[Visper]

Oh no. It's worse than that. In 88 days after filing for the back ground check if it isn't completed for whatever reason, they can begin an enforcement action. They have everything to arrest you for owning an illegal SBR.

Watch the GOA lawyer explain it at SHOT. He spoke right to the ATF as they are set up at the show.

Are you surprised they don't know their own rule? I'm surprised it's not done in crayon...

The part that gets me is the 88 day thing. now that I never actually knew. If the BGC extends past 88 days its an automatic denial. They could technically just sit on everyone's not finish the BGC and the "everyone fails" but now they have a name, address, picture of said "sbr" and you basically have incriminated yourself. Now they can take "enforcement action".

Now would they have thought it this far through, maybe... but now it should make people think twice, is it a trap? Like the guy from GOA said, he cannot tell anyone not to do it because it is the law, but he cant tell them they should do it either...

Trap of all traps huh?

Well lets hope an injunction gets done quick on this to buy people more time... and hopefully this gets shot down in quick order.

 

[CamoDeafie]

All I could find on the 88 day thing is that the FBI is the one who are deleting pending open (not resolved, ie not "yes proceed" or "no, deny") BG checks at the 88th day of pending... nothing officially published from the ATF side on that... video captions didn't make it clear but it is possible that the female ATF agent is mistaken or is just stating hearsay/unofficially confirming the lawyer's questions....

Elsewhere I can only find the info that the BG checks must be completed before the ATF can proceed further on the stamp paperwork for Form 1-4s and that administrative part could take a while after completing BG checks, and usually BG checks on the Federal level takes less than a minute with fingerprints to proceed or deny for the ATF, unlike Form 4473 bg checks which could take up to 88 days to complete.

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

For NFA items, they aren't in your possesion (silencer, machine gun etc) correct?

 

[CamoDeafie]

For NFA items, they aren't in your possesion (silencer, machine gun etc) correct?

Usually, yes.(90% of the time, 10% were the 1968 amnesty and the 1994 shotgun thing)

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm torn between converting my retro 12" 6.5 upper to a pin& weld 16" upper (hard finding 5/8-24 barrel extensions at 4.75-5" length that looks like XM177 moderators or flash hiders), or to SBR it with the blade brace, or to disassemble buffer tube and put a pistol stubby tube on and wait until court cases resolve this; and to see what the Congress people do.

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

For NFA items, they aren't in your possesion (silencer, machine gun etc) correct?

What I meant to say is, "You don't have the items in your possession until you are approved. So they won't come and take the items and toss you in jail.:" Not sure how that would work with a fuel filter silencer application. Again. It will never happen with me. Unless we can buy them legally without a tax stamp etc.

 

[ajole]

I'm torn between converting my retro 12" 6.5 upper to a pin& weld 16" upper (hard finding 5/8-24 barrel extensions at 4.75-5" length that looks like XM177 moderators or flash hiders), or to SBR it with the blade brace, or to disassemble buffer tube and put a pistol stubby tube on and wait until court cases resolve this; and to see what the Congress people do.

Just put the phallus buffer tube on the gun, and wait. Don’t let them make you spend money you shouldn’t have to spend.

 

[ajole]

What I meant to say is, "You don't have the items in your possession until you are approved. So they won't come and take the items and toss you in jail.:" Not sure how that would work with a fuel filter silencer application. Again. It will never happen with me. Unless we can buy them legally without a tax stamp etc.

That’s true….but not of things you bought when it was fully legal, that they now consider to be something illegal.

 

[moona11]

This whole you need to fill out a form is stuipd if you bought it from a gun store anyway. Because you had to pass a BGC in the first place. The extra BGC was an excuse for the $200 so called tax. Its a scam

 

[CamoDeafie]

2.1 million + registered silencers.
641,000+ registered SBRs
639,000+ registered machine guns but only 182,619 are transferable; meaning the vast majority are owned by police departments, Federal agencies (FBI, DEA, for example) corporations (special FFL licenses for LEO/Military contractors/manufacturers), other SOT FFLs. @FlashBang can you confirm this?

Approximately 400 million firearms total exist in the US

Heller did say 2A no cover "Dangerous and unusual weapons". But importantly, arms in "common use" are covered by 2A. There's an argument there that if the US military issue both SBRs (M4s) and Machine Guns (M4s and M16s) as a general issue standard rifle/carbine to troops, then that and the number of NFA items in Law Enforcement agencies should absolutely make them "common use".

Caetano did apply Heller to stun guns and found a figure of over 200,000 in the United States; to indicate that stun guns are in common use and therefore protected by the 2A (so much for "arms only means firearms and not just weapons in general ), and that Massachusetts cannot prohibit ownership of such.

Bruen kicked the tar out of "public safety balancing tests" and says Courts must use Text as informed by tradition and history for determining cases, and set a time frame of 1700s-1860s as the general frame to restrict interpretations of the Bill of Rights to what was commonly practiced and understood at that time.

Cargill following on W. VA VS EPA seems to say Federal agencies and DOJ cannot create new criminal codes, that is purview of Congress only. As well as saying any regulations and laws writ by Congress must be unambiguous.

Taken as a whole, depending on the results of the various 2A lawsuits in some Districts... I do not see this Final Rule standing for long, I do however see a potential for Courts to say "sure it's bad/unconstitutional and must be struck down, also those who have submitted should stay free/exempt from enforcement"

Edited. Apparently Caetano used the figure of over 200,000 in the United States and used Heller's "common use" test to say stun guns are commonly used.

 

[ajole]

That common use thing is a piece of garbage, it makes no freaking difference if something is in common use or not. The 2nd doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear commonly used arms….”

Right now, we are using it to win a little. But if we use it….THEY can also use it to deny any NEW gun, prior to its becoming common. Imagine if they had used it to deny the Sig FCU, and wiped out the P365 and P320, or the 5.7 guns in general 15 years ago when they were rare.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That common use thing is a piece of garbage, it makes no freaking difference if something is in common use or not. The 2nd doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear commonly used arms….”

Right now, we are using it to win a little. But if we use it….THEY can also use it to deny any NEW gun, prior to its becoming common. Imagine if they had used it to deny the Sig FCU, and wiped out the P365 and P320, or the 5.7 guns in general 15 years ago when they were rare.

This video while long, does hit upon the Heller and the Caetano decisions... the common use test refers to "commonly used for lawful purposes such as..." and then there is some stuff about new technology and arms still being protected by 2A (again, referring to Heller decision) in the same way that the internet, emails, cell phone messages so forth are protected under the 1st Amendment....
He does notably point out that the DOJ team under Garland completely disregarded Caetano in their justifications for putting AR15 pistols and firearms under NFA if they have stabilizing braces...

If you can deal with the guy's mannerisms and voice, as I've read elsewhere that he can be a little grating/annoying sometimes...

Again like I said,.I do not see how this rule can stand long if the good lawyers with GOA, FPC, SAF can use such cases as precedents and as reasons that the NFA as a whole should be struck down...

Oh also, National Shooting Sports Foundation says there were just over 24.4 million AR and AK rifles manufactured or imported into the US between 1990 and 2020; and this doesn't seem to count the AR/AK pistols which some estimates are saying that there are about 10-40 million of? (Somehow I doubt it's that many)


Edit. The Caetano decision specifically says that stun guns by being commonly used for lawful purposes, cannot be considered dangerous and unusual arms and thus outside the purview of the 2A as Massachusetts had tried to argue...which is the exact same argument that the DOJ is trying to use to justify putting the pistol braced firearms into the NFA which explicitly deals with "dangerous and unusual weapons".... and yet again like I've pointed out with the numbers of registered SBRs, silencers, machine guns, in addition to the numbers of otherwise non-NFA firearms...means they cannot be considered dangerous and unusual like Congress and DOJ outside the SCOTUS wants to say, following Caetano and Heller.

 

[ajole]

Shoot…the NRA quoted someone that gathers data as saying there were 30 million new ARs sold in the last three years alone…

 

[TNTRAILERTRASH]

If you can deal with the guy's mannerisms and voice, as I've read elsewhere that he can be a little grating/annoying sometimes...

His hair is my problem with him Not his voice.

 

[bscar]

I do not see how this rule can stand long if the good lawyers with GOA, FPC, SAF can use such cases as precedents and as reasons that the NFA as a whole should be struck down...

You are assuming those groups will actually go after anything besides protecting the workaround rather than trying to get rid of the thing that's getting worked around.

 

[Mt man]

Iv got a sick feeling that we cannot rely on SCOUS for a fair and honest judgment for much longer . The left is working on that as we speak and they are relentless!

 

[RACHGIER]

Iv got a sick feeling that we cannot rely on SCOUS for a fair and honest judgment for much longer . The left is working on that as we speak and they are relentless!

Have you been paying attention to the NY situation where SCOTUS is giving the state plenty of rope to hang itself by publicly stating that they will not interfere with the state enforcing it's new laws AND encourage the new lawsuits against it to be pushed so that they'll be able to rule on it in the near future.

You watch. NY is going to single-handedly fuck up gun control for the rest of the nanny states.

 

[Mt man]

Have you been paying attention to the NY situation where SCOTUS is giving the state plenty of rope to hang itself by publicly stating that they will not interfere with the state enforcing it's new laws AND encourage the new lawsuits against it to be pushed so that they'll be able to rule on it in the near future.

You watch. NY is going to single-handedly fuck up gun control for the rest of the nanny states.

I hope your right!

 

[bscar]

Oh no. It's worse than that. In 88 days after filing for the back ground check if it isn't completed for whatever reason, they can begin an enforcement action. They have everything to arrest you for owning an illegal SBR.

So?
Let them.
That's how many millions of people?
All it takes is the right person getting arrested to get the ball rolling on challenging the whole deal in court all the way to SCOTUS. As I've said before, I wouldn't just challenge the SBR/SBS part, it'd be the whole shebang and I'd be doing a gofundme to do it, just to see how many of these so called gun rights groups(NRA/GOA/2AF/etc) and big YT gun channels would be willing to pitch in in the beginning and how many would wait until it looked like I would be winning the case just so they can say they helped out.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well there is this....

Long video but the short of it is....

26 USC 5848

(a)General rule
No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or records required to be submitted or retained by a natural person in order to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations issued thereunder, shall, except as provided in subsection(b) of this section, be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence.

(b)Furnishing false information
Subsection (a) of this section shall not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.
(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

Emphasis added;

Cliffs note; since the pistols with braces are legal prior to the Final rule; the ATF/DOJ cannot legally go after persons possessing what they consider to be unregistered SBRs after the 120day deadline if the owners submitted documentation and information in order to comply with the new Final Ruling should it be allowed to continue (see SAF lawsuit in Texas relating to the pistol brace rulings, status update hearings are Feb 27th I believe, please correct me if I'm mistaken.)