New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[KellyinAvon]

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

Bumping the draft email for our elected officials in the swamp.

The 1st Amendment has five specified protections. The Founders included "redress of grievances" for a reason.

 

[firecadet613]

Bumping the draft email for our elected officials in the swamp.

The 1st Amendment has five specified protections. The Founders included "redress of grievances" for a reason.

Thanks as always, Kelly! Sent.

 

[bsmithg19]

If you register it, they're not coming after you. This is a way to get people to register guns period. Is it all BS? Yes, but they're not going to arrest you for an illegal SBR because you submit your braced pistol. Not that I have so much trust in big brother, but they can't come after 40 million of us. Literally, they can't.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Save the anger for the swamp folks. Incredibly important topic here, but the thread has to stay on the rails.

 

[bobzilla]

Save the anger for the swamp folks. Incredibly important topic here, but the thread has to stay on the rails.

I'm guessing I didn't make myself clear on that. It wasn't referencing a particular member but us as a whole doing that. Not sure how to word that differently.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm guessing I didn't make myself clear on that. It wasn't referencing a particular member but us as a whole doing that. Not sure how to word that differently.

The ATF has tensions running high. Riding herd over a large group with strong opinions isn't always easy. It's never easy, just sometimes are harder than others.

 

[bobzilla]

The ATF has tensions running high. Riding herd over a large group with strong opinions isn't always easy. It's never easy, just sometimes are harder than others.

I ain't mad. Just trying to let y'all know I wasn't intentionally being a dick.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I ain't mad. Just trying to let y'all know I wasn't intentionally being a dick.

Thanks for reaching out.

 

[KLB]

Bumping the draft email for our elected officials in the swamp.

The 1st Amendment has five specified protections. The Founders included "redress of grievances" for a reason.

If only my Rep would gave a . The only thing he is probably thinking is that all guns should have to be registered and get a stamp.

 

[KellyinAvon]

If only my Rep would gave a . The only thing he is probably thinking is that all guns should have to be registered and get a stamp.

Mrvan the younger?

 

[actaeon277]

Mrvan the younger?

ANY of them up here.

 

[KLB]

Mrvan the younger?

Yep. I sent him one anyway. I'm sure I won't like his response

 

[tackdriver]

You need to get your brain in gear.

There's roughly 40 million 4473s filed per year for the past few years. NO government agency has the man power to pursue anything through those.

But for the special ed kids who decide to send legal proof of a felony crime directly to their door step, they most certainly have the man power to go after those people.

There are no legal guarantees that you won't be prosecuted for mailing them proof of a felony. This is not a law, this is a rule change. This can also be changed at any time by them. They may tell you today that they'll give you amnesty, and after your paper work goes through, change their mind and order for the confiscation/destruction of the firearm, or even decide to hit you with charges.

This is why you should not comply with a rule change.

In the past, things like this were handled by passing a law, and the law included legal protections. You have no legal protections in this instance.

I assure you, my brain is in gear, and the drive train works just fine. I still can't get MY vehicle up this hill. Maybe I need to downshift into "Creeper" gear to follow along. Maybe in creeper gear I can climb this hill with you, but I'm sure not going to get anywhere fast.

First, I said nothing about 4473's. I agree with your point on those. There are far easier ways that an interested agency could compile a list of those who purchased various products. Ever get a recall notice or product safety alert for something you bought? Ever get chump change from some class action lawsuit you didn't even know existed? Those had nothing to do with 4473 or Form 1, but they still found the owners. The "how" could be its own thread, but it's obvious that it is possible.

Second, filing a Form 1 can tell them what I want to do, not what I have done. I haven't gotten to the minute details for this 120 day tax exemption, but people do Form 1's for SBR's all the time, and I don't recall any major news story about them all getting rounded up. I have never been interested in doing a Form 1 or 4 before, so I'm not fully informed yet. If there IS an ACTUAL reason for concern, beyond healthy paranoia, I'll be thankful for the education.

Third, THERE NEVER WAS A LEGAL GUARANTY! The law is what the law is. If you possess a firearm that meets the definition of a SBR, without the proper stamp/paper work, you can be arrested, charged, and convicted. The past ATF rules were just their opinion, or position, on a specific question about braces. They could have rolled anyone up, and argued that the specific use of the brace in that instance fell outside the scope of their published opinion/rule... or, hell, they could argue that the shoes the accused were wearing demonstrated an intent to shoulder the firearm - and the accused still sits in jail waiting on "due process", and still needs to get an attorney etc. If another alphabet soup agency wanted to enough (i.e. had a specific target in their cross hairs), they could have made the argument that a pistol braced firearm was an SBR, and that the ATF rule didn't apply, or was just wrong. The accused still sits in jail. There was NEVER a Get- Out-Of-Jail-Free card just because the ATF published an opinion, and the individual thought it applied to them. Never.

We agree that there is no guarantied legal protection. I'm not even confident that it was legal for the ATF to say "It's okay to commit this felony for the next 120 days, and longer if you file the paperwork". However, I've frequently had to deal with things that are required on one hand, and prohibited on another.

As for the other BS: I don't like it, but they've had my fingerprints for over 35 years. They collected them when I was in the military, they got them again when I got the lifetime LTC, and they've gotten them on a couple other occations. Giving them again won't make a difference. If they can't figure out I'm a gun owner by now, I'm not worried about them anyway.

IF I had the luxury of my own private property to shoot on; AND I had a pistol and a brace aquired from a private seller for cash - THEN I might strongly consider just rolling along without the Form1. Unfortunately, I don't fit either of those. The pistol was purchased at a LGS for cash, and the Brace was bought online, with a CC. The places I'm likely to shoot it are public or club ranges.

The ATF chasing people down and showing up at their homes is not the most likely threat, in my mind. An agent showing up at a range, noticing the braced pistol, then asking to see the paperwork seems FAR more likely to me. A PCC competition would be a great place for them to start - and to send a message. This is what I'm concerned about, and what I need to consider in my case.

The questions are: "Do I think they are coming after those who file this time?"; and "What's my risk if I chose not to file, and continue to possess and use the SBR?" At the moment, I think I'm safe doing the Form 1, as long as I don't yell at the School Board, tell my friends that the COVID vacc. doesn't work, or post online about the election being corrupt.

My thinking may be flawed. I'm open to learn something better, and would actually welcome it. However, none of my reasoning is because my brain is in neutral.

Thanks, and Be Safe!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Ever get a recall notice or product safety alert for something you bought? Ever get chump change from some class action lawsuit you didn't even know existed? Those had nothing to do with 4473 or Form 1, but they still found the owners. The "how" could be its own thread, but it's obvious that it is possible.

Actually the how is pretty simple. For some products they just send out notices to everyone (I recall a few years ago Fruitopia drinks had a class-action for misleading advertisement, I got a card addressed to "current resident" that I filled out and sent back for my chump change)

Most of the time though it's based on warranty registrations with the manufacturer. Did you fill out the card and send it back for the last gun you bought? If yes, then the government can subpoena the manufacture and find out what you own from that.

So you have a valid point, the government will not go after the FFLs and their 4473s, they will go after the dozen or so biggest manufacturers to get the registered owners. Of course most gun manufacturers seem to be mitigating this on their own by putting lifetime warranties on their product (so they don't need to know the date of purchase) and making them transferrable (so they don't need to know the original owner). But if you ever do make to make use of the warranty they have a record that service, but that's a much smaller percentage of total owners.

 

[Hardscrable]

So, a Ruger charger 10/22-add a 16” barrel and all good?

I have a PC Charger with a folding stock. 9mm, takedown, folding stock, extended Glock mags, plus other goodies. I bought it merely for a truck gun. Also we were contemplating an RV in our future and thought might use it there depending on destination. Doesn't take up hardly any room. Built like a tank. Shot it very little. Thought of getting rid of it when all this BS started but didn’t. I don’t really have a use for it much now. It seems now I would need to take off and dispose of the stock and take off the 1913 attachment adapter as the way I understand this is you cannot posses the pistol, the adapter, and the stock even if not attached unless you jump thru the hoops. If I take off the stock & adapter and s**t can them I can keep it as a pistol which I have no use for. OR add the 16” barrel and dispose of brace & adapter. A barrel is $300. The OEM hand guard will not work so would need to buy a different one. Then what I have is a PCC. I already have a top shelf PCC and No need for a second one.

So wait and see if implementation is delayed due to lawsuits to decide and risk an undesirable outcome making me a felon at the last minute. Or jump thru the hoops now. Or I could put it up for sale at a price of zero or a little more. Or I could do nothing, leave it locked up in the safe and let my heirs/estate figure out what to do. Really don’t like any of the options.

**Avoiding public proclamation of my feelings towards ATF and this action***

 

[hotcupofbro]

OK, here's a draft for our swamp-dwellers. Please copy/paste/edit/fix my English/change happy to glad/as needed.

CLEARED HOT!!

Senator/Representative,

I am writing to urge your support in stopping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from making millions of Americans felons overnight with an arbitrary rules change.

With no legislative authority to classify pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR), the BATFE is clearly operating in a manner outside the US Constitution and numerous precedents from the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS.) Keep in mind there are an estimated 40 million of these devices in the United States. This also significantly expands what requires registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

While this is an accessory to a firearm, the words “in common use at the time for lawful purposes” are definitely applicable. They were in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen (2022) decision which cited DC v Heller (2008) and US v Miller (1939) concerning rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment.

Another recent SCOTUS decision which is highly applicable to agencies operating outside of that which is lawful is West Virginia v EPA (2022.) In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).”​

It is particularly sinister that the BATFE would determine these items require registration for the millions of these weapons, after having no problems with them for a decade. Additionally, BATFE gave millions of Americans an option to “Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.” How far is this from requiring registration of all firearms which can have a pistol brace?

We are witnessing an onslaught of infringement on essential rights including that of self-defense. The bureaucracy driven by the NFA of 1934 has created an entity that makes its own rules, changes its own rules, reinterprets its own rules, and answers to no one. The answer to bad government is not more government.

Thank you,

Name

Address

Phone

e-mail

Thanks for making it easy for some of us. I'm firing mine off today.
I'm doing my part!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It seems now I would need to take off and dispose of the stock and take off the 1913 attachment adapter as the way I understand this is you cannot posses the pistol, the adapter, and the stock even if not attached unless you jump thru the hoops.

That seems to be the interpretation the ATF is trying to push on people, but they lack the statutory authority to define a collection of parts as an SBR. Obviously you need to do what you think you need to do to cover your own butt, but I think you are legally in the clear if you just don't have it assembled.

Otherwise we'd all be in a lot of trouble, I'm sure most of us could go through our safes and spare parts boxes to come up with enough parts to assemble an SBR (or an AOW) easily.

 

[bwframe]

Yer commander and chief, speaking today, just came out and said what their long game is (at the 1:20 mark.) This govt/ATF weaponizing is just the beginning of their plan...

 

[tackdriver]

Actually the how is pretty simple. For some products they just send out notices to everyone (I recall a few years ago Fruitopia drinks had a class-action for misleading advertisement, I got a card addressed to "current resident" that I filled out and sent back for my chump change)

Most of the time though it's based on warranty registrations with the manufacturer. Did you fill out the card and send it back for the last gun you bought? If yes, then the government can subpoena the manufacture and find out what you own from that.

So you have a valid point, the government will not go after the FFLs and their 4473s, they will go after the dozen or so biggest manufacturers to get the registered owners. Of course most gun manufacturers seem to be mitigating this on their own by putting lifetime warranties on their product (so they don't need to know the date of purchase) and making them transferrable (so they don't need to know the original owner). But if you ever do make to make use of the warranty they have a record that service, but that's a much smaller percentage of total owners.

I've gotten a number of notices because the Store that sold the items (Jiff and Excederine, come to mind quickly) gave them the info. In a different post I mentioned that the big online retailers for gun related items were the most likely first target for subpeonas.

I try to avoid signing up for anything, warranties included, when I can help it. I also prefer to by from individuals, and prefer cash. It's a deep dive down that topic. But still, sometimes I really want something, and the only reasonable way to get it is buying on line. for parts, the cost and availability difference is just too great.

 

[Hardscrable]

That seems to be the interpretation the ATF is trying to push on people, but they lack the statutory authority to define a collection of parts as an SBR. Obviously you need to do what you think you need to do to cover your own butt, but I think you are legally in the clear if you just don't have it assembled.

Otherwise we'd all be in a lot of trouble, I'm sure most of us could go through our safes and spare parts boxes to come up with enough parts to assemble an SBR (or an AOW) easily.

I need not state how I really feel about this…for several reasons. We are at the moment where we are. We don’t know the future. I have lived my life by analyze the facts, make the best decision you can, design and implement a plan as best you can. You then deal with things as they come. So I think for me: I’m in my 70’s, grew up on farm with depression, WW ll era long guns. Have never not been around guns. Week after getting married in ‘71 I bought 2 new guns, then more, then…fast forward to now. This gun is worthless to me broke down to be legal, bought with function in mind the way I have it.
Why invest more, if I want an SBR at this point it ( and I don’t ) would be a different gun. When I die my heirs will sell everything. I already have items with tax stamps. I have filled out a lot of background checks for a lot purchases, used credit card, online, gun club, nra, INLTCH, Utah, etc…everything that gives up my info for decades. It’s not like Iike they can’t find me some way if they want. So I think best to not wait long but if nothing changes, get in line for the free stamp. Keeps me legal (?) for now. Gives me options in future ( for now ). And something my estate can legally deal with ( for now ).