they know
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
UPDATE 10/3 - Injunction covers all FPC members - ATF publishes their pistol brace rule
- Thread starter batoncolle
- Start date
I just went to harbor freight for a carbon engraving pencil, sold out.. dang it man.
Finally found one on wish.
New plan. First 10 engraving free. Next 10 $10.00 and from then forth 10 4 $20.00. Can do script, curves. & pig Latin. Will com to you for 3 flats of eggs and 4 cans of chicken.
#Scriptsbyhand
Finally found one on wish.
New plan. First 10 engraving free. Next 10 $10.00 and from then forth 10 4 $20.00. Can do script, curves. & pig Latin. Will com to you for 3 flats of eggs and 4 cans of chicken.
#Scriptsbyhand
All of the below are regarding the comment by the ATF today about enforcement action on denied form 1 brace applications. The FBI is going to be slammed with background checks, and they have 88 days to resolve them. Typically they don't in the case of firearms because guns are released anyway after three days. So the FBI never finalizes the check, and in the case of the "free"stamps if that happens to you, you will be subject to some sort of enforcement action...
"Delivered at 9:55 this morning. Oh by the way, a disapproved form 1 for a braced pistol “will result in an enforcement action”. Even for “open background” denial after 88 days."
Yeah, I was disappointed when they talked about how the ATF wasn't using NICS to do background checks.
If you read the Form 1 doc it specifically says that NICS will be used, and if that wasn't the case they would have changed the form like they did to add the 'tax free' option.
Still, it's a valid point. If anything derails the process it seems like you are fair game for 'enforcement action'.
And even if they never kick down your door, do you have the thousands of dollars you will need to cover in legal fees just to get the charges dropped?
There seems to be some back and forth, and the rule is purposely vague.
In one place they talk about modifying the gun so it can't accept the brace, but in other places (like the one shown in the later post) destroying the brace is enough.
If it's an AR pistol and has the kind of buffer tube that can accept a stock, that's probably an issue if this rule is upheld... Like it was in the pre-brace era.
There were special 'pistol' buffers that people used to use that didn't have the typical attachment points for a stock. My guess is for an AR pistol that's what they want, since most braces for ARs used standard buffer tubes.
And as pointed out, there are braces that attach to these pistol tubes, but I still think that's what they were aiming at when talking about modifying a gun so it can't accept a brace (or stock).
Just my guess though. This whole thing is so vague and riddled with contradictions and errors it's hard to even say what is 'legal' under it and what isn't. Which I'm sure is their purpose.
Of course they do. Same with all the cans out there.
And the 120 days has still yet to start.
How did you pass the bar? Go troll elsewhere.
Not everyone...
The very definition of “I love and support the 2A, but….”
The ones that did their homework for them.
Similar threads
