Bigchillin83
Well-Known Member
just remember ruby ridge and Waco.... im sure they mean well....
I think it doesn't matter if it's the ATF's final rule or the AG's final rule or the DOJ's final rule. The AG falls under the executive branch. The DOJ falls under the executive branch. The ATF falls under the DOJ and, therefore, falls under the executive branch. The point I'm making is, for the purpose of creating new laws, it doesn't matter which of those entities "owns" the final rule. None of them are authorized to create laws.
Someone said the rule is bad because entity #1 is not allowed to make laws. You pointed out that entity #2 actually owns the rule. Well, for the purposes of making new laws, there is no difference between the authorization of entity #1 and entity #2 to make new laws. You make a distinction that made no real difference. I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. I'm arguing that, for the purpose of creating new laws, it does not matter if you are right or wrong.
And to be honest, I've got a couple lowers I've been toying with making sbr's. I can't think of a good reason, and I haven't heard a good reason, why I shouldn't take advantage of this opportunity to do for free what I was thinking about paying $400 for.
I'll bet at least 7 people on here got triggered by your statement.
And to be honest, I've got a couple lowers I've been toying with making sbr's. I can't think of a good reason, and I haven't heard a good reason, why I shouldn't take advantage of this opportunity to do for free what I was thinking about paying $400 for.
Your taunting replies to people are really child like. Why not just further the conversation instead of being a jerk.So clearly you feel strongly the AG/DOJ has no legal right to create the new "final braced pistol rule", which went into effect 1-31-23. Yet in a previous post (above) you stated you have a couple lower receivers to SBR and save myself $400. Interesting, ready to capitalize on a "rule" you feel is unconstitutional and illegally created.
I just read last night in the ATF FAQs doc if you did not possess the braced pistol on 1-31-23, it is ineligible for the free 120 day SBR approval. I bet you have read the FAQs too, I know how well prepared you usually are. But don't let that fact stop you Mr. Policeman. Do you need me to to post a link to the FAQs for you?
Please share with us where I stated “pictures of whole firearm”
In fact, “photo of firearm with markings” is optional.
See number xix in pic below (in case you don’t know your Roman numerals) It doesn’t matter anyway. You took my remark out of context simply to try to show everyone you know something. Problem is, you’re also trying to say we don’t. You know what they say about a man who pretends everyone knows less than he does…Guess what, we all have access to the ATF site Motor. Why don’t you offer something tangible and useful to the conversation instead of just insults and argument? Watch how easy this is…
You really are a douche nozzle....I mean it's unreal how much of a tard you are.
No, it just goes to show that they are all part of the show. All talk, while the train keeps rolling. People like him are there to serve one purpose, to give people something to cheer for so that they don't feel alone, cornered, and totally unrepresentedNot that I am a fan of it one bit, but to be accurate, the ATF did not create this new "braced pistol final rule". The AG/DOJ has. ATF is application and enforcement. Shows just how smart Matt Gaetz is.
A couple guys here have repeated the same thing recently.
So clearly you feel strongly the AG/DOJ has no legal right to create the new "final braced pistol rule", which went into effect 1-31-23.
Yet in a previous post (above) you stated you have a couple lower receivers to SBR and save myself $400.
Interesting, ready to capitalize on a "rule" you feel is unconstitutional and illegally created.
I just read last night in the ATF FAQs doc if you did not possess the braced pistol on 1-31-23, it is ineligible for the free 120 day SBR approval.
I bet you have read the FAQs too, I know how well prepared you usually are.
But don't let that fact stop you Mr. Policeman.
Do you need me to to post a link to the FAQs for you?
It was brought to my attention on a large gun forum that at least 1 has been approved. He sent it In 1/14/23 and approved today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Think it’s less about adding nfa items and more about the gov overstepping there boundaries and changing law at the drop of a hat and unconstitutionally…Process is pretty easy.
I was able to submit 2 eform 1’s in less than hour.
Couple weeks ago did my electronic fingerprints to get the .EFT file through nationalguntrusts.com at a local ups store kiosk. Passport photos with an iPhone app. Uploaded that and a pic of the serial numbers on the gun and away we go.
Some people seem to be loosing their mind over this topic. I have a pile of approved stamps in the sbr, sbs, and silencer categories. “THEY” already know what I have and where I live, let’s add a few more to the list. Take off the tinfoil hat.
There’s a big diff in you choosing to cause they cheesy and the gov telling you to without law or you go to jail…Honestly, I have bought ar “pistols” with braces and form 1’ed them as an SBR years ago because the arm brace was pretty cheesy in my opinion.
As to your 2nd question, no. I would not be ok with registration of hi capacity magazines.
It’s called a brace, manufactured, patents approved , approved by the atf via drawings and samples to be a stabilizing brace, with +13 years of manufacturing and +40 million made… not only sold as an accessory but approved to be sold with ar15 pistols as a package and classified as a pistol on the atf background check….. it’s not a stock… that’s pretty simple to understand..Do yall think the court will overturn this rule? What will the court think when they are presented with an SBA3 brace and a Magpul SL stock? I imagine they will say they are the same.
“THEY” already know what I have and where I live, let’s add a few more to the list. Take off the tinfoil hat.
A bit contradictory, no?As to your 2nd question, no. I would not be ok with registration of hi capacity magazines.
A bit contradictory, no?