Brace v Stock finalization & enforcement schedules
- Thread starter Gordon
- Start date
LiveLife
Member
Harrel v Raoul was filed in federal district court by SAF, FPC and Illinois State Rifle Association, likely the state arm of NRA - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12527049
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,838
Seems to deal with Illinois infringement, not the batfe brace issue.
LiveLife
Member
Ooops ... darn, posting before morning coffee ...
I meant to link to this post and got wires crossed due to caffeine inadequacy - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...tabilizing-braces.914996/page-2#post-12527068
Lennyjoe
Member
Correct.
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,838
Hopefully this won't be shut down so quickly. As of now there is nothing that stops the batfe from redefining and enforcing the pistol brace et al.Ooops ... darn, posting before morning coffee ...
I meant to link to this post and got wires crossed due to caffeine inadequacy - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...tabilizing-braces.914996/page-2#post-12527068
Elkins45
Member
To actually answer your question, what you pictured seemed to be a standard pistol tube, which is just as legal as it always was if installed on an AR. It would be a no-no if installed on a pistol that doesn’t need a buffer tube to function.
It’s both. Look up the biography of a famous British person and they will refer to them as OBE if they have been knighted. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/awards-and-accreditation/content/103372
mcb
Member
Yeah, that is become an interesting fact in its own right. Hopefully they realize that new rule does not really get them out of the corner they have painted themselves into.
While not defending the govt. but it does take time to get things published into the federal register. With anything concerning the government, it is always "hurry up and wait". I learned that fact right away at 17 years old when I enlisted in the Army and nothing has changed since then.
I noticed that as well, a change in the FAQ's was also pointed out to me. About 2/3rd of the way down the page,
"Q. If I am the registered owner of a NFA item, can someone else shoot my item in my presence?
No. Only Responsible Person(s) listed on the approved registration may have physical or constructive possession of the NFA item."
I would post a screenshot but I'm at work the firewall prevents that.No. Only Responsible Person(s) listed on the approved registration may have physical or constructive possession of the NFA item."
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
Well that's a big change from the past. Please follow up and post a link where you found that. I'll try and search for that as well.
It's in the FAQ section of the eform website, https://eforms.atf.gov/faq. But I should be able to post a screenshot later tonight.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
How will that work, say at Shot Show, where they allow random attendees to shoot NFA items?
This was never an issue before, the ATF was asked and replies were given that as long as you are in close proximity to an individual that is not a prohibited person they could possess/use in your presence that NFA item. Just more flip-flopping of the ATF.
I guess it depends on if that is really the ATF's new position or not. If so then I can't see how they will be able to in the future. Same with ranges that rent machine guns.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
@zdc1775 I'm on the ATF website under the NFA Q&A subheading but cannot find anything relating to a non-registered person handling an NFA item.
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa
dogtown tom
Member
Yeah......thats not true at all and never has been.
Ten minutes watching people shoot machine guns at any gun range tells you that.
Its literally the business plan for https://www.battlefieldvegas.com/
I know that's not been the case before, that's why it stuck out to me, but I also have never actually read through the FAQ's on the eform site before either.
MachIVshooter
Member
They need to have someone with at least a cursory understanding of legalese who can process the language in 18 U.S.C, 26 U.S.C. and 27 CFR redo it pronto.
IANAL, but "possession" has a very specific meaning in law, and it's not as simple as who has it in their hands at a given moment.
American_Fusilier
Member
Looks like the FAQ thing was a mistake, and has been allegedly taken down.
Similar threads
