Last day to comment on pistol braces.

www.regulations.gov...

Pistol braces and the new "scorecard" are open for public comment. I urge any 2a supporters to hop over and possibly have a say.

Just a tidbit of what were up against.

youtu.be...

a reply to: JinMI

I think it is a fools errand to fight legislation like this. These devices do not help 2A supporters, they only hurt 2A supporters.

I'm going to be perfectly honest here...as a lifelong rabid supporter of the 2A, firearms instructor, collector and avid shooter, this is one device/appliance I honestly can't get behind. They serve no constructive purpose other than to get around needing a tax stamp for an SBR. Plus, they drove a whole segment of the firearms market which never should have / would have existed otherwise, some of which are frankly dangerous.

And, this coming from a guy who believes people should be able to legally own machine guns, artillery, rockets and explosives!

So why my feelings on this particular device? I actually have several reasons:

a.) Chief among my reasons is, these devices are a textbook example of people trying to find and intentionally exploit loopholes in regulations, the result of which make the gun grabbers all that much more zealous in grabbing our firearms. Just flaunting specific words in a regulation to make a buck and thumb their nose at the gun grabbers.

b.) They allow a pistol to be turned into a 'rifle' (no biggie there). More importantly, they allow a firearm which technically (very narrowly) complies as a "pistol", but is really a rifle, to be turned back into a rifle, but with a much shorter barrel (an SBR). Which is perfectly legal, even after this ban, with a paid tax stamp.

c.) They drive a segment of the market which shouldn't exist for safety reasons. Why? They allow a rifle to have the stock removed, and the barrel shortened considerably, and be considered a "pistol". No brace required, right? So what's the issue? Well, in a low powered cartridge there is no big issue, but in a higher powered cartridge these 'pistols' become very difficult and unstable to shoot for all but highly experienced shooters, creating an unnecessary danger to the shooter and others around them. If a person wants a pistol, then buy a firearm which shoots pistol ammo. And if a person wants a rifle, then buy a firearm with a stock and a longer barrel which shoots more powerful rifle ammunition, in other words a rifle.

d.) They attract the wrong kinds of people to firearms. They serve no legitimate sporting, hunting or self-defense purpose (the three underpinnings of legitimate firearms ownership). Some may argue a self-defense purpose, but it's not real. The same purpose can be served by a pistol shooting pistol ammo, or a rifle shooting rifle ammo (or a shotgun). There is no situation which is so CQC/CQB that it demands a high power rifle cartridge to be fired from a pistol. So what customers does that leave? Bad guys, and people who see such a device as a feel-good novelty, like they got one over on uncle Sam. I don't care about the novelty guys too much, other than SMH, but I do care about the bad guys, and this is a perfect device for a mass shooting.

There's an old saying about leaving sleeping dogs lie; these devices do the exact opposite. They smack the sleeping dog with a stick, and then people wonder why they got bit, and why the dog is now snarling and ready to attack.

People need to realize, these devices are not even firearms. They're pieces of polymer, plastic and velcro for the most part. Big deal right? Yeah, it is a big deal, because some guy making some device in his garage and selling it to make a buck is causing the federal government to wake up and further encroach on firearms ownership.

Think people...think!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I certainly understand your position and I really don't think you're wrong.

However and I don't mean that with any diminishing of our previous statements, allowing the ATF to arbitrarily change definitions and modify laws, bypassing congress is a direct infringement.

Additionally, acquiring a tax stamp is a months long if not a year waiting process.

Another instance of gross government overreach without oversight (atf is headless currently).

Fixing its existing systems, NICS and NFA namely would go a very long way to garnering public support.

Instead, we have this nonsense.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I certainly understand your position and I really don't think you're wrong.

No argument with your post either. Let's just consider the following:

However and I don't mean that with any diminishing of our previous statements, allowing the ATF to arbitrarily change definitions and modify laws, bypassing congress is a direct infringement.

Completely agree, but we should be fighting that, not letting a device such as the brace by the subject of the debate. That's why I was saying it's a fools errand. It's the old 'choose your battles carefully' mantra.

Additionally, acquiring a tax stamp is a months long if not a year waiting process.

Agreed again, but again, let's not let a device we can't even support with our underpinning legitimate 2A reasoning drive that fight. The reason is, if we lose, it may set a precedent which is even worse! I'm certainly not going to go to the mat for this device, and no other 2A supporter should either. We've got way bigger fish to fry.

If the feds want to waste their time and energy going after a piece of plastic...then let them. Remember, always use your opponent's energy against them and to your advantage.

Another instance of gross government overreach without oversight (atf is headless currently).

Totally agree. Let's fight that, but not use this device as the excuse to do it, or allow it to shape the fight.

Fixing its existing systems, NICS and NFA namely would go a very long way to garnering public support.

Instead, we have this nonsense.

Agreed on all points. I just don't think our red line in the sand should be some plastic device some unlicensed schmoe is making in his garage should be the device we fall on our sword over.

This just isn't our hill to die on.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

One of us is missing the forest for the trees here FVD and given the massive imparting of wisdom you've laid out here over the years, ill take the blame so help me out here.

How exactly, are we to fight, legally, while the doofus in the above video is tapped to be the head of the ATF?

Hell, this entire admin is hostile not only to the 1st and 4th but definitely the 2nd.

The opposition, as it stands, are sitting on their hands.

I see your logic but were loosing far more ground than we are gaining and at some point the word infringe should mean something.

a reply to: JinMI

I understand your point, but I think you're missing mine.

I think you might be mixing things which "might" happen with things which "are" happening.

Look at it from this perspective...forget what someone "might" do in the future, how does this particular device 'infringe' on any "firearms" related regulation? It's not a firearm, so it can't.

We both likely agree, any regulation at all is wrong, but we can't boil the ocean all at once. We'll just lose it all.

Doesn't really matter what doofus or anyone else in this retarded regime does, there's one thing they won't be able to do, and that is repeal the 2nd Amendment. He'd never get a 2/3rds majority for it, or anywhere close. Short of that, any forthcoming administration, congress or senate can undo whatever damage doofus has done, just like doofus undid a lot of what Trump did.

There's a time and a place, and this device is not the time nor the place for that fight. Practically any other device is, but not this one. Give them this hill. There's a much more strategically important hill to be taken. That's the hill we need to plant our flag on, not this one.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I hear ya man, I really do. You're right I do fear what may be done, that is as precedent. Bureaucrats making legislation, which isn't new.

No, all in all this wouldn't be the hill to die on but I think we're running out of hills to fight over.

Allow me to throw out a couple "hills" which might be worthy...

Look at the climate around us. What if someone was to mount a credible effort to undo the '86 ban? Look at the states overturning concealed bans and licensing, what if the fed stepped in?. States clarifying open carry? What about ammunition taxing, or micro ID regs? These are all far more worthy "hills", don't you think?

Gotta' hit the rack, man!

We'll catch up tomorrow.

Stay safe.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Allow me to throw out a couple "hills" which might be worthy...

Look at the climate around us. What if someone was to mount a credible effort to undo the '86 ban? Look at the states overturning concealed bans and licensing, what if the fed stepped in?. States clarifying open carry? What about ammunition taxing, or micro ID regs? These are all far more worthy "hills", don't you think?

America has been treading on this slippery slope for several decades. No more!
Many citizens believe that these Liberals will continue their agenda and throw up roadblocks to our Constitution and Civil Rights.
These liberties have been protected and desired, since 1773, and continue to be worthy of fighting for.
No hill or mountain to tall to climb to defend our Constitution.
No river or ocean to far to cross to protect our Civil Rights.
SnF!

a reply to: JinMI

I doubt our comments will change anything, but a brace doesn't make the weapon more accurate, or easier to shoot more rounds, it's an accessory. Much like suppressors which only help in the noise of shooting, don't make it silent, don't make it more accurate, don't make it shoot faster or more, should be totally legal.

We are going the wrong way with all this. I can only think of 4 words.

Shall not be infringed.

No agency outside congress, with their or approval or not, can make laws. If they do, it’s unconstitutional and this null and void. They are tyrants.

Thanks for posting the link! I had no idea the deadline was today, I've been meaning to let them know what I think.

ktb-gd04-r3k4

Any gun control is tyranny, FCD how can you possibly not see this as a supporter? Give a inch they take a mile! How about the novel idea of enforcing existing laws? Please don’t be a Fudd

a reply to: WUNK22

How is this "gun control"? They haven't touched firearms. They want to ban a piece of plastic. Let them.

Totally onboard with you on the notion of enforcing existing laws, but this particular device only made existing laws harder to enforce. It was an intentional exploitation of a very narrow loophole in the differentiation between pistol and rifle, the sole purpose of which was to circumvent needing to get a tax stamp for an SBR. All things like this do is make it harder to fight the underpinning encroachment on the 2nd Amendment.

If someone wanted to fight something here, they should fight that the BAFTE has no jurisdiction over pieces of plastic. Now that might be a legitimate fight, but it's not a 2A issue, and we shouldn't allow it to be connected to 2A encroachment.

Wrong time, wrong place.

ETA - Look at it this way...when they come back and want to redefine "pistol" (in an attempt to eliminate 5.56 and 7.62x39 pistols) THEN you've got an encroachment on the 2nd. Don't you think that would be a better fight? Think about it, to ban this piece of plastic all they have to do is argue 'no legitimate purpose', and they will win. On the other hand, if they want to eliminate the firearms this device was used for, they will have to redefine "pistol"...and that will open up a can of worms they cannot win. Because what are you going to ban? Removable mags? Selected calibers? Barrel length? So you see, you get a lot more traction in that fight, than you do in this one. Throw all your eggs in the 'brace' bucket fight (and lose), and the next thing you know the feds will be writing legislation to redefine "pistol". And, they've already got a precedent. It's a trap. Don't let them suck you into this trap.

They do want to ban certain plastic, vertical grips, stocks, now triggers it will never stop. They don't care about braces, it's about gun control. The reason braces are a thing is because they wanted another piece of plastic called a stock. Always love your posts by the way Clay!!a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: JinMI

I think it is a fools errand to fight legislation like this. These devices do not help 2A supporters, they only hurt 2A supporters.

I'm going to be perfectly honest here...as a lifelong rabid supporter of the 2A, firearms instructor, collector and avid shooter, this is one device/appliance I honestly can't get behind. They serve no constructive purpose other than to get around needing a tax stamp for an SBR. Plus, they drove a whole segment of the firearms market which never should have / would have existed otherwise, some of which are frankly dangerous.

And, this coming from a guy who believes people should be able to legally own machine guns, artillery, rockets and explosives!

So why my feelings on this particular device? I actually have several reasons:

a.) Chief among my reasons is, these devices are a textbook example of people trying to find and intentionally exploit loopholes in regulations, the result of which make the gun grabbers all that much more zealous in grabbing our firearms. Just flaunting specific words in a regulation to make a buck and thumb their nose at the gun grabbers.

b.) They allow a pistol to be turned into a 'rifle' (no biggie there). More importantly, they allow a firearm which technically (very narrowly) complies as a "pistol", but is really a rifle, to be turned back into a rifle, but with a much shorter barrel (an SBR). Which is perfectly legal, even after this ban, with a paid tax stamp.

c.) They drive a segment of the market which shouldn't exist for safety reasons. Why? They allow a rifle to have the stock removed, and the barrel shortened considerably, and be considered a "pistol". No brace required, right? So what's the issue? Well, in a low powered cartridge there is no big issue, but in a higher powered cartridge these 'pistols' become very difficult and unstable to shoot for all but highly experienced shooters, creating an unnecessary danger to the shooter and others around them. If a person wants a pistol, then buy a firearm which shoots pistol ammo. And if a person wants a rifle, then buy a firearm with a stock and a longer barrel which shoots more powerful rifle ammunition, in other words a rifle.

d.) They attract the wrong kinds of people to firearms. They serve no legitimate sporting, hunting or self-defense purpose (the three underpinnings of legitimate firearms ownership). Some may argue a self-defense purpose, but it's not real. The same purpose can be served by a pistol shooting pistol ammo, or a rifle shooting rifle ammo (or a shotgun). There is no situation which is so CQC/CQB that it demands a high power rifle cartridge to be fired from a pistol. So what customers does that leave? Bad guys, and people who see such a device as a feel-good novelty, like they got one over on uncle Sam. I don't care about the novelty guys too much, other than SMH, but I do care about the bad guys, and this is a perfect device for a mass shooting.

There's an old saying about leaving sleeping dogs lie; these devices do the exact opposite. They smack the sleeping dog with a stick, and then people wonder why they got bit, and why the dog is now snarling and ready to attack.

People need to realize, these devices are not even firearms. They're pieces of polymer, plastic and velcro for the most part. Big deal right? Yeah, it is a big deal, because some guy making some device in his garage and selling it to make a buck is causing the federal government to wake up and further encroach on firearms ownership.

Think people...think!

You obviously aren’t a 2A supporter.

Here is the reality, we are losing and this idea that waiting for the perfect fight is nonsense. Instead of the quisling notion of enforcing existing laws (which are by and large blatant infringements that violate the second amendments very clear language) we should be hammering them on all fronts. From the Hughes Amendment to the NFA, mag limits, brace bans, supressor bans and everything else. We should be pointing out that just about every gun law is aimed to discourage and/or disarm the most vulnerable populations. Make them prove their laws already on the book arent simply extensions of Jim Crow laws aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of poor black people. All of that would be vastly more desirable than standing back and letting another slice of our cake get stolen by statist maggots.