New pistol brace rule announced

2 Likes

Thanks. Bookmarked and confused lol.
Think I’ll see what those in the know on my state forums come up with, here in the land of the “other”.
Our “others” are 26" minimum, 12" barrel minimum. Not pistol nor rifle…

The whole “keeping us safer” comment by Garland makes me upchuck a bit.

It’ll be humorous seeing the servers crash when roughly 20,000,000 forms get filed.

3 Likes

Should get tossed by the Supreme Court before it even takes effect. The fact the court just said last week the ban on bump stocks was illegal and unconstitutional this ban should get settled in no time

5 Likes

But the Supreme Court didn’t say the bump stock ban was illegal, did they?

The bump stock ban was enacted at the end of 2018. As far as I am aware you still can’t buy a bump stock despite the recent court ruling, which was not a final ruling by SCOTUS. Not to mention this whole silly short barrel/long barrel, rifle/pistol mess is due to the unconstitutional NFA act of 1934. I’m not so sure I’d bet on this getting resolved in “no time”.

There is a chance SCOTUS jumps in quickly because this ruling criminalizes millions of people who made purchases that were deemed legal at the time. But since there is no monetary or criminal penalty for those purchasers who willingly volunteer to be registered, tracked and have their property subjected to additional legal limitations by the government, SCOTUS may choose to let this work it’s way through the courts for the next several years.

4 Likes

Bear in mind that “Other” is a federal classification here. Or, is it lack of a classification

3 Likes

2A Foundation already has a lawsuit filed.

5 Likes

Not an aow… I’ve seen “CT other” on a lower receiver and heard Aero Precision just has “other” on their lower receiver paperwork, not sure if that’s a national or regional thing. Just seeing pistol and rifle in the ruling.
Local forum has over 60 comments, it’s all confusing. We have an AWB,and it looks like the aft wouldn’t take a form 1 or whatever to register these, so seems like it’s up to our state to decide what to do or not do…whatever.
Even the expert on our local forum is speculating.
Seems like all the places I’m looking at for another house are sanctuary zones. Pure coincidence, but no complaints.

2 Likes

Just watched Guns and Gadgets and think I heard Jared mention 8 lawsuits already.
I say, :duck: 'em…crash the servers :zap::zap::zap:

3 Likes

An administrative agency making laws – specifically criminal law. How about Congress passing laws instead of passing the buck to the DOJ. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Congress is populated by swamp creatures, not lawmakers.

4 Likes

Other refers to a category of firearm on the 4473, it’s a federal thing. Rifle/Shotgun (long gun), handgun, SBR, SBS, machine gun, AOW, Other, are examples of these types of ‘things’

Keep in mind there is no such thing as a location in the US that is safe from federal law violations being enforced by the federal government, or for state law violations (states often adopt laws mirroring feds) enforced by the state police

*I am not a lawyer

Main point being, this is a federal thing so, it might be MORE restrictive in various local jurisdictions but the states/locals can’t supercede the federal government

2 Likes

Marijuana has entered the chat :smile:

6 Likes

Exactly what I was thinking of. Still federally illegal (at a serious level) and that’s before you combine it with firearms.

When the shoe drops, that’s it

4 Likes

Found this
Information regarding the application of State law to a particular weapon would be within the jurisdiction of the State agency responsible for the enforcement of the State firearms laws or other State legal authority.

2 Likes

Yes, of a state law.

But this isn’t a state law, this is a federal ‘law’

The federal government is unlikely to enforce state laws, per my non-lawyer understanding. But we are talking about a federal law/statute/regulation here

1 Like

I’ll have to kick back with a joint and think about that :rofl:

Just kidding, totally straight these days. No smoke, no drink.

2 Likes

Yes they said the ban was illegal and against the US Constitution. They based it on the laws of lenity which sides with the people over the government

2 Likes

It’s my understanding that it was the 5th circuit court that just ruled the bumpstock ban unconstitutional not the Supreme Court. But 3 other circuit courts have ruled the ban constitutional. SCOTUS will eventually have to make a final decision since the lower courts are no longer in agreement. But who knows when that will happen??

3 Likes

I missed where the Supreme Court said this. Would you mind linking or referencing the case?

Best I could find last I looked was more like Shamrock is saying, which is unfortunately in this case rather different than if SCOTUS had said so

1 Like

Tell me who didn’t see this coming from day one?

4 Likes