testtest

Will the AR pistols make a return?

M

Mikemike

Alpha
With the new ruling on the pistol brace has anyone heard if Springfield will bring back the AR pistols? I had been trying to grab the AR10 for the longest everyone was sold out so I went with rifle. I’m still hoping to run across one! (Fingers crossed)
 
Mikemike said:
With the new ruling on the pistol brace has anyone heard if Springfield will bring back the AR pistols? I had been trying to grab the AR10 for the longest everyone was sold out so I went with rifle. I’m still hoping to run across one! (Fingers crossed)
Click to expand...
With a form 1 SBR stamp, you can make the firearm any length you want ? Just cant change caliber
7” barrel
10.5” barrel
16” or 20”

Why not just SBR a SA rifle and do what you want ???
 
Unfortunately the NFA will most likely not be overturned unless there was a dramatic shift in US politics, so in the mean time get yourself a stamp or two and have some real fun!

20231028_203419.jpg
 
Not clickbait at all. It has been overturned, nationwide. So right now, you are perfectly legal to have a brace on your pistol. But the ruling is very likely to be appealed by the Feds and probably will eventually make its way to SCOTUS. The big question right now is whether the injunction will remain in place until that happens, which could take years.
 
Hammer67 said:
Not clickbait at all. It has been overturned, nationwide. So right now, you are perfectly legal to have a brace on your pistol. But the ruling is very likely to be appealed by the Feds and probably will eventually make its way to SCOTUS. The big question right now is whether the injunction will remain in place until that happens, which could take years.
Click to expand...
The injunction only covers members of certain gun rights orgs. Furthermore there are several reports of ATF raiding FFLS and regular citizens while playing stupid about the injunction, claiming they have no way to tell who is a member of what organization and suggesting they be provided with membership lists ( nice try) and in at least one case simply claiming the ruling doesn't apply to them.

Claiming the rule has been overturned is way premature. If you look at YT videos you will find all kinds of them with titles like "ATF frame and receiver rule dead", ATF beat down again", "SBR rule dead", etc.. These are all clickbait.
 
Bassbob said:
The injunction only covers members of certain gun rights orgs. Furthermore there are several reports of ATF raiding FFLS and regular citizens while playing stupid about the injunction, claiming they have no way to tell who is a member of what organization and suggesting they be provided with membership lists ( nice try) and in at least one case simply claiming the ruling doesn't apply to them.

Claiming the rule has been overturned is way premature. If you look at YT videos you will find all kinds of them with titles like "ATF frame and receiver rule dead", ATF beat down again", "SBR rule dead", etc.. These are all clickbait.
Click to expand...

The ruling that happened in the 5th Circuit court on 11/8 is not specific to any groups or members of groups. Previous injunctions had been. I'm referring specifically to this most recent ruling that just happened a few days ago - not anything that came before it. If you doubt this, I provided a link to the actual court document produced by the 5th Circuit on Nov 8th - it makes no mention of specific gun rights groups as the only plaintiffs. Please read it.

As for,
...there are several reports of ATF raiding FFLS and regular citizens while playing stupid about the injunction, claiming they have no way to tell who is a member of what organization and suggesting they be provided with membership lists
Click to expand...

Are these reports you are referring since 11/8 or prior? Again, there is nothing in the recent ruling that makes reference to this injunction pertaining only to specific groups at all.

Also, the videos I provided links to are actual attorneys, not just gun nerds with YT channels. I'd recommend watching those, if you haven't.
 
Hammer67 said:
The ruling that happened in the 5th Circuit court on 11/8 is not specific to any groups or members of groups. Previous injunctions had been. I'm referring specifically to this most recent ruling that just happened a few days ago - not anything that came before it. If you doubt this, I provided a link to the actual court document produced by the 5th Circuit on Nov 8th - it makes no mention of specific gun rights groups as the only plaintiffs. Please read it.

As for,


Are these reports you are referring since 11/8 or prior? Again, there is nothing in the recent ruling that makes reference to this injunction pertaining only to specific groups at all.

Also, the videos I provided links to are actual attorneys, not just gun nerds with YT channels. I'd recommend watching those, if you haven't.
Click to expand...
90% of the videos, even the ones with attorneys, have click bait titles. Armed Scholar, all of them. The content usually clears it up, but the titles are misleading. Even Colion Noir has a video right now about the pistol brace ban being dead. Clearly it's just another injunction issued by a federal court, which will be challenged and will end up at SCOTUS several years from now.
 
Bassbob said:
90% of the videos, even the ones with attorneys, have click bait titles. Armed Scholar, all of them. The content usually clears it up, but the titles are misleading. Even Colion Noir has a video right now about the pistol brace ban being dead. Clearly it's just another injunction issued by a federal court, which will be challenged and will end up at SCOTUS several years from now.
Click to expand...

Whether the video titles come across as clickbait or not is irrelevant to the actual point - I'm referring to the content of the videos, and beyond that, the content of the recent ruling. And I would say that this isn't "just another injunction" because this one doesn't only apply to limited members of certain groups. This federal ruling "...grants the motion and stays the rule in its entirety."

Yes, it will likely end up going to SCOTUS eventually, but the point is that for now, as of 11/8/23 and until someone/something declares the 5th Circuit Court ruling null and void (and short of SCOTUS, I don't see how that is going to happen), pistol braces are legal, and it is not limited to certain groups or members of groups. That makes this significantly different than previous rulings. If the ATF appeals, it will be the 5th Circuit Court that takes up the appeal, and given how they just ruled, I doubt an appeal to the same court is going to be successful.

It is not "way premature" to say that the rule has been overturned - it is accurate, until if/when SCOTUS decides to take it up. "Stays the rule in its entirety" means the ATF Pistol Brace Rule has been legally deemed to be unlawful and is no longer law as of last Wednesday.
 
Hammer67 said:
Whether the video titles come across as clickbait or not is irrelevant to the actual point - I'm referring to the content of the videos, and beyond that, the content of the recent ruling. And I would say that this isn't "just another injunction" because this one doesn't only apply to limited members of certain groups. This federal ruling "...grants the motion and stays the rule in its entirety."

Yes, it will likely end up going to SCOTUS eventually, but the point is that for now, as of 11/8/23 and until someone/something declares the 5th Circuit Court ruling null and void (and short of SCOTUS, I don't see how that is going to happen), pistol braces are legal, and it is not limited to certain groups or members of groups. That makes this significantly different than previous rulings. If the ATF appeals, it will be the 5th Circuit Court that takes up the appeal, and given how they just ruled, I doubt an appeal to the same court is going to be successful.

It is not "way premature" to say that the rule has been overturned - it is accurate, until if/when SCOTUS decides to take it up. "Stays the rule in its entirety" means the ATF Pistol Brace Rule has been legally deemed to be unlawful and is no longer law as of last Wednesday.
Click to expand...
It is relevant because it isn't true. The ATF pistol brace rule is not dead. There may be a temporary injunction, but all it takes is another federal judge in a different circuit court to throw out the injunction. My guess is that happens in the next week. The rule is NOT dead until SCOTUS takes it up.

Remember the saga of the high capacity magazine ban in California ? They said it was dead 2 years ago.


If you don't believe me just start looking around and find a dealer who's selling braced pistols.


And the stories about the ATF raids were posted here in the last 2 weeks by someone.
 
The current administration has shown that they'll ignore existing laws & court decisions as they continue to push their agenda.
 
Bassbob said:
It is relevant because it isn't true. The ATF pistol brace rule is not dead. There may be a temporary injunction, but all it takes is another federal judge in a different circuit court to throw out the injunction. My guess is that happens in the next week. The rule is NOT dead until SCOTUS takes it up.
Click to expand...

If what I have posted isn't true, then tell me - as of 11/8/23 what is the legal, federal status of the ATF Pistol Brace Rule? Does that only apply to some people?

If you really think this is going to change next week then let's check back in and see where things are at - you may be right, I have no idea. I'm just stating what the current status is. But if you're going to tell me that as of right now, pistol braces "aren't legal" then I'd like to know what you're basing that on, other than speculation.

Bassbob said:
If you don't believe me just start looking around and find a dealer who's selling braced pistols.
Click to expand...

This just happened a few days ago. Give them a little time?

Bassbob said:
Remember the saga of the high capacity magazine ban in California ? They said it was dead 2 years ago. And the stories about the ATF raids were posted here in the last 2 weeks by someone.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think I'm denying or naive to those things? I'm definitely not. I'm not posting all of this to speculate on what may happen in the future, I posted this info to let people know what happened last Wednesday, to (hopefully) have people understand why this is different than previous, limited scope injunctions, and I already said multiple times that it will very likely go to SCOTUS eventually. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make other than, "this might change at some point in the future." If that's all you're trying to say, then sure - yeah it might. But that doesn't conflict with anything I've posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top