When Is the ATF Introducing Their New Pistol Brace Rule?
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses some very recent developments as it relates to the ATF’s new proposed rule on stabilizing braces, or what is known as the “convert all AR Pistol to Federally regulated SBRs.” In a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, between the Second Amendment Foundation and the ATF, a recent “joint status report” indicates some very important dates in regards to when the ATF is going to drop this new rule. Start preparing today and arm yourself with education.
This video is sponsored by Legal Heat. www.mylegalheat.com.
___________________________________________________________________
Applicable Citations:
Joint Status Report. Second Amendment Foundation v. ATF. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.39.0.pdf
ATF Form 4999. https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download
_________________________________________________________________
Other Resources:
How the ATF Will Enforce Their New Pistol Brace Rule. https://youtu.be/8dbsTKH2S0I
Are the Dominos Starting to Fall on Gun Control? https://youtu.be/zeoso_YI5L0
What the Supreme Court Just Did to Gun Control Today. https://youtu.be/pAdIM9L22zk
When is the ATF Coming After Your AR Pistol or Lower Receiver? https://youtu.be/TAI1uARAMjU
Check Out our Bullet Point Series. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTYlAL5t-3aPwsSwmze-Dw_ev5b7PgNpe
________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to us on Patreon. www.patreon.com/WashingtonGunLaw
Remember, you can follow us at www.washingtongunlaw.com
Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/WashingtonGunLaw
Follow us on Twitter @GunWashington
source
If you read through their worksheet, the language is plenty vague enough to reach a point of being subjective. ATF knows they’re on thin ice since Chevron Deference has been struck down, will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Personally, I’d love to see F squad put in their place and not be allowed to shoot any more women, children, or dogs.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.
The argument of well regulated that the left uses to try to justify that it applies to gun control, or that it is only for those in the militia, is utterly moot. It is a fabricated misinformation/disinformation narrative that they have always used. The full context of the 2nd Amendment has two parts, the first is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, the 2nd part states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. No where does it state gun control shall be well regulated nor does it state that only the militia can only bear arms. It is the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed! Heller v. D.C., A case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Nowhere is it explicitly stated of type of weapon, caliber of weapon, number of magazines nor how much ammo a person may own! The Right to Carry a Gun for Self-defense: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen; The court agreed and found that the proper-cause requirement violates both the Second and 14th Amendments. The 6-3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the use of the prevailing framework for evaluating Second Amendment claims, saying instead that “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” The court said that text of the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns in public for self-defense, without a “home/public” distinction. Besides a few outliers in the late 1800s, American lawmakers have not broadly prohibited public carry of a commonly used firearm for self-defense, nor have they required a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” This means that in states and localities that have “good cause” requirements for issuing handgun permits over and above a generalized need for self-defense, those requirements likely do not survive this ruling. The key term for both Heller and Bruen is guns that are in common use!
Supremacy Clause
Since the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights and being part of the U.S. Constitution, protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that any Federal, State, County, City laws, including Executive Orders, that are in conflict with the U.S. Constitutions, those laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable, null and void. The U.S. Constitution supersedes all of those laws. This also includes city ordnances which do not supersede state laws or federal laws too!
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
We. The. People. Can stop this
If you vote republican this will go away. Dont be a d mb sh t..
Is the GRAND POWER Stribog SP9A3S 9mm Sub Pistol considered an AR pistol?
So, a couple hundred thousand suppressors back the system up by 90 days (minimum) How much will 8 or 10 MILLION SBR applications back them up, a couple YEARS ?
As regards administrative rules becoming law, The Pacific Legal Fund has been working on this and find more than half of regulations at the FDA are in fact illegal. The SCOTUS ruling in the EPA case cement this idea even further, and I suspect the ATF will not prevail in the frames and receivers or the brace rule in the end.
This rule is totally unjust and form 4999 has been written in a "fixed" way so that no matter what you do your going to get to 4 points. A good example is that on the form with or without a iron sight you get 1 point right out of the gate, 2nd and 3rd, no matter how your brace is configured your also going to get another 2+2. This is like playing a slot machine thats been tinkered with to never pay out. Totally criminal what ATF is doing here, absolutely Unconstitutional. That tyrannical government everyone dreamed about but never thought would arrive is here folks, yes it really is and has been for the last few years since they started a make believe race war and let criminals burn down cities free of prosecution. 100's of thousands of legal pistols with braces have been sold that way from the factory an the ATF could care less about that nor do they care about diabled people or others that benfit from braces. This is total BS, the rule cannot be allowed to become law and all those already jumping in line to comply all over the internet should be ashamed of yourselves.
Thank you for a clear in layman's terms important information on this subject. If this does become law all who bought these items when the ATF stated it is legal should be able to keep and use their stabilizer brace.
Thank you for posting the only helpful video regarding this new atf nonsense
This is nothing more than a tax grab and gun registry tactic by forcing Americans to register and pay $200.
What exactly defines a pistol brace,is it an adjustable stock?
Why is no one filing a major lawsuit against the ATF for violating America’s with disabilities act because braces are commonly used to accommodate those with disabilities with shooting sports? Is banning wheel chairs next?
We shouldn't be paying any tax on our rights to bear arms ammo guns etc. I don't see a freedom of speech tax 😕🤔
Can't I just take off the brace and stay legal?
I have 16 inch barrels on the ARs with pistol braces. Is the ATF problem with the fact that since it was sold as a Pistol, it will always be a pistol, unlike a rifle where you cant go to a brace or shorter barrel without registering it..
Has anyone ruled on this yet or any timeline when this will come into affect? Got a friend trippin about this.
Complaining about it in the comment section of a YouTiube video will NOT solve the problem, boys and girls. You got to make yourself heard by the people in the Senate, who already have a means available to stop this stupidity.
S.4069 – Pistol Brace Protection Act (sponsored by Sen. James Lankford, [R-OK] and co-sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee [R-UT], Sen. Ted Cruz [R-TX], Sen. Mike Crapo [R-ID], Sen. James Risch [R-ID], Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] ) was introduced to the Senate 04/07/2022, and if successful, will put an end to the ATF's war on pistol braces once and for all.
The primary purpose of S.4069 is to amend the National Firearms Act to provide an exception for stabilizing braces. YOU NEED TO Contact YOUR SENATOR and encourage them them to take action to push S.4069 through. You can also Google "Pistol Brace petition" and sign the petitions and sign those that come up in the results.
FUCK the ATF, FUCK the AFT, and FUCK BRANDON.
My non existent boat just sunk carrying so many expensive items. DAMNIT
Thank you
I have a few of them, fuck the AFT.
Come and take it!
Best video on this subject thus far
Rules are not laws when people realize that you'll be better off
They talk about AR pistols, but what about other braced pistols/firearms? Like the Mossberg shockwave, MP5s, Vectors, etc.
Please be aware that Washington Gun Law does not participate in giveaway promotions. We are aware of scammers attempting to fish information from our users by claiming that they have won prizes. PLEASE BE AWARE, that WGL does not give away prizes and if we did, it would not be a firearm. Please report any efforts to scam you directly to YouTube.
Registration is the same as giving up your ownership rights, because if you fail to jump through all the future hoops to keep your registration valid, it will be revoked and you will be ordered to forfeit the item. If you register you are agreeing that it's not really yours anymore, you're only being allowed to hold it, for now. But because ATF said the braces were legal, you have a case to refuse registration of any braced pistols already owned prior to Jan 1st 2023 or whenever they hand down this unconstitutional infringement requiring registration of newly acquired braced pistols……but to attempt to make it retroactive is a bridge too far, everyone needs to refuse to register because they ( ATF ) said the braces were legal and not NFA items.
So what about other pistols that aren't AR-15 lower receivers with braces?
Why doesn't the Bruen Decision block the ATF from "redefining" AR pistols into SBRs? This makes tens of millions of people felons with items that legally purchased, and are still purchasing, pistol braces that the ATF actually ruled before was legal. When are we going to see lawsuits filed against the ATF?
We live by the law of the Constitution not by rule by Federal agencies ,read the people should not comply tyrannical laws they violate the Constitution it is time to start a petition to abolish the ATF
AR pistols are short barreled rifles and that is more or less the way it is.
Does anyone else find it ridiculous that I have to live in fear of a tax agency shooting my dog and kicking my door in with SBRs because they arbitrarily decided my pistol is a rifle?
I think it’s all going to go away after November