Gun control debate (merged)

#24,953
#24,953
volinbham said:
wonder if our regular "we need more gun control" posters will understand the issues with the Vice picture (or would admit they didn't until they looked it up)
Click to expand...

I guarantee that none of them noticed the issue. Won't stop them from opining on a subject about which they have scant knowledge though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, hog88 and InVOLuntary
#24,955
#24,955
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#24,961
#24,961
SlipKidVol said:
saw somewhere that some talking head expert on CNN said he knew an assault rifle wasn't used at the Monterey Park shooting because too many people survived.
Click to expand...
I would LOVE to be on one of those programs and just point blank ask an idiot like that were you born stupid or was it something you accomplished on the way here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hog88
#24,964
#24,964
The ATF’s New Pistol Brace Rule Is A Cluster Of Enforcement Traps

First, They Came for the Bump stocks, and I did not speak out

because I did not own one…

Then they came for the pistol braces, and I did not speak out

because I did not own one…

You’ve probably heard of the federal fiasco that is the new pistol brace rule and wondered why you should care. Our little homage to First They Came for the Gun Owners should suggest where all of this is going. Let’s start, though, by breaking the latest horrible developments into manageable bites.

To begin, what exactly is a pistol brace, and who would use one?

Pistol braces were originally developed for disabled veterans. The brace is designed to clamp around the shooter’s forearm to help stabilize the weapon. Visually, they resemble a conventional rifle stock. The ATF originally approved them but then reversed course, making up new rules with the force of law as it went along.

More...
Click to expand...
 
#24,966
#24,966
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
The ATF’s New Pistol Brace Rule Is A Cluster Of Enforcement Traps
Click to expand...

I know this has been submitted to the federal register but has it been published yet? The 120 days doesn’t start until it’s published and as far as I know that was suppose to happen last week. What are they waiting on? I was just going to take my brace off and wait for this to be squashed but they say you have to destroy the brace once you remove it so it can’t be reattached. Lol, wtf kinda s***t is that? Truly the inmates running the asylum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#24,967
#24,967
C-south said:
I know this has been submitted to the federal register but has it been published yet? The 120 days doesn’t start until it’s published and as far as I know that was suppose to happen last week. What are they waiting on? I was just going to take my brace off and wait for this to be squashed but they say you have to destroy the brace once you remove it so it can’t be reattached. Lol, wtf kinda s***t is that? Truly the inmates running the asylum.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the ATF will have between 88 and 208 days to go through 40 million nfa applications.....and if they dont make it to yours you are boned. Or if they reject yours, you are boned.

We are going to have a tens of millions more felons here in a little more than 4 months. @luthervol @evillawyer @lawgator1

Unless this gets blown up in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt_Nick_Fury and InVOLuntary
#24,968
#24,968
LouderVol said:
Yeah and the ATF will have between 88 and 208 days to go through 40 million nfa applications.....and if they dont make it to yours you are boned. Or if they reject yours, you are boned.

We are going to have a tens of millions more felons here in a little more than 4 months. @luthervol @evillawyer @lawgator1

Unless this gets blown up in court.
Click to expand...

Sure seems like entrapment, when you rule something is legal wait for millions of units to be sold then change your mind.

I have to say I always sorta expected something like this, which is why I stuck to 16.5 on any rifle caliber. I always knew they'd pull a stunt like this. However whether it effects me or not it ticks me off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#24,969
#24,969
So, does the controversial stabilizing brace law apply to PCCs (e.g. Scorpion) or firearms that fire shotgun shells? Or does it only apply to rifle-caliber firearms? I was really considering that CZ
 
#24,970
#24,970
kiddiedoc said:
So, does the controversial stabilizing brace law apply to PCCs (e.g. Scorpion) or firearms that fire shotgun shells? Or does it only apply to rifle-caliber firearms? I was really considering that CZ
Click to expand...
I think it has to do with barrel length. I think the barrel has to be even longer on a shotgun to have any device you could shoulder. @Grand Vol would know. The taurus judge can fire .410 shotgun Shells which nfa says the barrel of a shotgun has to be 18". I assume it is legal because you can't shoulder it.
 
#24,971
#24,971
kiddiedoc said:
So, does the controversial stabilizing brace law apply to PCCs (e.g. Scorpion) or firearms that fire shotgun shells? Or does it only apply to rifle-caliber firearms? I was really considering that CZ
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure it applies to more than rifle caliber weapons.
 
#24,972
#24,972
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Sure seems like entrapment, when you rule something is legal wait for millions of units to be sold then change your mind.

I have to say I always sorta expected something like this, which is why I stuck to 16.5 on any rifle caliber. I always knew they'd pull a stunt like this. However whether it effects me or not it ticks me off.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah definitely entrapment. Because like you said. They made it legal, and no NFA requirements. Let millions buy them. They made them illegal/subject to NFA. They then give you "amnesty" to turn in your paperwork so they know exactly who you are and what you have. But then when they dont process your paperwork on something that originally didnt require paperwork, they can arrest you with a felony weapon charge.

Also the foreign parts thing is complete bs. There is no work around for them, except to destroy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt_Nick_Fury
#24,973
#24,973
Why would this ruling not be subject to the ex post facto prohibition in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution? If I still had a Banshee 300 after the tragic boating accident, we have a Federal agency now saying something I did perfectly legal and within the law would be illegal and subject me to Federal prison if I do not conform to current rules.

Of course, I'm sure this has been adjudicated with previous things like GCA1934 and FOPA (one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American people and one black mark I hold against Ronald Reagan).
 
#24,974
#24,974
GroverCleveland said:
Why would this ruling not be subject to the ex post facto prohibition in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution? If I still had a Banshee 300 after the tragic boating accident, we have a Federal agency now saying something I did perfectly legal and within the law would be illegal and subject me to Federal prison if I do not conform to current rules.

Of course, I'm sure this has been adjudicated with previous things like GCA1934 and FOPA (one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American people and one black mark I hold against Ronald Reagan).
Click to expand...

You would think that it would but like Trumps bump stock ban I'm pretty sure the courts ruled that they didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#24,975
#24,975
LouderVol said:
I am pretty sure it applies to more than rifle caliber weapons.
Click to expand...

I’m thinking it will be anything that can be shouldered while firing regardless of barrel length, trigger pull, caliber, etc. I watched one video where they say it could be anything with an optic. Hell they may go after guns with 16” recessed barrels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top