For the shooters on the board: Take note of the new ATF proposed SBR rules

[roadPilot]

This thread is boring, let's debate 9mm vs 45 next. LOL j/k, I'll stick to the glock and xdtalk forums for that.

If you didn't notice, this is posted in the sub-forum named "Off-Topic Chat". Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Sponsored

 

[roadPilot]

You’re misunderstand the proposed rule change, at least as I understand it ANY gun that could generally be considered a rifle, is now a rifle, period. Taking the brace off doesn’t matter as the buffer tube and the entire assembly is generally defined as a rifle, so it is a rifle.

Negative. The rule is attempting to criminalize the possession of AR15-style pistols (not rifles).

In the simplest of terms, a rifle has a barrel >= 16", has an OAL (overall length) of greater than 26", and has a stock (buttstock), as it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. There are other requirements, but I digress.

AR15 "pistols" are built from mostly the same components as AR15 rifles, with the exception of the stock. They have barrels that are LESS than 16" in length, the are LESS than 26" OAL, and they have a stabilizing brace or blade instead of a stock. A brace or blade is NOT a stock, thus avoiding the designation of being designed for shoulder fire. You can not have a rifle without a stock.

What the BATFE is trying to do here is say a brace or blade = a stock because it COULD be used to support shoulder fire, despite the fact that, other than a short period of time a number of years ago, the BATFE has considered braces NOT stocks for many years.

Without a STOCK, you don't have a rifle. That's why REMOVING the stabilizing brace and leaving JUST the buffer tube does NOT result in it becoming a rifle. Again, to be considered a rifle, it needs to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. The buffer tube does NOT support this. That is why one of the options this rule gives AR15 pistol owners to "become compliant" is to remove and destroy the stabilizing brace or blade.

So, no, the new ruling does not attempt to make ANY rifle an SBR.

The recent ruling by the 5th circuit that threw out the BATFE bump stock ban is going to play a big part in getting this (and other) recent unconstitutional BATFE rule definition changes tossed out as well. Congress, not the BATFE, is the only body that has the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, and even they are legally bound by the US Constitution and BoR.

 

[roadPilot]

I personally feel safer knowing a good percentage of people in Texas are carrying a firearm when I am out buying groceries or at any other public place. A good guy with a gun isn't just going to protect themselves but also everyone around them from evil if the situation happened to occur.

Absolutely 100% agree. As I said earlier, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[UGADawg96]

If you didn't notice, this is posted in the sub-forum named "Off-Topic Chat". Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Sorry dude, my feed is "what's new" and I don't sort by forums.

 

[roadPilot]

Sorry dude, my feed is "what's new" and I don't sort by forums.

Are you incapable of reading the thread topic "For the shooters on the board: Take note of the new ATF proposed SBR rules" and not understanding that it DOESN'T pertain to trucks?

Also, sub-forum names are displayed with each thread in the 'What's New' results grid:

Finally, you most certainly can chose to have all posts in any particular sub-forum NOT show up in your feed(s):

 

[SumGuy]

Negative. The rule is attempting to criminalize the possession of AR15-style pistols (not rifles).

In the simplest of terms, a rifle has a barrel >= 16", has an OAL (overall length) of greater than 26", and has a stock (buttstock), as it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. There are other requirements, but I digress.

AR15 "pistols" are built from mostly the same components as AR15 rifles, with the exception of the stock. They have barrels that are LESS than 16" in length, the are LESS than 26" OAL, and they have a stabilizing brace or blade instead of a stock. A brace or blade is NOT a stock, thus avoiding the designation of being designed for shoulder fire. You can not have a rifle without a stock.

What the BATFE is trying to do here is say a brace or blade = a stock because it COULD be used to support shoulder fire, despite the fact that, other than a short period of time a number of years ago, the BATFE has considered braces NOT stocks for many years.

Without a STOCK, you don't have a rifle. That's why REMOVING the stabilizing brace and leaving JUST the buffer tube does NOT result in it becoming a rifle. Again, to be considered a rifle, it needs to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. The buffer tube does NOT support this. That is why one of the options this rule gives AR15 pistol owners to "become compliant" is to remove and destroy the stabilizing brace or blade.

So, no, the new ruling does not attempt to make ANY rifle an SBR.

The recent ruling by the 5th circuit that threw out the BATFE bump stock ban is going to play a big part in getting this (and other) recent unconstitutional BATFE rule definition changes tossed out as well. Congress, not the BATFE, is the only body that has the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, and even they are legally bound by the US Constitution and BoR.

I think we are saying the same thing, almost. Your first sentence agrees exactly with my comment. All previously defined pistol ARs are now a rifle, and more technically an SBR, subject to rule and decree of the ATF (please don’t shoot my dog). You propose that by removing the brace the AR returns to a pistol and I am simply contending that my layman interpretation of the proposed massive expansion of what is a rifle, MAY mean that regardless of a brace, stock, or any attachments, the existence of a buffer tube alone may mean the gun is classified as a rifle, and subject to the new rules.

If running with nothing attached to the buffer tube keeps the ATFs hands off, ok, but shooting and AR style gun without any bracing sounds terrible.

terrible timing on my part because I filed my first form1 for an SBR around christmas. Just in time to get caught in limbo and apparently the ATF has taken a hiatus from approving form1 s right now, at least according to anecdotes on Reddit/NFA.

regardless of how the final/final rule ends up being implemented, we can all be assured of further restrictions on our rights. Rather than go after the criminals, it is easier to make everyone a felon. Insanity.

 

[JeffInCOS]

Sorry dude, my feed is "what's new" and I don't sort by forums.

Bob is pretty serious about his non-sbr handgun rifles.

I was going to tell you that in the 9mm vs .45, I think the 1911 is the best BBQ gun.

 

[Paul Neubauer]

 

[roadPilot]

I appreciate the adult responses, @SumGuy. Not all in this thread are as such.

I think we are saying the same thing, almost. Your first sentence agrees exactly with my comment. All previously defined pistol ARs are now a rifle, and more technically an SBR, subject to rule and decree of the ATF (please don’t shoot my dog).

Not really.

Pre-rule change: An AR15 pistol is a pistol because the barrel is < 16", is < 26" OAL and is NOT designed to be shoulder fired. This includes those with a stabilizing brace, a blade, or nothing at all on the buffer tube. If an AR15 assembled as above had a rifle stock on it, it was an SBS already.

Post-rule change: An AR15 pistol, which was a pistol due to the stabilizing brace before the rule, was now in a rifle configuration BECAUSE of the stabilizing brace.

In short, the BATFE wants a stabilizing brace to be considered EQUAL to a stock, simply because it COULD be shouldered, even if it wasn't designed to be shouldered.

Again, if you read the rule, you'll see that one option for an AR15 pistol owner to become compliant is to remove and destroy the stabilizing brace.

A few things:

A buffer tube doesn't make an AR15 a rifle.

An AR15 receiver isn't 'ALWAYS' either a rifle or a pistol. What it is is determined by its CURRENT configuration. For example, if you have an AR15 pistol with a 10.5" barrel, is under 26" OAL (end of buffer tube to end of barrel THREADS) and a brace/blade/nothing, you can remove the brace or blade, remove the 10.5" barrel and replace it with a 16" barrel (which makes OAL > 26", then put a rifle stock on it and it's now a rifle. It did not REMAIN a pistol because it USED to be a pistol. You can then return it to a pistol configuration by doing the same in reverse. Note that you HAVE to remove the stock BEFORE putting the < 16" barrel on it, or you would actually have a SBS for that brief period of time.

[quote}All previously defined pistol ARs are now a rifle[/quote]ONLY if you leave the stabilizing brace on it (post-rule change). See above. As soon as you remove the brace, it is NOT considered a rifle, as rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder.

You propose that by removing the brace the AR returns to a pistol and I am simply contending that my layman interpretation of the proposed massive expansion of what is a rifle, MAY mean that regardless of a brace, stock, or any attachments, the existence of a buffer tube alone may mean the gun is classified as a rifle, and subject to the new rules.

Negative. That's not the case.

They are simply trying to get rid of stabilizing braces because they (a) with a brace, they are (were) pistols, which means they can be carried or kept loaded and accessible while in vehicles by concealed pistol licensees in many/most states and (b) since they are SHORTER than rifles, the CAN be concealed easier. Also, if anyone were stupid enough to register their AR15 with a stabilizing brace as an short-barreled RIFLE, that eliminates it from it being able to be carried concealed (under aforementioned CPL laws) in most states.

If running with nothing attached to the buffer tube keeps the ATFs hands off, ok, but shooting and AR style gun without any bracing sounds terrible.

I do not disagree with the your opinion on difficulty in firing an AR15 pistol one-handed. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. That's exactly why the stabilizing brace was created!

terrible timing on my part because I filed my first form1 for an SBR around christmas. Just in time to get caught in limbo and apparently the ATF has taken a hiatus from approving form1 s right now, at least according to anecdotes on Reddit/NFA.

There's a place for SBRs. But whether or not you want an SBR shouldn't have anything to do with the BATFE's overreach in trying to turn law abiding citizens into felons, simply to further the anti-gun agenda.

Did you watch the recent GOA video (above, posted by @Paul Neubauer) about how, due to the anticipated backlog of Form 1's and the fact that background checks for these are automatically denied after 88 days will literally mean millions of law-abiding citizens will become felons based on this rule change? If not, do it now.

regardless of how the final/final rule ends up being implemented, we can all be assured of further restrictions on our rights. Rather than go after the criminals, it is easier to make everyone a felon. Insanity.

Fully agree. It's ridiculous AND unconstitutional.

Stay safe and stay vigilant, my friend.

 

[roadPilot]

Bob is pretty serious about his non-sbr handgun rifles.

I'm an FFL, a former LEO, and a very strong supporter of our Constitutionally-protected, God-given rights. My only intent is to make sure everyone has accurate information in order to make their own decisions, and not be misled by anyone passing along incorrect information, whether on purpose or inadvertently.

I was going to tell you that in the 9mm vs .45, I think the 1911 is the best BBQ gun.

Love the 1911's, that's for sure.

 

[roadPilot]

@SumGuy - I am recently aware of provisions in the rule that would require you to destroy or turn in imported pistols that came with a stabilizing brace, something about a violation of 922r due to them being fully assembled already before import. For the imports (e.g Stribog, etc.), removal is not an option.

But this doesn't apply to what I've been referring to (AR15's assembled here domestically). These you can still remove the brace and comply.

 

[SumGuy]

@SumGuy - I am recently aware of provisions in the rule that would require you to destroy or turn in imported pistols that came with a stabilizing brace, something about a violation of 922r due to them being fully assembled already before import. For the imports (e.g Stribog, etc.), removal is not an option.

But this doesn't apply to what I've been referring to (AR15's assembled here domestically). These you can still remove the brace and comply.

Thankfully, at least as I understand it, that was stricken from the final published rule.

Sponsored