- Thread starter Conrad101st
- Start date
You're saying everybody is sucking dick because they are following the law... at the time.
I'm saying... follow the law... until you are ready to NOT follow the law... nobody is to that point yet, even with a stolen election and J6 political prisoners.
I'm sure there are people out there past that point and are already making plans.......
Just saying....
Doc
Isn’t using a pistol “brace” to begin with bending the knee?
Yes. Unless you’re rocking unregistered suppressed full auto SBRs with under-barrel grenade launchers, your knees have as much gravel imbedded in them as everyone else’s.
Last edited:
Watched a video from guns and gadgets, the judge in the fifth circuit I believe had an interesting choice of words regarding devices put on the back of pistols, be it "either a brace or a stock"
I'll link the video.
Edit to add, I guess I should have turned the page before I posted the video lol.
The goal of the original NFA was to remove the ability of the “common man” to own handguns and shorter varieties of long guns (rifles and shotguns) and automatic firearms seen as a great “public” risk from those that used them in criminal acts. They included most of the types they routinely saw in the public media - often sensationalized in movies and news reports of the day.
The outright ban of handguns and automatic weapons (along with other items like suppressors) was known to be unconstitutional - so congress decided to “tax” the ownership. At $200 it might not seem much today - but in 1934 it was nearly 1/7th of the average annual “white” man’s income… and twice that for blacks and most new (poor) immigrants to the country. The “tax” assured that only the rich and powerful could afford to own them lawfully.
Of course, the criminals that were actually causing all of the issues were completely unaffected. They simply refused to pay this exorbitant “tax” (imagine that).
During the process of writing this law and in the years after, several things happened:
- It was determined (either through judicial review or political pressure) that a ban on handguns would not be possible. That was one of the first to go (even before passage).
- Still, “they had to do something” - and at the time of passage an arbitrary set of requirements (18″ long barrel and 26″ overall) were set for both rifles and shotguns to “avoid the tax” - as this was seen as sufficient to prevent “concealability” (e.g., the reason for the desire to originally ban handguns).
- Later (after WWII) the government screwed up (surprised?) and sold a large number of surplus rifles through its CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) to the public… About 2 million were sold before the government found out that (oops) the barrel length on these rifles they just sold - were less than 18″. To remedy this issue - they simply (and arbitrarily) changed the barrel length requirement for rifles to 16″.
Why, because I refuse to pay a 200 tax to the man.....I bought a product that was legal to be attached to a firearm....regardless of length of barrel.
Sorry if that hurts you all that filed your SBR "free" stamps.
Doc
And...let's not forget....
Prohibition led to the 1934 NFA.
And let's not forget.....
A bunch of crusading cunts, who had recently become brand new voters.
If you have a pdf stamp and Adobe Acrobat you have as many stamps as you want.
I read somewhere that how they arrived at the $200 for the stamp was that was how much a new Thompson cost in that day. They figured if they effectively doubled the cost it would make them less attractive to own. But like you said, criminals don't care much about that stuff.
If only you could still get them for $200.
It's important to note that the judges who ruled in our favor were Trump/Reagan appointees while the naysayer was appointed by the Kenyan.
So you did the budget knee bend instead of the full priced one. Got it.
I was not ready for that. I just spit water all over the place while choking. That was funny. Now to get some paper towels to clean this water up.
That was 1968, Gun Control Act
The M1 and M2 Carbine barrel is just a quarter inch under 18 inches.
Cause I didn't pay......which I'm assuming you did or this would be a moot point. Just added you to the list of 8%ers.......
Dumbass boot licker.........
Doc
ETA: I see you joined in 2007 and have 373 posts......you are glowing brightly......
Doc
I think what he is saying is that pistol braces are wink-wink not-a-stock, stocks for SBRs. And, compared to a real stock, pistol braces kinda suck. If you are really not “bending the knee,” put a real stock on your firearm. Otherwise, you’re still playing the game by their rules- ie “bending the knee.”
I see your point, however by putting a brace on versus paying the 200......yeah I'll do it all day everyday and twice on Sunday.
Plus now it's not on a list for when they come for confiscation. The government is NOT your friend. They didn't pass up on all these taxes for them being nice .....they have a plan with all this. They will eventually come for them. It may delay the inevitable, but I already know what to do when that happens.
Doc
Open for comments from the "free tax stamp / just register your shit / easier to comply" camp......
I read that it was a 3-0 decision including the Kenyan's appointee. But they weren't ruling on the 'gun' issue, but on the right of the ATF to issue such a 'law.'
They won't stop... they'll be back. And it will cost Americans more millions in legal fees to defend their natural rights. Which is how Fabian Socialism works. They will keep biting the apple and getting slapped. Until they win.
The only 'victory' will be when these people are driven out of America.
Sirhr
I believe the barrel length was dictated by the NFA in the 1930's.
After that, for example, the Model 94 Trapper went from 14" to 16" And Shotgun barrels were limited to 18"
I may be wrong, but GCA 68 had nothing to do with barrel length.
My apologies if I am incorrect.
Sirhr
It was 2:1
The odds of a Demoncrat appointed judge ruling in favor of the 2A is practically 0%
@sirhrmechanic,
Here is how I've interpreted the way things shook out...
In 1934 shotguns and rifles all have a minimum barrel lengths of 18".
In 1936 the .22lr makers said "Hey we have hunting rifles that have 16" barrels. Criminals would never use these. Cut us some slack." Congress amended the NFA and said .22lr rifles with 16" and over are barrels are exempted... The amended language stated the definition of "firearm" did "not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length."
Then in 1963 the governemnt started surplusing M1 carbines, sold a metric shit ton of them and after they were in peoples hands someone said "Uhmmmm. You guys know you are selling un-registered SBRs, right?" It was an "OH Shit!" moment and in 1968 the GCA changed it so that ALL rifles are title 1 with 16" or longer barrels (Section 102 of Chapter 44 of Title 18). Shotguns were never addressed so they are still 18". I am parphrasing in case anyone cares.
1934 NFA...
1968 GCA...
Last edited:
We are all to busy complying or hiding weapons from the pedophile elite running the no longer American republic to ever be "ready" to not comply. Rebellion is not something you get ready for, you live it or you don't. And most Americans are not the same stock that was shooting people in the face for taxing their breakfast beverage
Actually, it was more about gun confiscation and taxes than the actual beverage.
Interesting.
The statement was intended to carry humor, not a perfect comparison.
I want to laugh and cry at the same time. Laugh ... because that's over-the-top snark-funny. Cry ... because it actually represents some individuals that have otherwise lived mostly sane and coherent lives, but no longer. I need something in the middle ... perhaps just a good "flat-forehead" smack and an audible "DOH!".
Many "breezes" come and go. I readily comply at the change of the "law".
I judge no one for refusing to comply. But that's just not how I roll.
The idea that a totalitarian agency would look to get a list of armed individuals that would comply with unlawful commands is not too far a stretch.
The core of the issue with your statement here is that the law didn't change. No reasonable interpretation of the law changed. The agency issued an unlawful command to citizens with an unlawful offer to forgive a tax burden.
Which is exactly the point -- people who took the ATF's word as law and would comply... those are people who will do things if pushed.
I've always struggled with the stretch from "compliance" to "ratting out neighbors". I complied with the final rule, as I've stated, primarily because it gave me several free SBR's without the fee, while having the side benefit of complying with the ATF's rule. Now that the rule is enjoined, I'm no better or worse off than I was before, except that I can now modify my braces with stocks, vertical grips, etc. as long as I don't change the fundamentals of the barrel length. And nothing about my current status is giving me that uncontrollable urge to go search my neighbor's house for ATF violations so that I can turn them over for imprisonment. Compliance is personal ... and saying that it precipitates some predisposition towards finding non-compliant people to rat-out ... is just a goofy assertion IMHO.
I'm not trying to be a dick -- but I don't think you understand the point. The fact that you complied at all is the point. Your rationale for that isn't relevant -- you complied to save a few hundred bucks. Your compliance granted you something the ATF doesn't have the authority to grant -- and it's also not a registered SBR.
You say you're no worse for having done it, but Doc's point is you're on a list -- and there could potentially be future implications, as well.
Let's say things turn bad and tyranny rises -- an IRS agent shows up at your door with a SWAT team in tow, they kick it in an arrest you for tax evasion. Then a prosecutor, while you are in jail, also charges you for illegal possession of an SBR. Their evidence? You signed forms saying you were in possession of a braced pistol which you yourself admitted to be an SBR by signing the forms, ATF did not have the authority to forgive this crime. Tax evasion, the ATF also did not have the authority for forgive your tax burden.
I'm not saying that's likely to happen... but maybe it could.
And then, they just need some information from you -- who do you know that didn't comply? Give them some names and this can go away. Maybe they need something else, who knows.
The normalcy bias that people have in the US is... well, it's from decades and decades of consistency. But that consistency has been breaking and crazy shit and government overreach (that's putting it kindly) are swiftly becoming the norm here.
Back to Doc's point -- they got a list. You're on it. Justify it being right for you however you wish -- it's there and documented. I don't want to be on that list, Doc clearly didn't either. I have no judgement for you choosing what you did, sure as hell wasn't right for me, though - and only added legitimacy to an illegitimate agency action.
Now imagine, if 70% of people complied - that action may well have survived scrutiny. Then the consequences of compliance would be much more real.
There's a lot of that I either disagree with, or at least am fundamentally not on board with, or believe the chances are so remote as to be safely discarded. That said, I thank you for your civil and thoughtful response. My only shared thought is that with 7 NFA-registered suppressors, and 2 previously NFA-registered SBR's (now 5), and a state-issued Concealed Carry Permit ... I've been on that "list" for a very long time. I shoot safely and legally, and enjoy the hobby as well as the ability to keep my family safe and my ranch safe. Nothing about registering under that Final Rule changed anything meaningful ... at least not for me. I'm not worried about being on a "list" ... I'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an election. But that debate is for another day.
Isn't that what the 2nd amendment is for.….....to protect ourselves against a tyrannical .govThere's a lot of that I either disagree with, or at least am fundamentally not on board with, or believe the chances are so remote as to be safely discarded. That said, I thank you for your civil and thoughtful response. My only shared thought is that with 7 NFA-registered suppressors, and 2 previously NFA-registered SBR's (now 5), and a state-issued Concealed Carry Permit ... I've been on that "list" for a very long time. I shoot safely and legally, and enjoy the hobby as well as the ability to keep my family safe and my ranch safe. Nothing about registering under that Final Rule changed anything meaningful ... at least not for me. I'm not worried about being on a "list" ... I'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an election. But that debate is for another day.
.........
Doc
It sure as heck wasn't for hunting.
I don't believe I've seen that statement on this site except from you. References?
So was Major General Thomas Gage...
I think you have this place confused with liberalgunowners forum.There's a lot of that I either disagree with, or at least am fundamentally not on board with, or believe the chances are so remote as to be safely discarded. That said, I thank you for your civil and thoughtful response. My only shared thought is that with 7 NFA-registered suppressors, and 2 previously NFA-registered SBR's (now 5), and a state-issued Concealed Carry Permit ... I've been on that "list" for a very long time. I shoot safely and legally, and enjoy the hobby as well as the ability to keep my family safe and my ranch safe. Nothing about registering under that Final Rule changed anything meaningful ... at least not for me. I'm not worried about being on a "list" ... I'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an election. But that debate is for another day.
If there was a large turnout, it could have given us an argument to get SBR’s off the NFA list based on them being “common usage”. With such low compliance, it essentially proved “SBR’s” (even under a made-up definition) are rare.
We lost our rights an inch at a time. Firearms owners are too busy fighting amongst themselves to make big moves the other way. Suppressors had a real chance a few years ago, but even among enthusiasts, there wasn’t enough pushing the same direction.
Have you read Caetano? It was a laughably small number of stun guns (like WAY less than the number of SBRs out there and an infintesimal number compaired to braced pistols). If anything, between Caetano, Heller, Bruen, and Judge O'Connors decision, having to register an SBR shouldn't even be a thing. The part that sucks is that everyone in litigation sphere has a hard on for the APA side of things instead of addressing the real issue.
P.S. It shouldn't be a numbers game at all and fuck Rep. Knutson!
Last edited:
250K - threshold for "in common use" ruled by the supreme Court.
P.S. this also makes the NFA entirely unconstitutional
