So How Does The Opinion Influence the ATF's Pistol Brace BS?

[Capybara]

Lots of excitement about the opinion as there should be. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a case that went to the 9th regarding pistol braces and as we all have been anticipating the ATFs new pistol brace regs, anyone want to weigh in with their take on if the opinion could have an affect or influence the ATF's arbitrary "regulations" on pistol braces?

Pistol braces certainly meet the criteria of Heller, "In common use" as there are millions of them on American AR and AK pistols as well as all of the other PCCs they have been fitted to. Does anyone know if there are any nationally pending cases regarding pistol braces?

So it looks as if for the time being, we will have to wait for the ATF to drop their stupid regs and then wait for a 2A group or individual to bring suit against the ATF?

Sounds as if with the new scrutiny guidelines, once we jump through all of the legal hoops of filing and accelerating a case to the 9th, or another Circuit, based upon the new scrutiny guidelines, would be compelled to rule that pistol braces are 100% legal to own, posses and use since they are in common use?

Or would this be blocked by the ATF's Unconstitutional "regulations"?

Curious minds want some of the legal eagles here to delve into this.

[CommieforniaResident]

The Bruen decision basically states that laws which burden the right to keep and bear arms are presumptively unconstitutional. The government bears the burden of showing the law/regulation is of a type that would have been acceptable at either the Founding or Reconstruction.

Here, the government justifies the proposed pistol brace regulations because it is supposedly enforcing federal law regarding short-barreled rifles (SBRs). In other words, the ATF claims it has authority to regulate pistol braces because it has authority to regulate SBRs. Consequently, the analysis shifts to whether laws against SBRs are constitutional. If the laws regarding SBRs are constitutional, then, at least as to Bruen analysis, the proposed pistol brace regulations would be as well. If SBRs can be banned under Bruen, then so can pistol braces under Bruen.

My personal opinion is that SBR regulations can't survive a Bruen challenge.

[Capybara]

Based upon the guns that were in popular use at the time of the Founders, like the short barreled Blunderbuss, one could assert that short barreled shoulder mounted firearms were definitely in common use at the time and since then. They weren't regarded as any more or less dangerous as any other type of firearm. I don't think short barreled rifles were too common at the time, judging by our side's sleek but long Flintlocks and the Redcoats Brown Bess but pistols were common then so perhaps there was some sort of shoulder mounted pistol? I'm sure some Calgunners would know all of this.

So are SBRs Constitutional? In my mind, obviously so as their length doesn't have anything to do with their effectiveness or dangerousness, they are not any more or less effective or dangerous than either a long gun or pistol but my opinion obviously doesn't matter. It will be interesting to see what happens with SBRs, braces, suppressors, even machine guns under the new criteria.

[CommieforniaResident]

Originally Posted by Capybara

Based upon the guns that were in popular use at the time of the Founders, like the short barreled Blunderbuss, one could assert that short barreled shoulder mounted firearms were definitely in common use at the time and since then. They weren't regarded as any more or less dangerous as any other type of firearm. I don't think short barreled rifles were too common at the time, judging by our side's sleek but long Flintlocks and the Redcoats Brown Bess but pistols were common then so perhaps there was some sort of shoulder mounted pistol? I'm sure some Calgunners would know all of this.

So are SBRs Constitutional? In my mind, obviously so as their length doesn't have anything to do with their effectiveness or dangerousness, they are not any more or less effective or dangerous than either a long gun or pistol but my opinion obviously doesn't matter. It will be interesting to see what happens with SBRs, braces, suppressors, even machine guns under the new criteria.

I wouldn't say the existence or non-existence of a SBR-precursor at the time of the Founding is too important to determining whether SBR laws are Constitutional under Bruen. Instead, the focus is on the societal ill to be addressed by a law and whether the approach taken by the law would be acceptable at the time of the Founding/Reconstruction.

For example, one societal ill is violent people having dangerous weapons. The Founding/Reconstruction solution to this ill according to Bruen was to have a judge order the person to post a bond if he wanted to carry a firearm. This suggests that the Constitutional limits as to addressing the issue of violent non-convicts can require getting some sort of guarantee or imposing additional requirements on the person but cannot include dispossessing the person of his right to carry.

For another example, another societal ill is criminals carrying firearms. The Founding/Reconstruction solution to this according to Bruen was to prohibit carrying small pistols from people generally but did not involve prohibiting carrying large service pistols or pistols openly. This suggests the Constitutional limitation to addressing the issue of criminals carrying guns can include regulations on how/what non-criminals can carry but cannot include prohibiting non-criminals from carrying generally.

Apply the same type of analysis here. Try finding all the societal ill that SBR laws address and see whether the law can be historically analogized to Founding/Reconstruction laws. If not, the law is unconstitutional under Bruen.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident

I wouldn't say the existence or non-existence of a SBR-precursor at the time of the Founding is too important to determining whether SBR laws are Constitutional under Bruen. Instead, the focus is on the societal ill to be addressed by a law and whether the approach taken by the law would be acceptable at the time of the Founding/Reconstruction.

For example, one societal ill is violent people having dangerous weapons. The Founding/Reconstruction solution to this ill according to Bruen was to have a judge order the person to post a bond if he wanted to carry a firearm. This suggests that the Constitutional limits as to addressing the issue of violent non-convicts can require getting some sort of guarantee or imposing additional requirements on the person but cannot include dispossessing the person of his right to carry.

For another example, another societal ill is criminals carrying firearms. The Founding/Reconstruction solution to this according to Bruen was to prohibit carrying small pistols from people generally but did not involve prohibiting carrying large service pistols or pistols openly. This suggests the Constitutional limitation to addressing the issue of criminals carrying guns can include regulations on how/what non-criminals can carry but cannot include prohibiting non-criminals from carrying generally.

Apply the same type of analysis here. Try finding all the societal ill that SBR laws address and see whether the law can be historically analogized to Founding/Reconstruction laws. If not, the law is unconstitutional under Bruen.

This is why I never wanted to be a judge or attorney...

[CommieforniaResident]

Heh, I don't blame you.

Here's a simplified version of the test from Bruen: Would most people in 1791/1868 think this law is constitutional or would they say it infringes on your 2A rights?

That's why it doesn't really matter if a SBR existed in 1791/1868. What matters is whether, if they knew what a SBR was, would they approve banning it?

That's what the Court did in Bruen. They asked themselves whether most people in 1791/1868 would think you have a right to carry a firearm without needing special approval. They figured the answer would be yes. The way they figured it out was by looking at history.

[sbo80]

Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident

That's why it doesn't really matter if a SBR existed in 1791/1868. What matters is whether, if they knew what a SBR was, would they approve banning it?

They certainly did exist. Jaeger hunting rifles were a (European-origin) thing. Short rifle for rich guys hunting on horseback.
*while they may not have all been literally <16" barrels per the 1934 definition, they were extremely shorter than a standard musket. Like less than half.

[CommieforniaResident]

Originally Posted by sbo80

They certainly did exist. Jaeger hunting rifles were a (European-origin) thing. Short rifle for rich guys hunting on horseback.
*while they may not have all been literally <16" barrels per the 1934 definition, they were extremely shorter than a standard musket. Like less than half.

That could be evidence for how people thought at 1791/1868 and could help prove that it's protected by the 2A. My point though is that it doesn't matter by itself--what matters is if whether people back then would think the gun/item/practice falls under 2A protections, regardless of whether that gun/item/practice existed back then.

[gobler]

Ask yourself this. Are SBR's common for Military and Civilian Police? If so, they are protected by the 2nd and 14th Amendments and hold up under NYSRPA v Bruen.. The People may "Keep" and "Bear" them.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[walmart_ar15]

My understanding is that SBR are left over/compromise provision instead of NFA all pistols/handguns. Thus the intent of the regulation violates “infringement” from the beginning.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident

Heh, I don't blame you.

Here's a simplified version of the test from Bruen: Would most people in 1791/1868 think this law is constitutional or would they say it infringes on your 2A rights?

That's why it doesn't really matter if a SBR existed in 1791/1868. What matters is whether, if they knew what a SBR was, would they approve banning it?

That's what the Court did in Bruen. They asked themselves whether most people in 1791/1868 would think you have a right to carry a firearm without needing special approval. They figured the answer would be yes. The way they figured it out was by looking at history.

Thank you for dumbing it down for me, that makes more sense to my non-legal mind. I agree, logically, people of that era likely would have just thought, "oh, 'tis a rifle with a shorter barrel, why not?" Of course we have the right. The NFA is an outdated and archaic infringement anyway, it really should be abolished and hopefully under Bruen, it will be eventually.

[Smedkcuf]

Originally Posted by gobler

Ask yourself this. Are SBR's common for Military and Civilian Police? If so, they are protected by the 2nd and 14th Amendments and hold up under NYSRPA v Bruen.. The People may "Keep" and "Bear" them.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

They're not common for civilian use since they're banned, but how do we know they wouldn't have been common if they weren't banned in the first place?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Capybara

Lots of excitement about the opinion as there should be. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a case that went to the 9th regarding pistol braces and as we all have been anticipating the ATFs new pistol brace regs, anyone want to weigh in with their take on if the opinion could have an affect or influence the ATF's arbitrary "regulations" on pistol braces?

Pistol braces certainly meet the criteria of Heller, "In common use" as there are millions of them on American AR and AK pistols as well as all of the other PCCs they have been fitted to. Does anyone know if there are any nationally pending cases regarding pistol braces?

So it looks as if for the time being, we will have to wait for the ATF to drop their stupid regs and then wait for a 2A group or individual to bring suit against the ATF?

Sounds as if with the new scrutiny guidelines, once we jump through all of the legal hoops of filing and accelerating a case to the 9th, the 9th or another Circuit, based upon the new scrutiny guidelines, would be compelled to rule that pistol braces are 100% legal to own, posses and use since they are in common use?

Or would this be blocked by the ATF's Unconstitutional "regulations"?

Curious minds want some of the legal eagles here to delve into this.

Any of ATFs arbitrary "regulations'. would more under the recent spanking that SCOTUS gave to the "CHEVRON DOCTRINE".
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/i...ospital-drugs/

Now considering that any ATF arbitrary regulation. Not explicitly covered by legislature. MUST also now meet the criteria of NYSRPA v Bruen ruling. And I don't see them standing to challenge in court.

IANAL

[lastinline]

The ATF will continue to issue “regulations” until some lawsuit stops them, and nothing else. They have the protection of the current administration, and Congress certainly doesn’t seem inclined to do much about them either. The ATF will do whatever they think they can get away with, despite Bruen, so nothing will change anytime soon. The ATF is truly a wicked, and immoral organization that carries power to make your life miserable. With that said, it is up to each citizen to figure their own path in regards to braces, etc. Be very cautious at least.

[nick]

Originally Posted by Smedkcuf

They're not common for civilian use since they're banned, but how do we know they wouldn't have been common if they weren't banned in the first place?

They are fairly common for civilian use, even with the NFA burden (or I should say, despite the NFA burden). They aren't banned, they're taxed and burdened.

[floogy]

Originally Posted by lastinline

The ATF will continue to issue “regulations” until some lawsuit stops them, and nothing else. They have the protection of the current administration, and Congress certainly doesn’t seem inclined to do much about them either. The ATF will do whatever they think they can get away with, despite Bruen, so nothing will change anytime soon. The ATF is truly a wicked, and immoral organization that carries power to make your life miserable. With that said, it is up to each citizen to figure their own path in regards to braces, etc. Be very cautious at least.

There was a ruling related to rule making by fed agencies which may help prevent this type of willy nilly rule making. This video will sum it up far better than I could type out in several paragraphs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8HCDXxyHtQ

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by floogy

There was a ruling related to rule making by fed agencies which may help prevent this type of willy nilly rule making. This video will sum it up far better than I could type out in several paragraphs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8HCDXxyHtQ

I did see that the evening he posted it on YouTube. What he says makes sense, however the mere threat of action won’t stop them; it will take an actual order from a judge whom they are afraid to ignore. Hopefully the Bruen decision will lead to better outcomes for all, however we should all expect a fight in the courts to make sure it gets implemented. Remember, a lot of these people in government bureaucracy are now bitter because they may loose power over common citizens, so expect them to take it out on us whenever they can.

[Silence Dogood]

I too am not a lawyer but I am with pacrat and floggy on this.

And while I also agree with lastinline that a case against them is more likely to affect the bureaucrats’ actions than mere caselaw, I think it is worth taking a moment to choose the right case/ plaintiff before rushing into suit.

[sbo80]

Originally Posted by nick

even with the NFA burden (or I should say, despite the NFA burden). They aren't banned, they're taxed and burdened.

Unfortunately this is why I think the NFA would survive a challenge. A tax and permit, if shall-issue, is still OK under Bruen. CA's near-complete ban on NFA items, however, should lose.

[librarian72]

Originally Posted by nick

They are fairly common for civilian use, even with the NFA burden (or I should say, despite the NFA burden). They aren't banned, they're taxed and burdened.

The ATF argues that pistol braces are SBR's, which is why they get to regulate them. The flip side, that greatly increase the number of SBR's currently in lawful use by civilians.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by Silence Dogood

I too am not a lawyer but I am with pacrat and floggy on this.

And while I also agree with lastinline that a case against them is more likely to affect the bureaucrats’ actions than mere caselaw, I think it is worth taking a moment to choose the right case/ plaintiff before rushing into suit.

I definitely agree, and I think the NRA should fund it.

[nick]

Originally Posted by sbo80

Unfortunately this is why I think the NFA would survive a challenge. A tax and permit, if shall-issue, is still OK under Bruen. CA's near-complete ban on NFA items, however, should lose.

NFA has a bunch of other issues. For one, it's illegal to use taxation for a ban. The only allowed purpose for a tax is to... wait for it... collect revenue. NFA was intended as a ban, and even the threadbare pretense that it wasn't was destroyed with the Hughes Amendment, when the government imposed a tax and refuses to collect it.

Also, taxing a right is supposed to be a big no-no, regardless of whether it's shall issue or not. And $200 is a high fee to exercise a right (after all, even the much smaller fee to get an ID in order to vote is too high, and Bruen once again affirmed that all rights are supposed to be treated analogously).

The long processing times also contradict the Bruen ruling.

[nick]

Originally Posted by librarian72

The ATF argues that pistol braces are SBR's, which is why they get to regulate them. The flip side, that greatly increase the number of SBR's currently in lawful use by civilians.

SBRs are in common use regardless. As for the ATF's rulings... they by themselves should be enough to recognize the said agency as rogue and illegal, and to be disbanded.

[Scott Connors]

Just looking at historical precedent, stocked pistols date back to the earliest days of firearms. I'm not sure if they were used in the Revolution, but they were definitely used during the Civil War and in the West. That doesn't address stocked C96 Mausers and Lugers. I think that the ATF's rules on pistol braces, and by extension SBRs in general, are on borrowed time.

[Capybara]

Originally Posted by Scott Connors

Just looking at historical precedent, stocked pistols date back to the earliest days of firearms. I'm not sure if they were used in the Revolution, but they were definitely used during the Civil War and in the West. That doesn't address stocked C96 Mausers and Lugers. I think that the ATF's rules on pistol braces, and by extension SBRs in general, are on borrowed time.

Let us hope so. The NFA has always truck me simply as a polticial scam to make money for the government. "Oh these guns and suppressors are EXTRA dangerous. But pay us off and for $200, we'll make you jump through hoops for a year and then will begrudgingly give you a permission slip." The very definition of restricting rights for firearms and accessories that are and have been in common use. SBRs/SBS aren't any more or less deadly than any rifle or shotgun. Suppressors? Please, it's a fricking safety device. AOWs, oooh, lots of people going to be committing crimes with pen guns. Even MGs, wow, a faster, much less deadly/accurate way to burn through ammo!

NFA needs to go bye bye. ATF needs to go bye bye.

[CGZ]

Today's West Virginia v. EPA case might also factor into this.

"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by CGZ

Today's West Virginia v. EPA case might also factor into this.

"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."

The WV v EPA case is further example of SCOTUS reining in ALL the alphabet agencies that have run rampant for years. Hiding behind an ambiguous ruling in the past. They are now telling them to "QUIT THE CRAP". DEFLATING THE BALOON THAT IS THE "CHEVRON DOCTRINE".

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/i...ospital-drugs/

[aklon]

Originally Posted by lastinline

The ATF will continue to issue “regulations” until some lawsuit stops them, and nothing else. They have the protection of the current administration, and Congress certainly doesn’t seem inclined to do much about them either. The ATF will do whatever they think they can get away with, despite Bruen, so nothing will change anytime soon. The ATF is truly a wicked, and immoral organization that carries power to make your life miserable. With that said, it is up to each citizen to figure their own path in regards to braces, etc. Be very cautious at least.

With last week's decision barring the EPA from issuing regulations having the same force of law, the same will apply to the ATF and even more so as they're screwing around with an enumerated civil right.

[Capybara]

I agree, but the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slow unfortunately. Hopefully some of us in this thread will still be alive when the NFA is obliterated.

[Epaphroditus]

Intent

A Militia intent in defending the nation from invasion, suppressing insurrection and quelling rebellion is also included in the 2A and encompasses a much greater conception than personal self defense. There can be no proper effective Militia without effective offensive capability.

How can We The People fulfill our civic duty and present a ready and effective Militia when congress calls for action?

Personal self defense is only a small partial element of a lawful activity while keeping and bearing arms.

[JDoe]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

Intent

A Militia intent in defending the nation from invasion, suppressing insurrection and quelling rebellion is also included in the 2A and encompasses a much greater conception than personal self defense. There can be no proper effective Militia without effective offensive capability.

How can We The People fulfill our civic duty and present a ready and effective Militia when congress calls for action?

Personal self defense is only a small partial element of a lawful activity while keeping and bearing arms.

Perhaps the most important purpose of the militia and the second amendment is to give the people a fighting chance against tyranny.


#Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
#Let’s go Brandon!
#FJB

[the_tunaman]

Originally Posted by JDoe

Perhaps the most important purpose of the militia and the second amendment is to give the people a fighting chance against tyranny.

Precisely why they are fighting so hard to abolish it, and why we must fight relentlessly to not give it up.

[jchen76@gmail.com]

If it's a 'braced pistol', for CCW purposes it can be openly/conceal carried. In many states CCW/constitutional carry only pistols can be loaded on person/near in you vehicle.

In Nevada, SBR's, or regular long rifles can only be transported unloaded and very few times you can have them loaded in public (hunting). I personally don't know anyone who CCW's an AR/AK braced pistol on them, but maybe as their reachable 'truck gun' next to them.

[artoaster]

Just downloaded ATF form 4999 to see what this is all about.

Overall length may be a problem for barrels over 10"

Plain pistol buffer tube (no adjustment notches) limited to 6-6.5"

Length of pull may be a critical measurement with 7" or longer pistol buffer tube.

Longer pistol tube adds 2 points which may not hurt you for score.

Back-up or rifle sights add 1 point against you. Magnified sights add 2 or 4 points depending on limited eye relief or eye relief incompatible with one-hand firing.

Total weight with empty magazine cannot exceed 120 ounces.

No hand stops, bipods, mono pods, or secondary grips.

One must watch carefully how any AR pistol will score. ATF made rules (unconstitutionally, I might add) very tight.

Main takeaway from reading this form is DO NOT PUT A BRACE ON A PISTOL!

[high_revs]

Originally Posted by artoaster

Main takeaway from reading this form is DO NOT PUT A BRACE ON A PISTOL!

could this lead to being in trouble for possession, obviously it's not on should that door be kicked down.

[artoaster]

Right now, especially in Commiefornia, pistol braces, binary and forced reset triggers, suppressors, solvent traps, switches, and etched auto cards (lightning link) need to go on the ill fated boat trip immediately!

The ATF is weaponized and shows no sign of backing down until they get smacked down by SCOTUS or Congress. Congress, now that's a laugh.