• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

KBCraig said:
The legislative history of the NFA makes it clear that the intent was to ban through taxation. The inflation-adjusted $200 tax from 1934 would be roughly $4,400 today for every SBS, SBR, and silencer. Same for automatics, except the 1986 Hughes Amendment to FOPA already drove the price through the roof by banning (not taxing, but actually banning) all new machine guns for the civilian market.

That was the first ever actual gun ban under federal law, so it doesn't survive "history and tradition" under Bruen. That will be a law suit for a different day, but I'm sure there are several litigants lined up and waiting.

As has been pointed out, NFA'34 started out as a handgun ban (through taxation, because they knew they couldn't actually ban guns). SBS/SBR were added only because it's relatively easy to cut down a rifle/shotgun to make it "concealable" like a handgun... but handguns were dropped from the law because that was politically untenable.

For reasons of political insanity, SBR/SBS stayed in the law for no logical reason. Even a cut-down rifle/shotgun is less concealable than an actual handgun, but... politicians generally know nothing about the things they're trying to ban.
Click to expand...
The major target of the NFA was definitely machine guns following crime during Prohibition, the highly publicized St. Valetine's Day Massacre and the years of activity from Depression era gangsters. Donks didn't have a clear majority of both houses and the Presidency until 1933.

Why putting a stock on a gun with a barrel that is under 16 or 18 inches requires registration hasn't made sense for decades, the Democrats are an anti-gun party and have been since their inception, but the Republican party hasn't had any interest on rolling back gun regulations since got the house back in 1994 even when there was a Republican president.

I would rather have the courts strike down the silly parts of the NFA act because if the GOP did de-regulate SBR/SBS/Suppressors the Donks would just outright ban them in a future law once they took power.
 
KBCraig said:
The legislative history of the NFA makes it clear that the intent was to ban through taxation. The inflation-adjusted $200 tax from 1934 would be roughly $4,400 today for every SBS, SBR, and silencer. Same for automatics, except the 1986 Hughes Amendment to FOPA already drove the price through the roof by banning (not taxing, but actually banning) all new machine guns for the civilian market.

That was the first ever actual gun ban under federal law, so it doesn't survive "history and tradition" under Bruen. That will be a law suit for a different day, but I'm sure there are several litigants lined up and waiting.

As has been pointed out, NFA'34 started out as a handgun ban (through taxation, because they knew they couldn't actually ban guns). SBS/SBR were added only because it's relatively easy to cut down a rifle/shotgun to make it "concealable" like a handgun... but handguns were dropped from the law because that was politically untenable.

For reasons of political insanity, SBR/SBS stayed in the law for no logical reason. Even a cut-down rifle/shotgun is less concealable than an actual handgun, but... politicians generally know nothing about the things they're trying to ban.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the history and certainly what you say on intent makes sense. BUT the intent isn't in the law and it doesn't suit their needs so the argument will be on what the law says, not what scholars say the intent was. They will have to counter the law, as written and as practiced, not what was in the minds of legislatures when proposing the law. We can all "know" what was intended, but what the law says is what needs to be argued.
 
42! said:
I'm aware of the history and certainly what you say on intent makes sense. BUT the intent isn't in the law and it doesn't suit their needs so the argument will be on what the law says, not what scholars say the intent was. They will have to counter the law, as written and as practiced, not what was in the minds of legislatures when proposing the law. We can all "know" what was intended, but what the law says is what needs to be argued.
Click to expand...
The Congressional Record of debates is frequently considered by the courts (and smart lawyers include it and cite to it).

The Bruen standard of history and tradition is great, but intent is also important in the arguments.
 
papers.ssrn.com

Schrodingerâs Gat: A Paradox of Regulatory Definitions in Which Pistols Can Be Rifles, and a Piece of Raw Material Can Be a Receiver

“Playing with guns is dangerous.” While that sort of prudent statement evokes an image of someone negligently firing a carelessly handled gun, fewer people conj
papers.ssrn.com

I only skimmed it…long and deep. But I liked the “Schrödinger’s Gat” title 😜

“The Receiver Regulation is facing challenges in the courts, and the preliminary injunction the plaintiffs have won signals that the Receiver Regulation will be struck down on the merits, with the court calling the ATF’s expansion of the “frame or receiver” definition facially unlawful.275 The gun community anxiously awaits the final evolution of the Brace Regulation. Without substantial modification, these regulations are likely to destabilize the landscape of firearms law more than the underlying issues they were meant to address.“
 
You guys are funny, like the constitution, and the rule of law mean anything, if you’re a citizen of said country. Then you just boned.

I have a registered SBR preban (1994) lower, with the register dropping the auto sear in it. I’m trying to figure out how to attach a bump stock and a pistol brace at the same time.

Why has no one made a pistol brace that is a bump stock?

All right, I’m gonna send a determination letter right now to the atf right now….

Keep in mind, that letter only protects the person who submitted it..

Do you see what I’m getting at here, no matter what you do it’s illegal.
I’m already at $400 before I register the brace or bump stock.

The interesting thing is, it wouldn’t be a “assault weapon“…

The government giving us all a big circle jerk.
 
I think I just invented a “shoulder bump brace”

It’s definitely gonna have to have that thing that goes up
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
526
1919FAN
1919FAN
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
4
Views
131
Twigg
Twigg
Smith and wesson website issues
Replies
23
Views
356
M1911
M1911
Glock 21 MOS Gen 5 FTF issues
Replies
23
Views
485
Cuz
Cuz
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
983
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom