The Whitehouse is trying to weaponize the ATF to go after law-abiding citizens for no apparent reason. While I have never been a fan of the brace, the ATF is around to enforce laws, not make new ones. Luckily, there are a lot of folks willing to put their foot down on this asinine overreach of power. But this is a prime example of too much government and the left's willingness to strip more rights away from law-abiding citizens or attempt to make them felons.

I guess the do-nothing-democrats are finally doing something...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...tol-brace-rule

https://apnews.com/article/gun-stabi...ed83c3926667ef

Did you have an issue when trump did it or does it only matter to you when democrats do it?

When Trump was president, my NFA attorney never called me out of the blue to inform me that I would be a felon if I possessed such an item and the ATF was working to implement illegal "laws". The ATF tried to do this under Trump and he quickly squashed it about a week later.

If you choose to read into this you will see that I am right and you are...mistaken.

so you didn't have an issue with trump taking the bump stocks, enabling red flag laws AND saying "take the guns first, due process second"

Did you have an issue with that?

I have an issue with anyone that attempts to infringe on the 2nd amendment. FWIW Trump is a born liberal. Has been a lib for the majority of his life. I only like Trump for his entertainment value combined with how much he annoys the left and the establishment. Trump is a New Yorker, so I wouldn't expect him to be a "gun guy". That state is so far out of whack with USAs foundation that I wouldn't expect him to understand. His son Jr gets it though.

But, we are getting sidetracked. Trump is not the president, Biden is. And his admin is the one trying to have the ATF create laws out of thin air and punish law-abiding citizens.

right, biden is doing the same thing that trump did.

It’s within the mandate of the ATF to create or modify regulations that have the power of law. If you’ve got an absolutist perspective like PW and think any law regarding firearms is an infringement of the 2A then we don’t need to discuss that.

I’m not sure I see the big deal if you accept that the ATF can change regulations. They’re not banning them, just treating them like short barrel rifles. If the brace effectively turns these guns into short barrel rifles, even if that wasn’t the intent, it seems reasonable to regulate them the same way.

having shot a thousands of rounds through an AR carbine, and then shooting 500 through an 11.5' braced AR pistol, I can assure you there is a decent difference. The braces make it much more difficult and painful to accurately and quickly put rounds on the target. The buttstock of a rifle helps deal with the physical pain of recoil as well as balancing out the weight distribution, which also helps absorb more recoil.

You can hide them much more easily, they are just a pain to shoulder and shoot if you wanted to do that.


Some people think only congress can make laws. ATF seems like part of the executive branch, where they dont make laws.

I have never heard someone describe 5.56 recoil as painful

ATF doesn't seem like part of the executive branch, it is part of the executive branch.

A long time ago, congress ceded to the executive branch the power to come up with detailed regulations on how to implement vague laws.

I have a bruise on my shoulder. If you try to shoot 200rds in 2 min you are gonna hurt a little bit.

It can be a less functional stock but still be effectively functioning as a stock. I don’t think it helps that some of the ones I’ve seen look like they’re meant to get around the regulation and be used as a shouldered stock should someone choose to.

ATF isn’t making laws, they’re interpreting law. They’re not making a new law about braces. They’re saying that a brace turns a gun into an SBR, which is covered in the NFA.

Potato potato

lol I have never tried that. I did go down to Argentina a decade or so ago and we shot cases each day. Those shots eventually add up to a good bruise

Sounds expensive. Viagra will give you the same outcome for less money, and without the bruising.

I have a viagra script and no they aren’t comparable.

Ok, I'm open to the possibility that I'm totally missing out here.

Meanwhile the Biden nominated Washington DC DAs office doesn't prosecute the vast majority of illegal firearm possession cases brought before it.

It really isn't clear what the Democrats actual goal is given their lax position on enforcing gun laws. Is it to have a nation of tough gun laws that aren't enforced anywhere? Or is it selective politically motivated prosecutions in red states?

Obviously the pro gun lobby is taking advantage of the fact that enough people have fear it is the latter case, to drum up support to achieve their ends.

It could be that people in certain areas do things that will help them get votes in those areas.

All the best

This is a PERFECT example of the inherent danger of shitty laws that are left to run long enough- eventually, nobody bothers to question them in the first place.

When the NFA was being argued in the early 1930s, the intent was to include all 'concealable' weapons under its purview- handguns, being chief among them- but also to control the 'size' of long guns so people didn't just make handguns out of long guns. Due to political pressure, the handgun provisions were removed, but the 'long gun length' provisions, which themselves are entirely logically reliant on handguns being similarly banned, were left in.

There was no 'tactical' reason for restricting these guns. They were restricted because the original intent of the law was to ban handguns, but that was removed, even though the 'long gun length' provisions were left in.

Anyone who makes an argument that they should be banned, please step up here and debate someone who actually knows something about the topic.

Nice post. Didn't realize thats how the SBR fell into the NFA. Always seemed pointless to me

Americans are so stupid.