testtest

Has there been an update on Pistol brace??

M

Magnum50

Elite
I was talking with a new gun shop owner, opened up a year ago, but just found out about the place. Nice little family-owned shop, hidden away. Great guy, fellow 1911 lover like me. Anyway, we talked for about 2 hours and he mentioned that a Federal Judge has ruled the pistol brace rule has been grandfathered in. Meaning you can't buy a new one without the stamp BUT if you had it before then you don't need the stamp.

I have 6 of them locked in my safe waiting for the day they can be free again. lol

BUT I can't find that ruling anywhere, anyone know anything about it? Thanks.
 
There's definitely zero grandfather clause for pistol braced firearms. There was an amnesty period to register your braced pistols as tax stamped SBR's but that has since past.

Hopefully Scotus will overturn the brace rule sooner than later.
 
Like @10mmLife states, no grandfathering that I'm aware of, only the limited amnesty program (have to register with ATF but no $200 tax stamp fee), that expired a few months back (I believe end of May or June of 2023 maybe). There are several injunctions issued by the courts (5th circuit, and I think a federal court in Texas), that put a hold on this ATF Pistol Brace ruling, but only for those that brought the suits to the courts (the Plaintiffs, and several 2A organizations (SAF (Second Amendment Foundation), GOA (Gun Owners of America), and FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition), (NRA lost their court case for an injunction, not sure if they brought another one forward since)). Members of the winning 2A organizations (either before the rulings or joining these organizations now, as I've read in several articles), are said to be covered by these injunctions. I'm a member of all three (plus a lifetime NRA member if they are successful in the future). Like you, I had many pistol braced firearms and decided to follow the ATF instructions for removal of said brace BEFORE the amnesty program ended. From my understanding of the ATF ruling, firearms with braces still attached and not registered during the Amnesty program (or afterwards paying the $200 Tax Stamp) would be classified as non registered SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles), and be a felony if discovered to be owned by an individual. I'm not a lawyer, so interpretation of these ruling should be discussed with an attorney that has firearm expertise especially with this ruling. That said, even though I appear to be covered by these injunctions, I didn't feel it would be safe to rely on this if I misinterpreted who's covered, or if higher courts threw out the injunctions altogether. Like mentioned in prior posts, this will most likely have to get to SCOTUS for a final judgement.
 
On 8/1/23 the 5th circuit court of appeals extended the injunction including their opinion that it was unconstitutional.

The panel voted 2-1 to extend the block on enforcement for 60 days and send the case back to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas. The 5th Circuit agreed to fast-track the government's appeal but rejected the government's plea to put O'Connor's ruling on hold, although it did limit his ruling to the parts of the rule that the manufacturers and sellers had specifically challenged.

Judge Reed O'Connor has scheduled a motion hearing for 10/2/23 re National Assoc. for Gun Rights vs Garland. Hopefully, he will be announcing his ruling to block enforcement of the ban nationwide. One way or another, it looks like we could know a lot more next week.
 
Pro Digy II said:
My understanding is FPC Members are supposed to be protected for now:
According to the Judge in our pistol brace lawsuit, FPC members are covered by the injunction.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of talk of supposed to be covered. I would be smart and not assume that because you’re a member of one of the many organizations that filed suit that you are home free. The whole thing has the scent of urban myth. Just my.02.
 
(Duke Center for Firearms Law- Assault Weapons Ban of 2022)

“The definition section includes not only features or components that bring a weapon under the ban, but also long lists of specifically-prohibited and exempt gun models...the bill also contains a grandfather clause saying that the prohibition “shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022.” At the same time, the bill provides that grandfathered weapons already in circulation can be sold only by including a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in the transaction; the FFL must take physical custody of the weapon and conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser”
 
Area52 said:
(Duke Center for Firearms Law- Assault Weapons Ban of 2022)

“The definition section includes not only features or components that bring a weapon under the ban, but also long lists of specifically-prohibited and exempt gun models...the bill also contains a grandfather clause saying that the prohibition “shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022.” At the same time, the bill provides that grandfathered weapons already in circulation can be sold only by including a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in the transaction; the FFL must take physical custody of the weapon and conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser”
Click to expand...
What does this relate to. It says Assault Weapon Ban. That’s not the same as the Brace ruling.
 
No disrespect ment but if he had time to talk for two hours he’s probably not going to be in business last year 2. Roy Huntington sis a great podcast on that. Obviously I hope your shop is successfully .

 
Area52 said:
(Duke Center for Firearms Law- Assault Weapons Ban of 2022)

“The definition section includes not only features or components that bring a weapon under the ban, but also long lists of specifically-prohibited and exempt gun models...the bill also contains a grandfather clause saying that the prohibition “shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022.” At the same time, the bill provides that grandfathered weapons already in circulation can be sold only by including a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in the transaction; the FFL must take physical custody of the weapon and conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser”
Click to expand...
That has to be some state assault weapons ban. There was no such federal law.
 
SimonRL said:
There’s a lot of talk of supposed to be covered. I would be smart and not assume that because you’re a member of one of the many organizations that filed suit that you are home free. The whole thing has the scent of urban myth. Just my.02.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, the brace doesn't apply to me despite being an FPC (and GOA) member, but better safe than sorry. That being said, they did have this in writing from the judge. But I hear you, trust no-one
 
Pro Digy II said:
Oh sure, the brace doesn't apply to me despite being an FPC (and GOA) member, but better safe than sorry. That being said, they did have this in writing from the judge. But I hear you, trust no-one
Click to expand...
I suspect they won't be going too far to enforce it on anyone, yet. They have no way of knowing who belongs to any of the groups the injunction covers ( which is more than just the GOA incidentally).
 
“The definition section includes not only features or components that bring a weapon under the ban,..”

The confusion or question was about “grandfathering” in the original post.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is that in how the AWB now defines pistols (w/arm braces - a feature/component) to be SBR‘s. Unattached arm braces are not banned and can still be sold, but if left attached/equipped is the catch thats causing the quandary.

If by definition, the ATF new AB rule (post AWB) seems to correspond with the AWB, the exception of applying for a stamp or removing the arm brace.

Yes, there are local bans too that are modeled after the AWB and ATF rules, and political pressure.

As for the ATF AB new rule, it was 5th Circuit that determined recently that ATF did not give ample time to notify the public of the new rule and violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and therefore making the new rule invalid. The 5th Circuit didn’t block the new rule but sent back to the Fort Worth court where I believe the FPC 2A suit was initially filed.

I think the confusion was intentional by DOJ design, not only by the 2A but Congress as well.
 
Area52 said:
“The definition section includes not only features or components that bring a weapon under the ban,..”

The confusion or question was about “grandfathering” in the original post.

Perhaps the misunderstanding is that in how the AWB now defines pistols (w/arm braces - a feature/component) to be SBR‘s. Unattached arm braces are not banned and can still be sold, but if left attached/equipped is the catch thats causing the quandary.

If by definition, the ATF new AB rule (post AWB) seems to correspond with the AWB, the exception of applying for a stamp or removing the arm brace.

Yes, there are local bans too that are modeled after the AWB and ATF rules, and political pressure.

As for the ATF AB new rule, it was 5th Circuit that determined recently that ATF did not give ample time to notify the public of the new rule and violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and therefore making the new rule invalid. The 5th Circuit didn’t block the new rule but sent back to the Fort Worth court where I believe the FPC 2A suit was initially filed.

I think the confusion was intentional by DOJ design, not only by the 2A but Congress as well.
Click to expand...
What AWB ?
 
Bassbob said:
I suspect they won't be going too far to enforce it on anyone, yet. They have no way of knowing who belongs to any of the groups the injunction covers ( which is more than just the GOA incidentally).
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's yet another in the back pocket just in case we need to coerce someone into doing something else or confessing to something they haven't done by threatening to be piling up offenses...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top