 3"
Do we have to mount spikes to the buffer tube?
Steve
-
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Am I to understand the Bren 2 MS without a brace remains just a pistol, whereas if you were to add a modular brace that somehow transforms it into an NFA weapon?
Pardon my confusion but the ATFE isn't helping.
-
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Am I to understand the Bren 2 MS without a brace remains just a pistol, whereas if you were to add a modular brace that somehow transforms it into an NFA weapon?
Pardon my confusion but the ATFE isn't helping.
Yes, under this proposal.
-
This is an outrageous overreach by the ATF. I hope everyone here is going to the website and leaving a comment in opposition to this proposed rule change.
-
I’m hearing the submission form is basically a trap because it’s impossible to get under four points. Something like that.
-
Pretty sure the definition of a rifle was passed into law by the US Congress, which means the BATF attempting to rewrite/reinterpret plain text of said law is entirely "arbitrary and capricious" that's also prohibited.
Also, Biden BATF Nominee Chipman allegedly had his gov't-issued weapon stolen and lied to the US Senate about it during his confirmation hearings. :o
"Did Chipman Lose His Weapon While Serving As ATF Agent?
To say that the gun rights community has a less than favorable view of ATF Director nominee David Chipman would be putting it far too mildly. The man is a rabid anti-gunner who has been nominated to serve in a role that will allow him to make every gun owner’s life far more miserable.
It’s a less than ideal situation.
However, there are issues with Chipman that go beyond his personal politics, including allegations that Chipman lost his service firearm while serving as an ATF agent."
Rest at link:
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/06/11/chipman-n46416
-
Here is the link to the comments page. As I said earlier we all need to leave a comment to show how many of us there are that disagree with the path this country is going down. It only takes a few minutes of your time. Please be respectful and follow their guidelines so you comment won't be thrown out.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12176/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces
-
Atlantic Guns here in Md sent out a nice email encouraging folks to comment. They listed some great points to consider:
Possible topics/points to discuss in your comment:
* Be Aware, If you commented in December 2020, that comment will not be applied to this Rule. This is a new rule and will require a new comment.
* Be an individual. No cut and paste, templates Etc.
* Be respectful and professional
* Braces were previously approved by BATFE and then revised multiple times regarding use and configuration. Advisories were issued after these discussions.
* Over 3 Million braces sold and in the possession of American citizens. These citizens purchased these items under the premise that these were approved by BATFE. There was no legal issue owning and using these products. Hence the numbers in circulation today.
* This will make criminals out of millions of citizens with this implementation
* Possibility to criminalize the manufacturers of other products relating to these ex: large pistols if worksheets are incorrectly submitted seems a bit much
* How does this affect the Disabled Veterans for which these braces were originally intended for?
* Vague overall. Too much room for varied interpretation
* Burdensome regarding enforcement and implementation
* Appears to be a large scale tax and registration campaign
* Please help comment and get the numbers up
-
The wording of the proposed rule is deliberately impossible to follow. Low hanging fruit and such - it worked with the bump fire stock ban, so they expand. I don't know what will happen with this one, I really don't.
-
The wording of the proposed rule is deliberately impossible to follow. Low hanging fruit and such - it worked with the bump fire stock ban, so they expand. I don't know what will happen with this one, I really don't.
A Federal Court reversed Bump Stock Ban -- but still working through system I think: https://www.gunowners.org/victory-court-rules-a-bump-stock-is-not-a-machine-gun/
-
The wording of the proposed rule is deliberately impossible to follow. Low hanging fruit and such - it worked with the bump fire stock ban, so they expand. I don't know what will happen with this one, I really don't.
A Federal Court reversed Bump Stock Ban -- but still working through system I think: https://www.gunowners.org/victory-court-rules-a-bump-stock-is-not-a-machine-gun/
Yeah, I believe Guns and Gadgets on YouTube had a video on the bumpstock situation a little while back too.
-
BATmen! ::)
The otherwise unemployable, in search of a cause! :-[