Saint Victor AR-15 Pistols are now SBRs?

[Funwithfuel]

Well, I'll just leave this here.

 

[Boomturtle]

This is from Virginia Citizens Defense League weekly newsletter that showed up in my inbox this morning. Hopefully court action will delay this. Vote in November!

Looks like the BATFE is setting up to make a pistol with a pistol brace an NFA short-barreled rifle. If so, you will have to register the pistol, but without having to pay the NFA tax if registered in a timely manner.

I’m hoping the NFA, as well as the ban on bump stocks and the registration of pistol braces, will all be struck down over time thanks to the Bruen ruling.

In the meantime, you’ll have to decide what you wish to do should the registration scheme become a reality. Your options are to register the brace and pistol as a short-barreled rifle, destroy or give up the brace to the BATFE, or do nothing and take your chances with the legal system (if successfully prosecuted, you could face 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine).

Interesting note: if you do register your pistol with the pistol brace on it, you would then be the proud owner of a short-barreled rifle. You could throw away the brace and put on a sliding stock, add a foregrip, put on rifle sights, etc.

If the braces are to be removed and sent in to the AFT, wouldn't they first have to make the braces illegal in some fashion? Like with the FRT's? What would be the legal justification for making them illegal?

 

[HansGruber]

This is from Virginia Citizens Defense League weekly newsletter that showed up in my inbox this morning. Hopefully court action will delay this. Vote in November!

Looks like the BATFE is setting up to make a pistol with a pistol brace an NFA short-barreled rifle. If so, you will have to register the pistol, but without having to pay the NFA tax if registered in a timely manner.

I’m hoping the NFA, as well as the ban on bump stocks and the registration of pistol braces, will all be struck down over time thanks to the Bruen ruling.

In the meantime, you’ll have to decide what you wish to do should the registration scheme become a reality. Your options are to register the brace and pistol as a short-barreled rifle, destroy or give up the brace to the BATFE, or do nothing and take your chances with the legal system (if successfully prosecuted, you could face 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine).

Interesting note: if you do register your pistol with the pistol brace on it, you would then be the proud owner of a short-barreled rifle. You could throw away the brace and put on a sliding stock, add a foregrip, put on rifle sights, etc.

The NFA is a Federal law, passed by congress and signed by the President…doesn’t fit under the Bruen ruling.

Additionally, there is precedent (see: USvMiller) upholding it.

Not only that, to effectively challenge it, somebody is going to have to get nailed for violating it…and I don’t think any (viable) such cases are in the pipeline.

NFA is here to stay.

 

[Boomturtle]

As I understand (layman),Bruen wouldn't challenge the law, per se. It challenges the AFT's ability to constantly change their interpretation of said law(s). Like defining a shoe lace or rubber band as a machine gun. The AFT has already set a precedent of affirming that pistol braces are in fact legal in accordance with law that's currently in place.
But once you NFA your own item, then you are probably stuck forever in that classification.

 

[uspatriot1960]

The NFA is a Federal law, passed by congress and signed by the President…doesn’t fit under the Bruen ruling.

Additionally, there is precedent (see: USvMiller) upholding it.

Not only that, to effectively challenge it, somebody is going to have to get nailed for violating it…and I don’t think any (viable) such cases are in the pipeline.

NFA is here to stay.

The EPA is a federal agency as well. Bruen basically said they couldn't come up with new laws that did not fit into the purview granted them by Congress. I would think that the NFA (I know it's an act, not an agency), but the purview given to the ATF in the form of the NFA by Congress does not include anything about pistol braces. For them to outlaw AR pistols with braces, goes beyond the authority that was specifically granted to them by Congress. That's the argument anyway. Add to that, the ATF has already made clear that ARs with barrels less than 16" that have braces are legal. So, this is a pretty big change, not only in terms of the NFA regulations but also as a matter of practice within the ATF.

There are already lawsuits and ongoing negotiations between the ATF and various gun rights groups such as the GOA regarding these new "laws" or "rules" or whatever they are going to call them. An actual violation of the new law or rule or regulation or whatever will help accelerate the cause, but I'm not sure it will be necessary.

 

[HansGruber]

The EPA is a federal agency as well. Bruen basically said they couldn't come up with new laws that did not fit into the purview granted them by Congress. I would think that the NFA (I know it's an act, not an agency), but the purview given to the ATF in the form of the NFA by Congress does not include anything about pistol braces. For them to outlaw AR pistols with braces, goes beyond the authority that was specifically granted to them by Congress. That's the argument anyway. Add to that, the ATF has already made clear that ARs with barrels less than 16" that have braces are legal. So, this is a pretty big change, not only in terms of the NFA regulations but also as a matter of practice within the ATF.

There are already lawsuits and ongoing negotiations between the ATF and various gun rights groups such as the GOA regarding these new "laws" or "rules" or whatever they are going to call them. An actual violation of the new law or rule or regulation or whatever will help accelerate the cause, but I'm not sure it will be necessary.

But that’s not a challenge to the NFA; that’s challenging BATFE’s authority to interpret it.

I am referring to, specifically, the law passed in the ‘30’s and subsequently upheld by SCOTUS.

And that’s not going ANYWHERE.

 

[uspatriot1960]

But that’s not a challenge to the NFA; that’s challenging BATFE’s authority to interpret it.

I am referring to, specifically, the law passed in the ‘30’s and subsequently upheld by SCOTUS.

And that’s not going ANYWHERE.

I agree that the NFA is not going anywhere. But how they interpret the authority given to them, and how/if they come up with new regulations is certainly up for grabs - in this case specifically concerning the legality of pistol braces.

 

[BET7]

The EPA is a federal agency as well. Bruen basically said they couldn't come up with new laws that did not fit into the purview granted them by Congress. I would think that the NFA (I know it's an act, not an agency), but the purview given to the ATF in the form of the NFA by Congress does not include anything about pistol braces. For them to outlaw AR pistols with braces, goes beyond the authority that was specifically granted to them by Congress. That's the argument anyway. Add to that, the ATF has already made clear that ARs with barrels less than 16" that have braces are legal. So, this is a pretty big change, not only in terms of the NFA regulations but also as a matter of practice within the ATF.

There are already lawsuits and ongoing negotiations between the ATF and various gun rights groups such as the GOA regarding these new "laws" or "rules" or whatever they are going to call them. An actual violation of the new law or rule or regulation or whatever will help accelerate the cause, but I'm not sure it will be necessary.

Just to clarify, that was a separate SCOTUS case decision (West Virginia Vs EPA), but that is what the majority said. Executive Agencies don't possess the constitutional authority unless granted that power by Congress (which has not been granted to the ATF at this current time for this discussion). Therefore only Congress can set these type laws which can be scrutinized for their constitutional validity.

 

[Boomturtle]

Correct. Bruen doesn't challenge the NFA directly. It challenges their self affirmed ability to interpret law themselves and to change their interpretation at will without congressional oversight. That is an overreach of power. Just like with the EPA.

 

[BET7]

Here's a GOA "Add your Name" letter to your Congressional Representative, concerning this proposed registration of all pistol braced firearms and asking them to de-fund the ATF. You'll get a chance to read the entire letter after adding your information but before submitting

TELL CONGRESS: DEFUND THE ATF

Please add your name to our pre-written letter to tell YOUR Representative not to fund the ATF’s pistol brace crackdown – AND to introduce a bill in Congress to DEFUND the entire ATF.&n...

oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net

 

[Bassbob]

Here's a GOA "Add your Name" letter to your Congressional Representative, concerning this proposed registration of all pistol braced firearms and asking them to de-fund the ATF. You'll get a chance to read the entire letter after adding your information but before submitting

TELL CONGRESS: DEFUND THE ATF

Please add your name to our pre-written letter to tell YOUR Representative not to fund the ATF’s pistol brace crackdown – AND to introduce a bill in Congress to DEFUND the entire ATF.&n...

oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net

In this email, which I got, they claim the ATF has a complete registry of every commercially sold firearm in the US in the last 20 years. They also said your options were to register your pistol or face a 250k fine and 10 years in prison. My question is what does the GOA know that the rest of us don't ? When in the last 20 years did the feds gain access to serial numbers to every commercially sold firearm in the US ? And as for the options, they left out just simply removing the brace. No brace, no problem right ?

That said I am totally for defunding or disbanding the ATF.

 

[uspatriot1960]

In this email, which I got, they claim the ATF has a complete registry of every commercially sold firearm in the US in the last 20 years. They also said your options were to register your pistol or face a 250k fine and 10 years in prison. My question is what does the GOA know that the rest of us don't ? When in the last 20 years did the feds gain access to serial numbers to every commercially sold firearm in the US ? And as for the options, they left out just simply removing the brace. No brace, no problem right ?

That said I am totally for defunding or disbanding the ATF.

Pretty sure it’s illegal and unconstitutional for the federal government to have a registry of firearms. Individual shops keep records, but those records are not available to the federal government. Maybe with a subpoena for a particular firearm or on a particular person, but not blanket access to the records…

 

[Bassbob]

Pretty sure it’s illegal and unconstitutional for the federal government to have a registry of firearms. Individual shops keep records, but those records are not available to the federal government. Maybe with a subpoena for a particular firearm or on a particular person, but not blanket access to the records…

That's what I mean. So is the GOA fearmongering ?

 

[uspatriot1960]

That's what I mean. So is the GOA fearmongering ?

Hope not. We need to have SOMEONE we can trust. And it certainly isn’t the ATF…

 

[Bassbob]

Hope not. We need to have SOMEONE we can trust. And it certainly isn’t the ATF…

No, but we all read the "Proposed" rule changes. We all are also smart enough to know that it will be immediately challenged. We are also all smart enough to know that the ATF is not going to start going door to door to check out everyone's pistols. We also know that a whole lot of the AR pistols were registered as " Other" on the 4473 since they began life as stripped lower receivers. Even just getting warrants to conduct those searches would be extremely problematic to say the least.