Millions of gun owners now felons due to ATF ruling?

[Frank Ettin]

....I haven't seen a thread regarding the groundbreaking ruling by the ATF in regards to pistol braces,....

We still haven't seen a, "...groundbreaking ruling by the ATF in regards to pistol braces...."

I'll be coming back to this thread a bit later today. If no one has posted the actual ATF ruling (or a link thereto) by then, I'll close the thread.

 

[SharpDog]

Closest I could come was this article in Ammoland that reported the braces have been discussed in internal meetings by Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services Andrew Graham and the former Department Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services, Curtis W Gilbert. Also, reportedly, a few manufacturers have been fired. There is nothing I can find that is reputed to be in writing on this.

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/le...races-history-of-atf-hostility/#axzz6eprcpGjF

According to USACarry, this is reinforced by reporting my Congressman Matt Gaetz

https://www.usacarry.com/pistol-braces/

Gaetz Calls on ATF to Cease Plans Restricting Arm Brace Usage:

https://gaetz.house.gov/media/hottakespress/gaetz-calls-atf-cease-plans-restricting-arm-brace-usage

 

[KYregular]

It looks like this ban is pointed at certain braces from SB, approving of two of their braces, for the time being. Blades, for example look to be fine, again, for the time being. As well as the SB15 and MPX PSB. I currently have a strike industries blade which I assume is still legal, but only God knows for sure.

 

[KYregular]

This is why people (Guns & Gadgets) shouldn’t create inflammatory YouTube videos when it’s late and they’re tired. The ATF letter they’re citing is more than two years old.

From the Ammoland article, but also mentioned in Guns & Gadget’s second video on this (from last night):


At the rate that the ATF changes its mind, these letters mean nothing. Especially with much more recent information from the honey badger and other cases we have seen. This is an interesting data point, but it is not the ATF suddenly deciding that all pistol braces are illegal.

I tend to agree, the letter is from 2018 and they're just now addressing it? Those reporting should be detailed and precise, and not just say or imply that "all pistols braces are banned" like some people I've seen.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Somehow, over the years, the intent of Congress (to prevent SBR SBS conversion of less restricted long guns under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act to more restricted concealable weapons covered by the universal handgun acts) has gotten lost in the verbiage of 1934 NFA (Title II) and 1968 GCA (Title I).

In my not so humble opinion, converting a weapon sold as a concealable handgun (restricted because concealable) to a less concealable format should not be a crime.

Dang it, I find myself agreeing with Frank Zimring: the federal firearms regulations are poorly written. To the point of being nonsense, in my not so humble opinion.

IF the sticking point is making concealable weapons more restricted AND the weapon was sold as a handgun under all due federal and state regulations on concealable weapons, making it less concealable should not be a crime.

 

[herrwalther]

It is all conjecture at this point. I haven't seen anything solid from the ATF or DOJ saying a pistol brace ban is coming. A video from YT or blog post from ammo land isn't enough evidence either. At this point, a storm may be coming but it isn't on the weather channel and the trees aren't moving yet.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Don't listen to anything that Guns and Gadgets guy says, he blows everything way out of proportion to get views. Always going on about something like it is the end of everything. Dude needs to calm down a bit.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I don't understand how pistol braces were ever legal in the first place, including as some sort of ADA device for disabled persons. (BTW, this thread is the first I've ever heard of that explanation.) A pistol brace is obviously intended to be used as a short shoulder stock. I don't think they should be banned because they can be used on an AR with a longer barrel (i.e. not an SBR) to decrease length of pull for small statured people, but beyond that, I can't see a legal path for them.

Someone mentioned braces and AR pistols as being on thin ice, and I agree. However, I'll add the Mossberg Shockwave to that list. I don't understand how that is not a SBS.

In fact, I'll go even further out on a limb and say the same thing about bump stocks. Those were an obvious attempt at obtaining full auto performance while narrowly remaining inside the line of a semi auto gun. No wonder the left wants to register everything.

Lastly, I'll leave some food for thought. Instead of spending time, money, and energy trying to circumvent well established laws, why not fight those laws in court? We finally have a sympathetic Supreme Court. Now is the time, and don't delay, to get these underlying laws overturned. Congress and the Executive branch have proven they have no intention of relieving us of these laws; the judicial branch is our last option.

 

[SharpDog]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I don't understand how pistol braces were ever legal in the first place, including as some sort of ADA device for disabled persons. (BTW, this thread is the first I've ever heard of that explanation.) A pistol brace is obviously intended to be used as a short shoulder stock. I don't think they should be banned because they can be used on an AR with a longer barrel (i.e. not an SBR) to decrease length of pull for small statured people, but beyond that, I can't see a legal path for them.

Someone mentioned braces and AR pistols as being on thin ice, and I agree. However, I'll add the Mossberg Shockwave to that list. I don't understand how that is not a SBS.

In fact, I'll go even further out on a limb and say the same thing about bump stocks. Those were an obvious attempt at obtaining full auto performance while narrowly remaining inside the line of a semi auto gun. No wonder the left wants to register everything.

Lastly, I'll leave some food for thought. Instead of spending time, money, and energy trying to circumvent well established laws, why not fight those laws in court? We finally have a sympathetic Supreme Court. Now is the time, and don't delay, to get these underlying laws overturned. Congress and the Executive branch have proven they have no intention of relieving us of these laws; the judicial branch is our last option.

On the contrary, my 11.5" Sig P400 which I bought as a pistol complete with brace is only 3" shorter than my16" DDM4 which I bought as a rifle with a stock.

I think the difference is arbitrary. And If I wanted to walk down the street with a larger firearm concealed (which I do not) I have no doubt I could conceal one, say in a guitar case for example. The firearm laws are arbitrary and do not in any way contribute to the safety of our society.

 

[wiscoaster]

Don't listen to anything that Guns and Gadgets guy says, he blows everything way out of proportion to get views. Always going on about something like it is the end of everything. Dude needs to calm down a bit.

You don't know anything about this guy's background. YOU need to calm down a bit.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

You don't know anything about this guy's background. YOU need to calm down a bit.

Don't need to know his background to see that he acts like the sky is falling every time something related to laws and firearms happens. And remember, the more views he gets, the more money he makes.

 

[Tinman357]

DB COOPER::::: So, manufacturing an item, and marketing it in a way that conforms to current established law is circumventing? Got it. How about this. If it is NOT legal, specifically. In writing, and very narrowly spelled out. Then it IS legal. Broadly interpreting laws cuts both ways. It is clearly spelled out in the laws as to what is NOT legal. If that law does not include a specific item or act, then it is legal. I, as an American wouldn't want it any other way. A law making something illegal? better be spelled out in minute detail. No "broad strokes" for me.

Not looking to fight. More or less expressing a different take on the same subject. Peace to all.

 

[CapnMac]

the more views he gets, the more money he makes.

Yeah, get one video per week with >10,000 views (not easy) and AdSense sends you a check after four straight weeks. For $1.38
Until you are pulling in 100K views per week does YT pay anything, and that might be a whopping $400 or $500; about a c-note per week.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No one has posted or linked to a “groundbreaking” ATF ruling. So we’re done.