Gun Talk

[HeloDude]

9 hours ago, M2 said:

Well...shit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-rule-pistol-attachments-boost-gun-safety-us-justice-department-says-2023-01-13/

So it was legal for all these years (it’s already gone and forth in the past) and it’s suddenly not legal, according to a 3-letter bureaucracy, even though there hasn’t been a new law passed to make it not legal.  This will also be overturned, eventually.  In the meantime, just don’t be stupid (ie tell people online that you have it, share pics/videos, etc).

[ClearedHot]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So it was legal for all these years (it’s already gone and forth in the past) and it’s suddenly not legal, according to a 3-letter bureaucracy, even though there hasn’t been a new law passed to make it not legal.  This will also be overturned, eventually.  In the meantime, just don’t be stupid (ie tell people online that you have it, share pics/videos, etc).

Lets the court cases begin.

[FourFans]

18 hours ago, M2 said:

Well...shit.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-rule-pistol-attachments-boost-gun-safety-us-justice-department-says-2023-01-13/

"A stabilizing brace is an attachment to a pistol that functionally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, similar to a sawed-off shotgun. Such weapons are considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal."

Yes, a stabilizing attachment that marginally increases accuracy and drastically decreases concealability of a short range pistol thereby turns said pistol into a sawed off shotgun, the most unstable of all firearms, and somehow increased the "power" to that of a rifle without changing the ammunition, muzzle velocity, or ballistics... 

So these attachments turn a pistol into concealable sawed off shotrifle?

[Smokin]

On the flip side, they have waived the fee for registering a SBR during the implementation.  Chance to modify the pistol into a real SBR for free.  But is that worth telling them that I know a guy that has one?

[M2]

23 minutes ago, Smokin said:

On the flip side, they have waived the fee for registering a SBR during the implementation.  Chance to modify the pistol into a real SBR for free.  But is that worth telling them that I know a guy that has one?

The fee isn't "waived," it's a "forbearance" meaning the ATF isn't collecting it.  Technically, it's still owed.

The firearm also can't be put into a trust unless that amount is paid.  Not sure about if a stock can be later added once it's registered as a SBR. Technically, it could be; but I suspect the ATF will then want their $200 for the pleasure.

Essentially, if a firearm has the surface area to be fired from the shoulder, such as a firearm equipped with a nonadjustable buffer tube, then that will be considered an SBR, basically making every AR-15 pistol an SBR.

Recommend reading the following...

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/01/atf-unveils-pistol-brace-rule-everything-is-an-sbr

[brabus]

11 minutes ago, M2 said:

The fee isn't "waived," it's a "forbearance" meaning the ATF isn't collecting it.  Technically, it's still owed.

The firearm also can't be put into a trust unless that amount is paid.

Are you saying if registering as an individual, they won’t collect the tax stamp fee, but if registering as a trust they will?

Edit: Just did some reading, and the answer is yes to my question above. I also think the trust has lost its luster for me (my current can in jail is individual purchase), so fuck it, thanks for the free SBR ATF!

Edited January 15, 2023 by brabus

[pawnman]

[ClearedHot]

SCOTUS has been very active as of late in particular striking down 2nd amendment restrictions as of late (ask New York), and I expect the trend will continue.  While the Bruen decision doesn't apply to this TF action it does demonstrate the current SCOTUS is willing to jump in and make landmark decisions. 

[brabus]

@pawnman While I agree with the spirit of that cartoon, the reality is the gov knows every time you get a background check. It’s not a secret that M2 has hundreds of guns about to suffer a horrific boat accident. They know who has guns. I’m 100% against an official registry, but let’s not also be naive about the unofficial ways to know who owns guns in this country. If 10% of my stock is NFA, meh.

[M2]

32 minutes ago, brabus said:

@pawnman While I agree with the spirit of that cartoon, the reality is the gov knows every time you get a background check. It’s not a secret that M2 has hundreds of guns about to suffer a horrific boat accident. They know who has guns. I’m 100% against an official registry, but let’s not also be naive about the unofficial ways to know who owns guns in this country. If 10% of my stock is NFA, meh.

First and foremost, concerning the number of guns I allegedly may or may not have....



Secondly, for those of us who live in free states, there are numerous ways to legally obtain firearms without any record. 

The ATF is only notified if a FFL is involved.  Despite the best attempts of the Federal government, there is no documentation needed during private sale between law-abiding citizens in places which respect the Constitution. 

Given that fact, despite having a 4473, the ATF has no means by which they can claim a person still possesses a particular firearm.  As mentioned, it could now be owned by another individual thru a private sale (no bill of sale or 4473 required).  It could also have been lost through the aforementioned nautical mishap.  Many free states do not even require an individual to report the loss or theft of a firearm.  

All those facts are what drive liberals and the Feds crazy, and false claims  these weapons are driving up crime rates are the basis for the hype they are using to convince the uninitiated such measures as registering shoulder stocks are the solution. 

We all know there is no connection between such weapons and crime, and the GCA, FOPA (so conveniently named!) and others are a joke.  Hard evidence proves it, but let's not distract ourselves or anyone else with the facts!

And, of course, it's all misdirected.  Research has proven time and time again such measures do absolutely nothing to reduce crime rates.  Per RAND, the 1994–2004 AWB (another conveniently-named law) there was "inconclusive evidence" for any effect of assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans on mass shootings and violent crime.  A 2017 review also found there was no evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.  A research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons," are rarely used in gun crimes.  The Columbine High School massacre, in which two shooters murdered 13 people, occurred while the ban was in place.

I'll support such gun laws when they target the appropriate people, criminals; not ones that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens!

[brabus]

Guns are like any other investment, you should diversify! Thank you private sales and boat accidents. 

[ClearedHot]

On 12/23/2022 at 2:42 PM, M2 said:

Going to shoot it next week.  I'll let you know...

My current inventory has been asking for a little brother...

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

@pawnman While I agree with the spirit of that cartoon, the reality is the gov knows every time you get a background check. It’s not a secret that M2 has hundreds of guns about to suffer a horrific boat accident. They know who has guns. I’m 100% against an official registry, but let’s not also be naive about the unofficial ways to know who owns guns in this country. If 10% of my stock is NFA, meh.

With private sales still being legal at the federal level, the Feds might know who originally bought the firearm from the manufacturer/dealer, but have no way of knowing if you sold you it to someone else (and so on and so forth), as no records are required to be made/maintained.  This is what is preventing a national registry of firearms not on the NFA list…and it’s why progressives want “100% background checks” (to essentially make a registry).

ETA:  Basically what M2 had already said lol

Edited January 15, 2023 by HeloDude

[brabus]

What I’m trying to say is if you have ever had a background check/bought from an FFL, there is a paper trail of you being a gun owner. Now sure you may have lost that specific firearm, had it stolen, or sold it privately. But, they still know you’re a gun owner as a general statement. There is no hiding it unless 100% of firearms you’ve acquired over your lifetime have been private. 

[HeloDude]

28 minutes ago, brabus said:

What I’m trying to say is if you have ever had a background check/bought from an FFL, there is a paper trail of you being a gun owner. Now sure you may have lost that specific firearm, had it stolen, or sold it privately. But, they still know you’re a gun owner as a general statement. There is no hiding it unless 100% of firearms you’ve acquired over your lifetime have been private. 

At least I have one thing in common with Hunter Biden lol

[Smokin]

22 hours ago, M2 said:

The fee isn't "waived," it's a "forbearance" meaning the ATF isn't collecting it.  Technically, it's still owed.

The firearm also can't be put into a trust unless that amount is paid.  Not sure about if a stock can be later added once it's registered as a SBR. Technically, it could be; but I suspect the ATF will then want their $200 for the pleasure.

Essentially, if a firearm has the surface area to be fired from the shoulder, such as a firearm equipped with a nonadjustable buffer tube, then that will be considered an SBR, basically making every AR-15 pistol an SBR.

Recommend reading the following...

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/01/atf-unveils-pistol-brace-rule-everything-is-an-sbr

Interesting read.  Going to do some more research, but I'm considering the registration route (never thought I'd say that!).  As others have said, I know the feds illegally know I have guns.  The fed's unwillingness to follow their own laws have been extensively documented.  Combine that with google and the credit cards tracking everything and cooperating with the government, I don't stand a chance of not getting a knock on the door if it comes to gun confiscation. 

All that said, I don't think I'm giving much information away that they don't already have for the chance to do basically whatever I want with a weapon that previously identified as a pistol and now identifies as an SBR.  And, if I end up going that route, one more thing to research is when the purchase period cutoff is.  As in, can I go buy 3 more pistols next week and then register them as SBRs for free...

Edited January 16, 2023 by Smokin

[brabus]

 

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

And, if I end up going that route, one more thing to research is when the purchase period cutoff is.  As in, can I go buy 3 more pistols next week and then register them as SBRs for free...

You have 120 days from the ruling to register an SBR without paying the tax. You can only register pistols that were in your possession at time of ruling. So reality is you’re limited by how many lowers you have currently; legally limited by how many of those lowers are currently set up as pistols. 
 

Here are the FAQs from the ATF: 

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

FAQ Final Rule 2021r-08f - Corrected.pdf

Edited January 16, 2023 by M2
Fixed broken link and added attachment - M2

[pawnman]

16 hours ago, brabus said:

What I’m trying to say is if you have ever had a background check/bought from an FFL, there is a paper trail of you being a gun owner. Now sure you may have lost that specific firearm, had it stolen, or sold it privately. But, they still know you’re a gun owner as a general statement. There is no hiding it unless 100% of firearms you’ve acquired over your lifetime have been private. 

There's a record of me owning A gun. That's very different than a registry of every gun I own now or have ever owned. 

I don't think we're too far off from registering guns the way we do cars... every year, for each one you own, and by the way, the state wants a fee for it. 

[brabus]

38 minutes ago, pawnman said:

There's a record of me owning A gun. That's very different than a registry of every gun I own now or have ever owned. 

I don't think we're too far off from registering guns the way we do cars... every year, for each one you own, and by the way, the state wants a fee for it. 

Agreed. And they can go fuck themselves on a registry. Only ones I own are my NFA items!

[HeloDude]

For those who are thinking the ATF is giving you a good deal by allowing you to register your (what was legal/not considered an SBR last week) pistol with a brace without paying the $200 stamp…I strongly suggest you watch this new video.

 

[brabus]

That video is a retarded argument. If you sent a picture of a fully assembled SBR as part of your F1 app (which is absolutely not a requirement) you’re a total idiot. This is fearmongering at its finest; and I say that as a huge proponent of firearms and a massive hater of the NFA.

Edited January 21, 2023 by brabus

[Lawman]

Dark humor is best humor….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smokin]

In no way do I think this is a good deal or benefits me.  I'd be much happier having my pistol as a pistol that theoretically the government doesn't know about.  However, sometimes when the government changes the rules there are ways that people can take advantage of it in an unintended way.  For example, I know individuals that make close to $200K a year as small business owners but have figured out how to legally qualify for subsidized medical insurance under Obamacare.  This was clearly not the intent of the law or rule change, but changes can create unintended consequences.  Perhaps a free SBR stamp and thus the 'freedom' to put full up stocks and whatever I want on it is one of those consequences.

 

However, I do plan on holding out for the majority of the grace period in hopes a judge puts a stop to the nonsense.

[M2]

The panic (substantiated or not) is whether the Fed will use the registry to confiscate AR pistols which they now consider "illegal" SBRs.

I honestly doubt that will be the case, but this entire ordeal has been such a clusterfuck it also wouldn't surprise me.  

I suspect the intent is to "grandfather" AR pistols, but what is an owner suppose to do in the interim? 

Do the math.  During 2022, the ATF processed around 50,000 Form 1s.

The ATF itself estimates three to seven million braces exist   Others estimate put that number to be between 10-40 million!

If only 1 million pistol owners submit a Form 1 to register their braced pistol as an SBR, it would take the ATF ten years to process those applications alone.

Also, "any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute "rifles" under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register" (which hasn't happened, yet).

Ten years (a very conservative estimate) worth of Form 1s in 120 days?!?

As I said, it's a clusterfuck.
 

[brabus]

5 hours ago, M2 said:

The panic (substantiated or not) is whether the Fed will use the registry to confiscate AR pistols which they now consider "illegal" SBRs

But how would they know you have an “illegal” SBR (outside of you taking your pistol to a range and a LEO/ATF walks up and ask for your approved F1)? I fail to see any logic in how this ruling auto makes everyone with an AR pistol somehow on a “registry.”