Jump to content

Any News on the ATF and Braces??

Professor Wheezy

By Professor Wheezy
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2022 at 4:13 PM, Rilo said:

Apparently it’s now delayed till January 

 

It's a pipe dream, but I would love for this case to put the NFA in the cross hairs, personally I believe most of the NFA runs contrary to Bruen and should be ruled unconstitutional, including the entire rule making process being ruled unconstitutional under Bruen, but realistically the court is more likley to entirely ignore the constitutionality question of the NFA or the rule making clause and make a ruling on the scope of the rule making clause powers exclusively removed from the constititional constraints put in place in Bruen on the 2nd, kicking the can down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted

The brace issue is a really touchy thing. Are you going to make them NFA Items? What if NFA Items are restricted in the state that you live in? Are you going to force millions of gun owner to remove and destroy the braces just like bump stocks and it could still be potentially a SBR w/the point system. This is what happens when the anti-gun crowd wants to ban $hit just to ban $hit. It becomes one big mess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2022 at 9:52 PM, ealcala31 said:

The brace issue is a really touchy thing. Are you going to make them NFA Items? What if NFA Items are restricted in the state that you live in? Are you going to force millions of gun owner to remove and destroy the braces just like bump stocks and it could still be potentially a SBR w/the point system. This is what happens when the anti-gun crowd wants to ban $hit just to ban $hit. It becomes one big mess...

 

On the postiive note, it does put the entire NFA and those state bans on the chopping block, IMO fully auto, suppressors, fancy triggers, braces, bump stocks are not inline with Bruen even under the "dangerous and unusual" interpretation when you apply history and tradition of what the founders would have found to be "dangerous and unusual" arms.

 

Ironically the Supreme Court kind of backed themselves into a corner pitting the "dangerous and unusual" interpretation against "common use" against "history and tradition" but they did leave a way out in Bruen that is bound to get interesting "Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are indisputably in “common use” for self-defense today." it would appear to me in the court's opinion, "common use" overides "dangerous and unusual" and even moots history and tradition analogy application.  So the question the court really needs to answer is what is "common use" and if the only reason something is not in "common use" in the US is because it's been wrongfully banned it the first place (like handguns in Heller/Bruen) then can it be deemed to not fall under the "common use" protections of the 2nd at all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted

I am pretty confident something is going to happen, this was an anti-gun move and they will be damned if they retreat on this one to the pro-gun crowd. President Biden is incapable of making his own decisions so the anti-gun 'big dawgs" will drop this on Biden's lap if it becomes a semi/complete failure. And yet again, gun owners will have to deal w/the dog $hit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2022 at 10:28 PM, Flynn said:

 

On the postiive note, it does put the entire NFA and those state bans on the chopping block, IMO fully auto, suppressors, fancy triggers, braces, bump stocks are not inline with Bruen even under the "dangerous and unusual" interpretation when you apply history and tradition of what the founders would have found to be "dangerous and unusual" arms.

 

Ironically the Supreme Court kind of backed themselves into a corner pitting the "dangerous and unusual" interpretation against "common use" against "history and tradition" but they did leave a way out in Bruen that is bound to get interesting "Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are indisputably in “common use” for self-defense today." it would appear to me in the court's opinion, "common use" overides "dangerous and unusual" and even moots history and tradition analogy application.  So the question the court really needs to answer is what is "common use" and if the only reason something is not in "common use" in the US is because it's been wrongfully banned it the first place (like handguns in Heller/Bruen) then can it be deemed to not fall under the "common use" protections of the 2nd at all?

 

JMHO but the only thing I would consider "dangerous and unusual" arms would be WMD's and possibly explosives/grenades etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/29/2022 at 1:10 PM, yurimodin said:

JMHO but the only thing I would consider "dangerous and unusual" arms would be WMD's and possibly explosives/grenades etc

 

I'm with you, devices like grednades are indiscriminately, they are by nature not targeted thus have a collateral danger factor essentially every time making them dangerous, but also not unusual so that is something to factor in, especially seeing as grednades were not outlawed by the founding fathers but did exist at the time, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 12/29/2022 at 1:10 PM, yurimodin said:

JMHO but the only thing I would consider "dangerous and unusual" arms would be WMD's and possibly explosives/grenades etc

 

What about cannons, what is classified as a WMD?

I think they were allowed to own cannons beck then and they encouraged the ships, not just navy, to have them.

They might have pointed that out in the Bruen decision.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted
On 12/29/2022 at 2:08 PM, mab22 said:

Holy COW you could have a cannon and fire it for celebrations!

It starts on the bottom of page 247 https://archive.org/details/sim_hazards-register-of-pennsylvania_1833-10-19_12_16/page/246/mode/2up

 

https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/

There is a cannon and mortar club at the Aurora Sportsmen's Club.    
Folks bring their cannons and fire them on the 600 yd range.  Not just smoke and noise either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/29/2022 at 2:08 PM, mab22 said:

Holy COW you could have a cannon and fire it for celebrations!

It starts on the bottom of page 247 https://archive.org/details/sim_hazards-register-of-pennsylvania_1833-10-19_12_16/page/246/mode/2up

 

https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/

 

Cannons are still legal in most NFA friendly states with a tax stamp purchase.

 

In regard to cannons we open another debate, are they "arms" as covered by the 2nd?  I would argue yes, as they were heavily used for self defense even in the founding period, but that is for the courts to decide down the road.

 

That said the difference between a salute cannon and a projectile cannon is also open for debate.  From my research salute cannons are still legal pretty much everywhere especially black powder ones, so the line is very fuzzy.

 

For years I have wanted to machine out a black powder 12g salute cannon that uses standard shotgun wads for compression for the 4th 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 12/31/2022 at 8:49 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

You need a tax stamp for a cannon? That's nuts.  I know a whole lot of criminals then.  

 

In some cases yes, muzzle loading black powder cannons are exempt, but the projectile itself may require a tax stamp if it carries an explosive charge that is not for signaling or pyrotechnic...  Breach load cannons with modern propellents/shells are likely NFA controlled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
SiliconSorcerer Member

SiliconSorcerer

Posted
Posted

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-new-rule-address-stabilizing-braces-accessories-used-convert

 

Jan. 13th. 

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA). In April 2021, at an event with President Biden, the Attorney General directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to address the issue of stabilizing braces.

“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago. In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”

Since the 1930s, the NFA has imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns. Beyond background checks and serial numbers, those heightened requirements include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers. Often, when pistols are converted to rifles by the use of a stabilizing brace covered by the rule, they have barrels less than 16 inches in length and must comply with the same heightened requirements that apply to short-barreled rifles under the NFA.

The rule goes into effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register. The rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. Other options including removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol or surrendering covered short-barreled rifles to ATF. Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.

On June 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 237,000 comments.

The final rule, as submitted to the Federal Register, can be viewed here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

To learn more about the rulemaking process, please see: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2A4Cook Member

2A4Cook

Posted
Posted
On 1/13/2023 at 4:23 PM, davel501 said:

I do like the idea of a free tax stamp BUT how does this work with the new Illinois law? I don't think I would have to get it engraved because I'm not manufacturing it / changing anything. Would it still be the same gun to Illinois?

Good question, but if you're considering it, you need to get a C&R license, as silly as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...