AggieT said:

---

I strongly disagree with the rule, but don't want 10 years in prison to be even a remote possibility. Might as well take the free stamp if you can. I'd certainly wait as long as possible to see if the whole thing gets tied up in court.

This whole thing sucks.

---

I am absolutely not dogging you for feeling this way and I won't smack talk anyone who complies with this bull*****

It really sucks that our govt is counting on us preferring being able to kiss our kids goodnight and provide for our families to force compliance to yet another arbitrary rule change that is punishable as a felony with jail time.

Every little bit of additional registration, ban, limit, etc (not just with firearms but every facet of life) that they can force us to swallow in the name of comfort over freedom is another bit of liberty our children will not know ever existed.

The American experiment in representative democracy was not wholly unique to us, but by far was at one point one of the most "free" environments the average normal man anywhere in the world at any point in history could hope for, and it created more innovation and prosperity based on ideas and labor instead of exploitation than any previous human society in history.

That has been chipped away at for a very long time. This may not your personal line in the sand, but everyone should examine their inner moral code, consider that our current path is trending negatively when it comes to freedom for common men, and decide exactly when and what will cause you to say "Enough", for our children and grandchildren's sakes.

BenderRodriguez said:

---

AggieT said:

---

I strongly disagree with the rule, but don't want 10 years in prison to be even a remote possibility. Might as well take the free stamp if you can. I'd certainly wait as long as possible to see if the whole thing gets tied up in court.

This whole thing sucks.

---

That has been chipped away at for a very long time. This may not your personal line in the sand, but everyone should examine their inner moral code, consider that our current path is trending negatively when it comes to freedom for common men, and decide exactly when and what will cause you to say "Enough", for our children and grandchildren's sakes.

---

I can't fully speak for bender but I think this last paragraph is quite important and I believe the language employed is not arbitrary or haphazard.

This is a moral issue. It is not a legal issue. There is a huge distinction between legal and moral and I feel like our lawmakers intend to help blur that line for those who don't think it through. Either way, it won't be the first or last time this planet has seen legal things that were not moral. Act accordingly.

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

---

I disagree with him calling Republicans hold outs terrorists since they didn't immediately cave to the RINO McCarthy. He is scum and the next John McCain.

Anyone that was already going to SBR a rifle, go ahead and get your free stamp.

Anyone else, I would encourage you to wait. 120 days from publication, so you have months to do anything.

Less than 2 weeks ago, Cargill v Garland in the 5th Circuit ruled in an overwhelming majority that the ATF cannot make up a new law and that needs to go through Congress.

In Heller, Scalia affirmed the "in common use" clause of US vs Miller here:

Quote:

---

We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 615, 252254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment 's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right,

---

Further:

Quote:

---

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

---

I'll go ahead and say that the 40,000,000 pistol braces in America prove it is a common use item for lawful purposes such as self defense.


In Bruen, Thomas wrote:

Quote:

---

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

---

With the vast number of braces in the country and the common use of them as self defense weapons, the courts will easily rule this ATF rule unconstitutional in light of Cargill, Miller, Bruen, and Heller.

So if nothing else, please wait towards the end of 120 days to file that form 1 so that the court cases filed in the next four months will lean on the lack of registrations and the commonality of the brace to get the ATF regulation thrown out.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Anyone that was already going to SBR a rifle, go ahead and get your free stamp.

Anyone else, I would encourage you to wait. 120 days from publication, so you have months to do anything.

Less than 2 weeks ago, Cargill v Garland in the 5th Circuit ruled in an overwhelming majority that the ATF cannot make up a new law and that needs to go through Congress.

In Heller, Scalia affirmed the "in common use" clause of US vs Miller here:

Quote:

---

We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 615, 252254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment 's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right,

---

Further:

Quote:

---

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

---

I'll go ahead and say that the 40,000,000 pistol braces in America prove it is a common use item for lawful purposes such as self defense.


In Bruen, Thomas wrote:

Quote:

---

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

---

With the vast number of braces in the country and the common use of them as self defense weapons, the courts will easily rule this ATF rule unconstitutional in light of Cargill, Miller, Bruen, and Heller.

So if nothing else, please wait towards the end of 120 days to file that form 1 so that the court cases filed in the next four months will lean on the lack of registrations and the commonality of the brace to get the ATF regulation thrown out.

---

For what it's worth, my lawyer recommended forgoing the freebie and paying the 200 if you want to short barrel. Said there's some potentially sketchy stuff the atf can do with the freebie setup that they can't on the paid stamp.

Realistically your only safe option is to sell all your filthy, dangerous, soon to be illegal-ish, assault weapon style pistols to me at a heavily discounted price. Only way you can be sure. No LTC or Bill of Sale required to give them to me.

mosdefn14 said:

---

Monday morning bump on this one. Did it get answered for those following along?

AggieT said:

---

Question for those of you with trusts and assignment forms (like Willi's).

Using the assignment form, if there is a braced pistol that I assembled:

1. Do I list my name as the manufacturer, or the manufacturer of the lower receiver?

2. What would be the model number? Ex: AR-15 5.56?

3. The serial number is just what is stamped on the lower receiver, correct?

---

---

Also: when listing manufacturer and model, make sure it is EXACTLY the model listed on the reciever.

For example, I have a friend who got declined on a Form 1 because he listed a PSA lower as "AR-15" when it is marked as a "PA-15"

FTAG 2000 said:

---

For what it's worth, my lawyer recommended forgoing the freebie and paying the 200 if you want to short barrel. Said there's some potentially sketchy stuff the atf can do with the freebie setup that they can't on the paid stamp.

---

I didnt consult with a lawyer but this is likely my plan with a couple of braced guns I was planning on SBRing before this mess started.

Mostly because "screw you, I dont recognize your authority to magically make a crappy brace a stock and make me a felon, and I would like to take this crappy brace off and put an actual stock on my gun".

Attorney saying he will personally wait to see what happens with injections and lawsuits before acting

**** the feds

That being said, I will wager the Supreme Court will weigh in on this topic. After that comes out I'll go one way or another on sbr ing or not

2A will be the hill that southerners will die on (and a lot of others, too).

When this union dissolves, and it will, a 2A related overreach will be the spark that lights the fire.

Likely a hollow move for the time being, but at least Gaetz is going at the heart of the problem

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

I feel like repeal the NFA would be more likely to gain ground

lp01 said:

---

Can anyone recommend any of the trust vendors? Tried the guntrustguru site and as you mentioned, it didn't work.

---

Not sure how granular that you want to get on the trust but Silencer Shop does one in about 5 minutes. It works and isn't too expensive.

I had a lawyer create my first trust about 15 years ago when I lived in the Houston area. I had to make some changes on it and he was no longer to be found. I went ahead and had Silencer Shop make mine when I was buying some cans. It was pretty painless.

tandy miller said:

---

I feel like repeal the NFA would be more likely to gain ground

---

Neither will likely go anywhere, because the GOP never drafts legislation like this when they actually have power.

Politicians will never willingly restore your freedoms.

tandy miller said:

---

I feel like repeal the NFA would be more likely to gain ground

---

Hell, just delist SBR, SBS, AOW and suppressors. Keep machine guns and destructive devices on NFA but open up the registry again for new manufacture of machine guns.

I think delisting suppressors and AOW actually has a chance to pass if we had a President with a backbone and a Congress that didn't suck. Then we could incrementally chip away at SBR/SBS