What if the property assignment sheet in my trust doesn't have any notary stamps or dates on it? I haven't stamped or notarized that page for any of the four NFA items I've done previously.
Update on pistol brace?
95,596 Views |
797 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by tandy miller
ATF will miraculously get these all done in 120 days and then....
"Look how efficient that was and the overwhelmingly positive response by private citizens to willingly register these guns....we should just register all guns."
"Look how efficient that was and the overwhelmingly positive response by private citizens to willingly register these guns....we should just register all guns."
AgResearch said:
ATF will miraculously get these all done in 120 days and then....
"Look how efficient that was and the overwhelmingly positive response by private citizens to willingly register these guns....we should just register all guns."
Disagree. I think this is finally going to be the last over reach. This will solve the gun problem. For sure. Maybe one more law. At most. Yes.
The government makes gun laws like we buy guns. It's always
x + 1 = my last gun purchase
X + 1 = laws required to reach common sense Gun control.
Theres some interesting things in motion.
Write your congress critters reminding them that the ATF is way overstepping their limits here, especially in light of the Bruin decision.
They wont fight for us, but maybe atf taking power from them will actually get them motivated.
If the best possible response I'm hearing about actually gets organized I'll post about it. Non violent civil disobedience is by far our best recourse here.
Write your congress critters reminding them that the ATF is way overstepping their limits here, especially in light of the Bruin decision.
They wont fight for us, but maybe atf taking power from them will actually get them motivated.
If the best possible response I'm hearing about actually gets organized I'll post about it. Non violent civil disobedience is by far our best recourse here.
In addition, this creates a massive backlog at the ATF that will almost assuredly slow the approval process for everything else. You now potentially have10 - 40 million Form 1's to process. It's not like they will be adding 80,000 new agents (like the IRS) to speed up the process. More gun control without having to call it gun control.Scud Runner said:This was the plan all along and it worked brilliantly. Very publicly rule against the shouldering of these new braces, which spiked curiosity and awareness, then vaguely walk it back a few months later making people think they have a legal workaround for the hottest new tacticool trend. Stamp free SBR.BenderRodriguez said:
ATF says 10 to 40 million braced illegal unregistered sbrs in the wild in the last decade.
Crime rate with rifles is unchanged, despite millions of super scary short unregistered guns floating around for 10+ years.
Wants to put you in jail for owning something they said was okay for a decade, now that they have changed their minds…even though crime hasnt changed.
Why the hell do we tolerate this?
Let the public buy as many as possible for 10 years, then clarify the ruling, and BOOM, there's your gun control.
It was a trap all along.
Surely this will get struck down eventually, and hopefully stayed in the mean time.
Nice to see the Feds letting state law take precedent over federal "law" lol
Quote:
IF THE STATE I RESIDE IN PROHIBITS THE OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), CAN I STILL REGISTER MY FIREARM AS AN SBR?
ATF will not approve an application of an SBR that violates State laws.
And how about this bit of intimidation on their part?
Quote:
CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED "STABILIZING BRACE"?
An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.
They say you have to destroy the braces, but you could slap it on a 16 inch upper and it would be legal. So it doesn't make any sense that you need to destroy it.
But I wouldn't expect sense out of these people.
Dumb question that have already been answered. If I do register the gun, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a collapsible stock on it like a regular SBR?
BenderRodriguez said:
Theres some interesting things in motion.
Write your congress critters reminding them that the ATF is way overstepping their limits here, especially in light of the Bruin decision.
They wont fight for us, but maybe atf taking power from them will actually get them motivated.
If the best possible response I'm hearing about actually gets organized I'll post about it. Non violent civil disobedience is by far our best recourse here.
The ATF’s new rule regulating pistol braces is an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners. Especially disabled vets who use these braces.
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) January 15, 2023
I introduced my ATF Accountability Act last year to fight back, & I’ll reintroduce it this week. This time, with a GOP majority.
Sounds nice.
I dont trust Crenshaw to actually do anything, but would love to be wrong.
I dont trust Crenshaw to actually do anything, but would love to be wrong.
Its just grandstanding - the Senate and Biden would never pass any of that.BenderRodriguez said:
Sounds nice.
I dont trust Crenshaw to actually do anything, but would love to be wrong.
Exactly, I'd rather see the ATF administration drug in front of committees and publicly embarrassed for their idiocy if the powerless house is getting involved.
BenderRodriguez said:
Sounds nice.
I dont trust Crenshaw to actually do anything, but would love to be wrong.
He filed the same law last session. No reason to think he won't do it again.
Do you disagree with any of his gun-related votes?
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/177270/dan-crenshaw/37/guns
Guitarsoup said:BenderRodriguez said:
Sounds nice.
I dont trust Crenshaw to actually do anything, but would love to be wrong.
He filed the same law last session. No reason to think he won't do it again.
Do you disagree with any of his gun-related votes?
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/177270/dan-crenshaw/37/guns
Its easy to propose a law when you 100% know it will get shot down.
javajaws said:
Nice to see the Feds letting state law take precedent over federal "law" lolQuote:
IF THE STATE I RESIDE IN PROHIBITS THE OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), CAN I STILL REGISTER MY FIREARM AS AN SBR?
ATF will not approve an application of an SBR that violates State laws.
And how about this bit of intimidation on their part?Quote:
CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED "STABILIZING BRACE"?
An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.
Cant wait until the ATF decides that because you can easily order the components, that is constructive possesion as well.
Dont think they arent ploting a way to make that happen. Because they are.
schmellba99 said:javajaws said:
Nice to see the Feds letting state law take precedent over federal "law" lolQuote:
IF THE STATE I RESIDE IN PROHIBITS THE OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), CAN I STILL REGISTER MY FIREARM AS AN SBR?
ATF will not approve an application of an SBR that violates State laws.
And how about this bit of intimidation on their part?Quote:
CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED "STABILIZING BRACE"?
An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.
Cant wait until the ATF decides that because you can easilyborder the components, that is constructive poseasion as well.
Dont think they arent ploting a way to make that happen. Because they are.
So is that saying having possession of a brace even if not installed is illegal?
Dro07 said:schmellba99 said:javajaws said:
Nice to see the Feds letting state law take precedent over federal "law" lolQuote:
IF THE STATE I RESIDE IN PROHIBITS THE OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), CAN I STILL REGISTER MY FIREARM AS AN SBR?
ATF will not approve an application of an SBR that violates State laws.
And how about this bit of intimidation on their part?Quote:
CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED "STABILIZING BRACE"?
An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.
Cant wait until the ATF decides that because you can easilyborder the components, that is constructive poseasion as well.
Dont think they arent ploting a way to make that happen. Because they are.
So is that saying having possession of a brace even if not installed is illegal?
Constructive posession is generally defined as having the parts and pieces to create or assemble something that would fall under NFA, whether you have actually done it or not.
So if you have a pistol and a brace after the grace/amnesty period that doesnt have a NFA stamp with it, you have constructive posession and would be in violation of the arbitrary, stupid and egregiously dumb rule/law created by unelected bureaucrats that we both do now know who they are and have no recourse against.
schmellba99 said:Dro07 said:schmellba99 said:javajaws said:
Nice to see the Feds letting state law take precedent over federal "law" lolQuote:
IF THE STATE I RESIDE IN PROHIBITS THE OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), CAN I STILL REGISTER MY FIREARM AS AN SBR?
ATF will not approve an application of an SBR that violates State laws.
And how about this bit of intimidation on their part?Quote:
CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED "STABILIZING BRACE"?
An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.
Cant wait until the ATF decides that because you can easilyborder the components, that is constructive poseasion as well.
Dont think they arent ploting a way to make that happen. Because they are.
So is that saying having possession of a brace even if not installed is illegal?
Constructive posession is generally defined as having the parts and pieces to create or assemble something that would fall under NFA, whether you have actually done it or not.
So if you have a pistol and a brace after the grace/amnesty period that doesnt have a NFA stamp with it, you have constructive posession and would be in violation of the arbitrary, stupid and egregiously dumb rule/law created by unelected bureaucrats that we both do now know who they are and have no recourse against.
Agreed that it is asinine, but if you have a pistol convert it with another upper and you now have a 16" rifle. Dumb but wouldn't that save you from the "law"
I dont think so. Because you "could" put it in a verboten configuration, in the eyes of the benevolent overlords at the ATF.
I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.
I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.
schmellba99 said:
I dont think so. Because you "could" put it in a verboten configuration, in the eyes of the benevolent overlords at the ATF.
I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.
You could also take a stock off the buffer tube of a 16" rifle and slap it on the ar pistol. By that rationale you couldn't a have a single buttstock in your house including on you non NFA ars.
Always trust the government!
The only reason I asked that is because this paragraph seems fickle.
The only reason I asked that is because this paragraph seems fickle.
Personally wouldnt worry much about "constructive possession".
If the feds want you, the cleaning supplies under the kitchen sink and nails in the garage will suddenly become "pipe bomb making materials", your 9mm pistol, 12 gauge shotgun and 150 rounds of ammo will be a "worrying stockpiled arsenal", and child porn will magically appear on your hard drive.
If the feds want you, the cleaning supplies under the kitchen sink and nails in the garage will suddenly become "pipe bomb making materials", your 9mm pistol, 12 gauge shotgun and 150 rounds of ammo will be a "worrying stockpiled arsenal", and child porn will magically appear on your hard drive.
Load your ammo and it can be like shooting a BB gun.Guitarsoup said:BrazosDog02 said:SMM48 said:
Go shoot a CZ Scorpion and get back to me.
El Chupacabra said:
What is this date exactly: "the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register"
Has that date happened yet?
Not according to the Federal Registr: Only three entries by ATF (Red box with arrows); two rules, one proposal (green arrows):
What kind of person even wants to work for the ATF? Where do they recruit? Are they wannabes that can't get real jobs in law enforcement? I really don't know. The LEOs I know are as fed up with this BS as we are.
Tom_Fox said:schmellba99 said:
I dont think so. Because you "could" put it in a verboten configuration, in the eyes of the benevolent overlords at the ATF.
I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.
You could also take a stock off the buffer tube of a 16" rifle and slap it on the ar pistol. By that rationale you couldn't a have a single buttstock in your house including on you non NFA ars.
Very good point. Before this ruling, if I had a braced AR and a Colt 16 inch AR, would I have been a felon then? Because I could easily take that stock off my colt and put it on my pistol AR. Constructive intent right?
Mr. Bob Harris said:
What kind of person even wants to work for the ATF? Where do they recruit? Are they wannabes that can't get real jobs in law enforcement? I really don't know. The LEOs I know are as fed up with this BS as we are.
Most ATF agents are recruited from other law enforcement agencies. Very, very few start at the ATF.
Mr. Dubi said:El Chupacabra said:
What is this date exactly: "the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register"
Has that date happened yet?
Not according to the Federal Registr: Only three entries by ATF (Red box with arrows); two rules, one proposal (green arrows):
So if we can get a trust amendment notarized tomorrow (Federal Holiday!) adding our hypothetical pistols, then it would be possible to get them a free stamp on the trust? If that's the way any of us decide to go further into the grace period. Decide not to, then you could just trash the amendment.
Does anyone know of this would need to be an amendment or just add them to the inventory list?
Would it need to be notarized?
I've had to notarize amendments in the past, but an amendment has never been required to add an item to the inventory list which has also never needed to be notarized.
Bender, let us know what you find out.
Meanwhile, kids are posting daily videos on tiktok of their glock switches. Fun times.
Meanwhile, kids are posting daily videos on tiktok of their glock switches. Fun times.
aggieforester05 said:Mr. Dubi said:El Chupacabra said:
What is this date exactly: "the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register"
So if we can get a trust amendment notarized tomorrow (Federal Holiday!) adding our hypothetical pistols, then it would be possible to get them a free stamp on the trust? If that's the way any of us decide to go further into the grace period. Decide not to, then you could just trash the amendment.
Does anyone know of this would need to be an amendment or just add them to the inventory list?
Would it need to be notarized?
I've had to notarize amendments in the past, but an amendment has never been required to add an item to the inventory list which has also never needed to be notarized.
In short, yes. They say in the questionnaire (#27) itemized, notarized inventory dated prior to publication in Federal Register. They appear to be making the rules (laws) up as they go along, so I would not be surprised if they found a way to weasel out of all approvals, making an ipso facto ban.
Guitarsoup said:BenderRodriguez said:
Theres some interesting things in motion.
Write your congress critters reminding them that the ATF is way overstepping their limits here, especially in light of the Bruin decision.
They wont fight for us, but maybe atf taking power from them will actually get them motivated.
If the best possible response I'm hearing about actually gets organized I'll post about it. Non violent civil disobedience is by far our best recourse here.The ATF’s new rule regulating pistol braces is an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners. Especially disabled vets who use these braces.
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) January 15, 2023
I introduced my ATF Accountability Act last year to fight back, & I’ll reintroduce it this week. This time, with a GOP majority.
Dan will get around to doing something after his WEF meetings etc.. Hes a clown
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
6h ago
798
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
14:58
6h ago
890
Assessing Earley's first signing class at the helm of Texas A&M baseball
by Ryan Brauninger
Tom Kazansky 2012
Number of football tickets A&M provided to t.u.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
89