[hauki]

I tried to explore this subject, with a member who is a retired Doctor. Wanting to gauge the willingness of Doctors to go up against the system, post ObamaCare and WhuFlu. From the Doctors response, and the pushback he received from other members, he realized that he was in the minority, and complained to the mods. Unfortunately that conversation has been removed.

The gist of his answers, were that he would tell us how the diagnosis/prescription could be worded, but would be unwilling to question the governments position.

In my experience lately, it would be pretty tough to get a Doctor to risk his livelihood, to help protect a constitutional right.

Your are correct. And my example of being certified by the State to use a crossbow for hunting vs. being certified by the Feds to own a scary AR pistol isn’t the best example. In my State being certified to use a crossbow is pretty easy. Just a doctors statement.
My comment tags off of the disabilities argument. A provision may be allowed, but being certified through that provision may be difficult if not impossible, as you pointed out.

 

[MoRivera]

IMHO the whole issue is splitting hairs and a flip flop bait and switch.
So why do they not make a " rule " you can't hold any pistol sideways and throw the bullets out of the pistol as you fire it ?
Probably most criminals that either carry a gun or get a gun with the plan to commit a crime get what ever they can get their hands on. Then ditch it for another gun.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that has thought of some great questions. That would totally make the case of how much of a threat a pistol brace is and if you shoulder it or not.
But the problem is A. Can you get the true answers B. Don't want to educate the bozos on how far off they are.

Kind of tough when the people who call the shots know nothing about guns, and/or don't want to or listen.

 

[racerman56]

What a big mess.

 

[MoRivera]

What a big mess.

Yes it is, but the SB Tactical guy actually makes some sense of it, or at least how it got to this point from direct experience.

 

[mrerick]

I think that the explanation from the inside makes it clear that there is a real issue here that has been difficult to resolve through rational analysis.

There is even contradiction and imprecision within the existing final order.

This may be an example of a deep state agency that has been given an impossible task to regulate, and so is actually quite interesting to understand from a factual point of view. When left to do the job based on factual analysis, they have - in their own words - "made mistakes in the past", now coming to a different conclusion and stating that they were always wrong about any other position.

This also reminds me of the courts that have found for plaintiffs that support prohibition of certain firearms because of their "scary appearance". That is factual justification in some Federal Districts.

Clearly, we will be watching all this get sorted out in the near future. There is a factual and rational resolution to this, and it may be quite unexpected for everyone involved. That is why I say that appeal to the courts is always risky, expensive and time consuming.

 

[MoRivera]

I think that the explanation from the inside makes it clear that there is a real issue here that has been difficult to resolve through rational analysis.

There is even contradiction and imprecision within the existing final order.

This may be an example of a deep state agency that has been given an impossible task to regulate, and so is actually quite interesting to understand from a factual point of view. When left to do the job based on factual analysis, they have - in their own words - "made mistakes in the past", now coming to a different conclusion and stating that they were always wrong about any other position.

This also reminds me of the courts that have found for plaintiffs that support prohibition of certain firearms because of their "scary appearance". That is factual justification in some Federal Districts.

Clearly, we will be watching all this get sorted out in the near future. There is a factual and rational resolution to this, and it may be quite unexpected for everyone involved. That is why I say that appeal to the courts is always risky, expensive and time consuming.

This section has some interesting insight on imprecision...

 

[NorthernMichigan]

I have a new take on this.

Flat out, this is new tax on pistols. It hasn't been voted on. This is simple taxation without representation. They are trying to softball it in with the initial waiver, but you can't deny that is exactly what it is.

 

[MoRivera]

I have a new take on this.

Flat out, this is new tax on pistols. It hasn't been voted on. This is simple taxation without representation. They are trying to softball it in with the initial waiver, but you can't deny that is exactly what it is.

Thing is though that if they can't process it they have to refund it. Otherwise they'll get sued....which they probably will anyway for suddenly taxing us for something that wasn't taxable before they 'redefined' what it was.

 

[TerminalSigness]

It’s not a revenue stream. I spend that much at one range trip. It is an intentional cluster, designed to gauge compliance levels.
They do care if you have an SBR or brace. They are just using this as a trial run, along with some political theater.

 

[TerminalSigness]

Thing is though that if they can't process it they have to refund it. Otherwise they'll get sued....which they probably will anyway for suddenly taxing us for something that wasn't taxable before they 'redefined' what it was.

You don’t remember when ObamaCare went to the supremes???

Roberts rewrote it to make it fit a framework. 🤷‍♂️ It was never intended to work. It was a big middle finger to 80% of the USA. This is exactly the same.

 

[NorthernMichigan]

Thing is though that if they can't process it they have to refund it. Otherwise they'll get sued....which they probably will anyway for suddenly taxing us for something that wasn't taxable before they 'redefined' what it was.

Doesn't matter. They have invented a new tax that didn't exist before. They are trying to shoehorn it into the SBR tax, but the reality is it is a new tax on AR pistols. There was no vote. The refund process/grace period/exemption to start is all red herring. It's legal and fine today, if you build one tomorrow, you will be taxed on it and the people being taxed were not represented in a vote.

 

[Vetteguy904]

While I get your point, the ATF published rules (which are constitutional under the executive branch, so far) saying that braces are "good" as long as you don't shoulder them. So I'm not blaming law-abiding gun owners. I'm blaming the people who poked the sleeping bear.

I know a lot of people disagree with me, and that's fine. This is just my opinion. Braces were always too good to last, and some people (and I get them) think it's time for a fight.

Laws cannoit be constitutional if they are not enacted by congress. 90% of the laws and rules that are used to suppress your rights are in fact unconstitutional.

 

[MoRivera]

Doesn't matter. They have invented a new tax that didn't exist before. They are trying to shoehorn it into the SBR tax, but the reality is it is a new tax on AR pistols. There was no vote. The refund process/grace period/exemption to start is all red herring. It's legal and fine today, if you build one tomorrow, you will be taxed on it and the people being taxed were not represented in a vote.

Yes it has existed for decades, they're just including this now through redefining what it is. They have a 120-day grace/exempt period and what do you think will happen? You'll have to pay for it anyway after that just like any SBR, everyone knew that. So I don't see what's 'new' about this outside of what it already is. Do you think they'll raise the tax, or find a way of retroactively charging those who did it for free? THAT would be something new. I.e...it's the same tax structure, they just expanded what qualifies....its like right there on page one.

 

[MoRivera]

You don’t remember when ObamaCare went to the supremes???

Roberts rewrote it to make it fit a framework. 🤷‍♂️ It was never intended to work. It was a big middle finger to 80% of the USA. This is exactly the same.

Of course it is, but whether they say they 'intended' for this to work or not, it won't and it's blatantly obvious. What's so funny is that they're trying to screw us...but they've screwed up the screwing part.

 

[NorthernMichigan]

I.e...it's the same tax structure, they just expanded what qualifies....its like right there on page one.

That makes it new. You are using their logic. "We can just change this definition and tax this other thing." There is no current tax on AR pistols. Now there will be on anything with a buffertube. It's a new tax on AR pistols.

Good video find by the way. Well worth the time to watch. Thanks for posting it.

 

[LEEEAGLE]

I watched the whole 45 minutes. I get the distinct impression that I watched something completely different than some of you! Many points missed completely across the board. First thing comes to mind is that federal agencies are using the NFA to create law through regulation and changes of definition. Complete ignorance of firearms, as well as disrespect of the Constitution and citizens is what's driving this. I seriously doubt this ruling will stand, in fact I believe this could backfire in ways that will remove many ATF regulations retroactively applied since the NFA of 1934. That's just my opinion. Do not comply 👽

 

[MoRivera]

I watched the whole 45 minutes. I get the distinct impression that I watched something completely different than some of you! Many points missed completely across the board. First thing comes to mind is that federal agencies are using the NFA to create law through regulation and changes of definition. Complete ignorance of firearms, as well as disrespect of the Constitution and citizens is what's driving this. I seriously doubt this ruling will stand, in fact I believe this could backfire in ways that will remove many ATF regulations retroactively applied since the NFA of 1934. That's just my opinion.

Are you saying that the video missed it or that people here missed it? Because if the latter, it's probably because they didn't watch the whole video.

 

[LEEEAGLE]

Are you saying that the video missed it or tat people here missed it? Because if the latter, it's probably because they didn't watch the whole video.

The video was spot on, and informative. Thank you very much for posting it. It is exactly the information people need coming from the horse's mouth. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that some of the members obviously haven't seen it. A coincides very much with the legal opinions I have read about it. Although nobody will come out and say it directly due to potential backlash, the obvious message is do not comply!

 

[MoRivera]

That makes it new. You are using their logic. "We can just change this definition and tax this other thing." There is no current tax on AR pistols. Now there will be on anything with a buffertube. It's a new tax on AR pistols.

Good video find by the way. Well worth the time to watch. Thanks for posting it.

I'm not 'using their logic' to justify, I'm just relaying what's obvious. It's not a new tax, it's the same tax but inclusive of more items...unless again you are opining that it will be a different amount and applied with different parameters. That's how they're trying to get away with this. If they wanted to create a whole new taxation I assume it would take more than just a 293-page 'ruling'. No, there is no current tax on AR -pistols, and there won't be (so they say) if you have a pistol that distinctly 'conforms' to what they're redefining as NOT a short-barreled-rifle...a la no brace or receiver extension that can be shouldered. There is NO mention of a tax on pistols that don't have a brace or such...but obviously there are caveats in there as well.

Maybe it's semantics, but the tax was going to come anyway if they're calling these things SBR's. If they're trying to 'pull' anything, it's to make make millions of people instant felons so that they can meet the president's agenda of taking our guns...or at least say that they tried. I don't think the extra tax revenue is the main driving force, if you will. Gun control is...extra tax is a fringe benefit if it will even happen, and if it's not evened out by all the extra time and manpower they'll need to process/maintain any of this, never mind enforce it.

But hell...maybe it is some foolish scheme to create a new tax, who knows? Any way you look at it, it's blatantly and egregiously absurd.

 

[MoRivera]

The video was spot on, and informative. Thank you very much for posting it. It is exactly the information people need coming from the horse's mouth. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that some of the members obviously haven't seen it. A coincides very much with the legal opinions I have read about it. Although nobody will come out and say it directly due to potential backlash, the obvious message is do not comply!

Yeah it's long, but as I said it's concise and not 'sensationalized' for clicks. And this guy was in it from the beginning...he sat with the ATF on numerous occasions, saw them flip-flop, talked to congressmen, etc. So if anyone outside of the actual ATF and president has genuine first-hand accounts as to how this went down, it's this guy.