ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

drgrant said:
The NFA was never about the tax anyways... the tax was just an additional piece of burden applied and also to give it cover for legality instead of calling it a ban. If it was just about the tax, they would be able to collect it at the dealer and you wouldn't have to wait to get most NFA devices.... it's about being obstructionist.
Click to expand...

Right, because as it says in this notice:

In 1934, Congress passed the NFA in order to regulate certain “gangster” type weapons.4 These weapons were viewed as especially dangerous and unusual, and, as a result, are subject to taxes and are required to be registered with ATF.5 26 U.S.C. 5811, 5821, 5841, 5845. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), recognized these additional constraints as consistent with the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

SBRs are "especially dangerous and unusual." The tax is just one piece of a larger registration/filing burden. I wonder what it would take for them to update the cost of the stamp. That might be next.
 
Yeah, gold is a tough example to apply for a few different reasons, all of which involve manipulation.

And yes, CPI is a complete joke.
 
paul73 said:
huh?
a $4000 house back from 1934 then is today just a $80000? i doubt it. more like a $800000. a zero is lost there.
Click to expand...

Real estate has more to it than just dollar inflation though. The entire product has various forms of inflation added to it. Pretty much every house is overpriced because of gov loans handed out like candy, thats more than just dollar inflation vs durable goods, lets say.
 
drgrant said:
The ATF doesn't get to keep a dollar of that money... it goes to the general fund just like your income taxes.... it's not like civil forfeiture or some s*** like that where the agency gets to keep some of this s*** that it steals. Taxes collected always go back to the mothership.

The NFA was never about the tax anyways... the tax was just an additional piece of burden applied and also to give it cover for legality instead of calling it a ban. If it was just about the tax, they would be able to collect it at the dealer and you wouldn't have to wait to get most NFA devices.... it's about being obstructionist.
Click to expand...
True. NFA tax was designed to be a burdensome price tag. Back in 1930, $200 would have been like $3,500 today.
 
xtry51 said:
At this point, I just assume they use these proposals to create detailed lists of everyone that makes any effort to oppose it so they can later use that list as a priority arrest list for being Domestic Terrorists. Which is exactly why we are now in a shoot first ask questions later world.
Click to expand...

I've been in that world for 25+ years.

I will NOT be disarmed.
 
So, I was looking at page 37, which discusses how the SBA3 is designed to be shouldered.

Apparently “hardened polymer-type material” is a shoulder stock feature. God forbid a stabilizing brace have the stability of a hard plastic.

0F250772-C311-4628-8093-3551311141E8.jpeg
 
Last edited:
PappyM3 said:
0f250772-c311-4628-8093-3551311141e8-jpeg.491018
Click to expand...
(Dig the kewl throwdown AFT Laboratory ruler).
 
jpk said:
Wait.....so a sling mount is now a disqualifying feature?

Does that mean an otherwise legal pistol that someone puts a sling on via alternative means is suddenly an illegal combination?

If yes then face palm.....its dumb on the same scale as a forward grip is a prohibited feature
Click to expand...

I read a fair portion of that document. The entire intent insofar as I can determine is to force me to make a choice from the following options:

1) Declare as SBRs my pistol(s) - Pay a fee and go through an application process that may or may not allow me to retain my previously legally purchased property.

2) Remove the brace(s) and convert my currently quite controllable firearm(s) into a less controllable form.

3) Replace the upper with one that's at least 16 inches long, (including possible brake).

4) Ignore the ATF.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do.

But it's just another case of "the government", in this case the Federal government, coming along and f***ing with me when I was minding my own business. I would have thought that they had better things to do with their time and my money.
 

The Biden administration’s new push to regulate highly popular AR-style pistols could net Uncle Sam billions in new tax revenue and rub out a small industry involved in the production of the firearms. In a newly proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, most owners will have to pay a $200 tax per weapon or radically change it or turn the gun in to be destroyed ....
Click to expand...

.... The Biden administration’s new push to regulate highly popular AR-style pistols could net Uncle Sam billions in new tax revenue and rub out a small industry involved in the production of the firearms. The ATF proposed ruling showed photos of the pistol brace it wants to tax and regulate.
In a newly proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, most owners will have to pay a $200 tax per weapon or radically change it or turn the gun in to be destroyed. And because ATF said it doesn’t expect anyone to give up their guns, the money would roll in if the rule is adopted.

While the agency estimated that there are 3 million to 7 million of the weapons held by Americans, other agencies and media have put the total at potentially 20 million to 40 million guns and regulated parts.
At those levels, the agency’s cash register could collect up to $8 billion in the first year of the new rule if everyone complied.

The 71-page rule signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland would change the classification of the guns popular at ranges and in some hunting circles to a category of “dangerous” weapons and subject to a Al Capone-era rule aimed at ending gangland killings with sawed off shotguns and rifles.
The rule cited just one deadly shooting where an AR pistol was used ....
Click to expand...
 
allen-1 said:
I read a fair portion of that document. The entire intent insofar as I can determine is to force me to make a choice from the following options:

1) Declare as SBRs my pistol(s) - Pay a fee and go through an application process that may or may not allow me to retain my previously legally purchased property.

2) Remove the brace(s) and convert my currently quite controllable firearm(s) into a less controllable form.

3) Replace the upper with one that's at least 16 inches long, (including possible brake).

4) Ignore the ATF.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do.

But it's just another case of "the government", in this case the Federal government, coming along and f***ing with me when I was minding my own business. I would have thought that they had better things to do with their time and my money.
Click to expand...
#4
 
amm5061 said:
They just call it contraband and do the same shit they did with bump stocks in MA.

And if these people actually cared about the constitution, the ATF would not exist.
Click to expand...

We didn’t have a favorable Supreme Court back then. I want to see some of this unconstitutional crap get challenged. We’re seeing it in the lower courts.
 
I still want to know how just about every AR without a brace or stock isn’t considered an SBR out of this. I mean, if I took the brace part off and left the buffer tube, you could still jam it into your shoulder. ?????
 

Similar threads

Atf
Replies
27
Views
703
paul73
paul73
Atf head
Replies
13
Views
578
In God We Trust
In God We Trust
AR15 pistol build brace + 14.5 barrel.. any maximum length legal limits?
2
Replies
32
Views
564
gas000
G
ATF
Replies
5
Views
460
Mountain
Mountain
Is ATF Using AI-Powered Facial Recognition To ID Gun Owners?
2
Replies
31
Views
570
MGnoob
MGnoob
Back
Top Bottom