Posted on 07/10/2021 9:58:05 AM PDT by rktman
should read “some 9 million new guns were sold”
Umm. No.
Braces have been around for quite some time.
Modern AR braces, about 12 years now.
Every single tech opinion clearly stated/states that when used as reviewed, incidental use on the arm, chest thigh or gasp, even shoulder, does make the system a SBR.
The critical piece used to be whether or not the accessory was designed or intended for use from the shoulder. The exploitation as you label it. As if that would make it darker and more evil... Irrational minds at work. Congress asleep at the wheel.
Now, the proposed criteria is much less objective than before.
The goal of ATF is to make everything unacceptable.
If their mantra about stopping violence had any basis in truth, they would require every US Attorney to prosecute every felon under 922 who got caught with a gun, period. The statute when liberally applied can rope in just about any felon using a gun.
Does NOT make an SBR...
Well except for the safeguards put in place to keep them from retaining a record of who bought what. šššššš I crack my self up sometimes.
Itās apples and oranges. We talk about public safety when the goal of gun control is the acquisition of power and punishment of thought criminals. Every cause the left promotes is a ruse to cover their real end game, which is total subjugation of their political opponents. All of these special interest groups, ethnic minorities, assorted sexual deviants, illegals, women, abuse victims, convicts and all the rest will be sorely disappointed when we have only one political party, and then it will be too late.
Far more than nine million were sold in the year and a half since the covid pandemic began. Over four million guns were sold in Jan. '21, again in Feb. and again in March. That is over 12 million in those three months alone.
Bidenās COVID Relief Checks Help Spur Another Record Month of AR-15 Sales April 1 2021
Of late, most purchases and use of stabilizing braces was precisely to create rifles with short barrels which were legal only because of a semantic between āintent of designā vs āintent of useā. While I applaud the malicious obedience achieving freedom to bypass infringement, itās annoying that such word games are played by our side in a way assured to lose.
Feel free to follow up this by using the sales figures of stabilizing braces to demonstrate āin common useā in a court case intended to remove short barreled rifles from NFA restrictions.
Are there such stats? If so, the ought to be useful in court.
I’ve heard of “10million”, but not as a fact.
The AATF COULD have denied everysingle one becasue all/any “could be” fired from teh shoulder no matter how short a LOP nor how unsuitable the use would be. Matters ot, the approval letters and AFT back and forth rulings clearly state the “incidental” use from the shoulder does not make an SBR. So, what does? The letter of the law.
Which s rather clear ( even if unconstitutional n most rational minded people), a barrel shorter than 16 (rifle) or 18 (shotgun) and a shoulder stock.
I’ve fired a 450 Bushmaster pistol with a KAK shockwave blade from the shoulder (incidentally of course) and it was not “useful”, now a 556 or similar, and it may be “useful”, but again, the rulings clearly held “incidental or situational” use from the shoulder was not a violation. Just as a long gun, intended to be fired from the shoulder, CAN BE fired from the hands, even though doing so does not make it a “pistol” per the law. Firing your 12 ga pump shotgun from both hands but not the shoulder does not require one to have a license or be in violation of a law regarding pistols, a pox be on the states that require licensing of handguns/ guns period.
There’s a dissatisfying circular argument wrapped up in the “in common use” test for legality: items which are restricted will be largely avoided by most of the general public, e.g. because they don’t want to do the NFA paperwork. This avoidance makes them less “in common use” - which the authorities then seize upon, turn around, and claim that the fact they are not in common use therefore legitimizes and even justifies the ban! But that’s a circular argument, because the lack of common use arose, at least in part, because of the ban.
Circular arguments are terrible foundations upon which to build legislation.
This is a rare case where that cycle is broken: given the block (NFA) preventing common use, a loophole was found and exploited by the public to satiate the common demand. We can now subpoena the sales figures for an identifiable specialized product (braces), fairly estimate that only a tiny fraction of those sold were for the āintended purposeā (handicap use), and reasonably conclude that upwards of ~1% of total population acquired it for a singular purpose: constructing what is, for all practical purposes, a short barreled rifle - in quantities that must be considered ācommon useā.
Your posts here seem to ignore several facts. First, pistol braces did not come into common use simply because "the public" found and exploited "a loophole" - the federal government was an active participant in the process. ATF provided written pre-approval for the manufacture and sale of pistol braces, which clearly differentiated between the braces and shoulder stocks.
Second, neither floppy pieces of foam with nylon straps, nor thin pieces of rigid plastic shaped like knife or axe blades, can be reasonably construed to be shoulder stocks - even if they might resemble such stocks from particular angles of view. That is exactly why ATF approved the accessories in the first place.
Finally, you assume that those who purchase braces do so with "a singular purpose: constructing... a short barreled rifle". Obviously, there is no way for you to substantiate that claim; and it could be said with equal fairness that pistols equipped with braces were purchased or constructed because many owners desired 'a long barreled pistol', that could be more safely & precisely controlled via use of a brace. Frankly, the overall tenor of your posts here reminds me of material from Giffords or Handgun Control Inc, or possibly some ATF bureaucrat trying to rationalize that agency's attempted 180 degree turn on the legality of pistol braces...
That works for me! I suppose bump stocks are another example of trying to get around the circular argument. Which is not to say that the gun grabbers, and, especially those in the F-troop, aren’t trying to exploit the circular argument articulated here.
Likewise bump stocks, a product which would not exist but for the ban on machine guns.
Absurd to impute Iām anti gun, especially in this thread.
I just received my approved Form 1 to legally āSBRā a 12ā .308 pistol.
I appreciate your argument. Iām addressing what I earnestly believe is sociopolitical problematic with it. Youāre saying the right things, but using them in plainly disingenuous ways.
Yes, braces were intended for legitimate use of powerful heavy pistols - by handicapped or extreme niche shooters. Theyāre very awkward to use. Few indeed would seriously use such a thing as intended, save for handicap or obscure sport. Possible? Sure. Realistic? No. Exceptā¦they fill a legal niche, making SBRs legally accessible. I know, having just spent $230 for the NFA paperwork for one. Would have saved $230 by putting a āpistol braceā on it instead, and, like so many others obviously intended to in such a purchase, used it as a plausibly-deniable shoulder stock.
Show me how many āpistol bracesā have been sold, and convince me the bulk of them are dominantly used as design intended.
Sure it makes a poor shoulder stock - but it is good enough for most such uses, by those not inclined to file paperwork, fingerprints, and taxes to do so for a proper stock.
If youād bother reading another of my posts here, youād see my suggestion how this loophole fiasco can be turned to eviscerating a major fraction of NFA law - hardly the tactic of gun banners.
HA! I just stole that to pass on to others. Thanks
How do we know this?
It is based on a survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which found, at one point, that 40% of the gun buyers in 2020 were new gun buyers.
I have seen another estimate it was only 4-5 million new gun buyers.
You certainly employ a lot of the popular gun-grabber 'buzz words'.
Who talks about "loopholes"? I NEVER hear gun owners use the term. There's the supposed "gunshow loophole", and the "Charleston loophole", and the "boyfriend loophole" - all gun-grabber terms, and all based on the default assumption that people shouldn't be able to buy guns without specific, one person/one gun at a time, government permission.
And who commonly conflates legal weapons with illegal (or nearly impossible to legally own) weapons? That's a basic gun-grabber tactic. They tell us semi-auto AR15's are the same as M4s/M16s; gun owners know they aren't. Gun-grabbers insist that semi-auto AKMs are "weapons of war"; gun owners know there isn't a single military organization on the planet that uses semi-auto AKMs. And you tell us legal handguns with braces are really SBRs; most gun owners know the difference.
Finally, gun-grabbers routinely suggest that gun owners have evil motives for buying firearms (the list of examples is nearly endless). Your repeated suggestions that everyone buying a pistol with a brace is attempting to circumvent federal law sounds awfully similar.
Maybe you just like gun-grabber terminology; or maybe you're an attorney: who knows (or cares). If I exercise my right to keep and bear arms, it has nothing to do with "loopholes". And if I choose to own a pistol equipped with a brace, OR a properly documented SBR, rest assured, I know the difference...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.