Forums46
Topics538,024
Posts9,731,992
Members87,055
|
Most Online25,604 Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
ATF ruling on SBRs
#8757540
12/14/22 03:54 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 938
DustyArmadillo
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 938 |
If the ATF makes everyone register their pistol, what stock is everyone putting on their new SBR?
Also, anyone have an opinion on the law tactical folder? (Or any of the knock offs)
Always wanted one of those.
Last edited by DustyArmadillo; 12/14/22 03:54 AM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8757545
12/14/22 04:01 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
I’m going with the LWRC Micro stock. It’s almost as short as most the PDW stocks out there but you can actually get a good cheek weld on it. Been running on of my other SBR for a while now. This is my micro 300BLK 5.5” barrel that I’m about to SBR. Christmas present to myself.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8757548
12/14/22 04:06 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638
Greg
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Greg]
#8757551
12/14/22 04:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp? Absolutely, you think they gonna miss out on their mullah. Been warning people about this for a month or two.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8757555
12/14/22 04:19 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Only silver lining…the end of the goofy azz brace. Im not a fan of the ATF but the brace has been a loophole since day 1 and it was always destined to eventually be shutdown. The ATF probably finally got tired of answering letters about the proper use of braces, realized they were missing out on a bunch of tax $, and just said “eff it, lets just kill these things and be done with this, plus we’ll make a little $ and we can have a few more pizza parties”
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8757564
12/14/22 04:29 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638
Greg
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638 |
So are they going to make you disassemble it until the stamp comes in? Or have they said?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Greg]
#8757577
12/14/22 04:40 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
So are they going to make you disassemble it until the stamp comes in? Or have they said? Yes. I think they give you 4 options Disassemble Destroy Turn in Register (still have to disassemble until you get your stamp)
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8757585
12/14/22 05:01 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638
Greg
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638 |
So are they going to make you disassemble it until the stamp comes in? Or have they said? Yes. I think they give you 4 options Disassemble Destroy Turn in Register (still have to disassemble until you get your stamp)
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: jeepercreeper]
#8757606
12/14/22 06:59 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201
ntxtrapper
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201 |
Only silver lining…the end of the goofy azz brace. Im not a fan of the ATF but the brace has been a loophole since day 1 and it was always destined to eventually be shutdown. The ATF probably finally got tired of answering letters about the proper use of braces, realized they were missing out on a bunch of tax $, and just said “eff it, lets just kill these things and be done with this, plus we’ll make a little $ and we can have a few more pizza parties” Actually they are just fine with braces and the TB already decided as such. This is straight from Biden in an EO.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: jeepercreeper]
#8757673
12/14/22 01:11 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
LuckyDucker_TTU
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 276 |
Only silver lining…the end of the goofy azz brace. Im not a fan of the ATF but the brace has been a loophole since day 1 and it was always destined to eventually be shutdown. There is no silver lining to this. The only thing goofy about this is having to pay the man $200 just to have a barrel shorter than 16”
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: ntxtrapper]
#8757674
12/14/22 01:12 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Only silver lining…the end of the goofy azz brace. Im not a fan of the ATF but the brace has been a loophole since day 1 and it was always destined to eventually be shutdown. The ATF probably finally got tired of answering letters about the proper use of braces, realized they were missing out on a bunch of tax $, and just said “eff it, lets just kill these things and be done with this, plus we’ll make a little $ and we can have a few more pizza parties” Actually they are just fine with braces and the TB already decided as such. This is straight from Biden in an EO. Eh, not true. There isnt an EO targeted at braces. It was a Executive Action which is not the same. Basically just the ATF asking Biden to help them move things along. ATF has been against braces since the inception, now they just have the endorsement they needed. If it was an Executive Order, we wouldnt be sitting here months later with braces still on our guns.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8757840
12/14/22 05:20 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 484
Uncle Zeek
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 484 |
So are they going to make you disassemble it until the stamp comes in? Or have they said? Yes. I think they give you 4 options Disassemble Destroy Turn in Register (still have to disassemble until you get your stamp) You also have the option of replacing the pistol-length barrel with a rifle-length one. Not that it's much consolation, but at least you keep the lower & BCG this way.
"Decency is not news; it is buried in the obituaries - but it is a force stronger than crime" ~ Robert A. Heinlein Artim Law Firm, PLLC Estate, probate & taxes 2250 Morriss Road, Suite 205, Flower Mound, Texas 75028 972-746-0758 work zac@artimlegal.com
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8757854
12/14/22 05:43 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of right now they have not released any rulings, and none of us really KNOWS anything. We can speculate based on drafted proposals of rules, but no new rule has come out. Correct?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: unclebubba]
#8757931
12/14/22 08:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of right now they have not released any rulings, and none of us really KNOWS anything. We can speculate based on drafted proposals of rules, but no new rule has come out. Correct? This is as far as it has gotten so far. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-10/pdf/2021-12176.pdf
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8757968
12/14/22 09:02 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201
ntxtrapper
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201 |
Biden ordered it in April and the TB wasn’t prepared for it so it’s been pushed back several times. It was supposed to be finalized in December.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: ntxtrapper]
#8757999
12/14/22 09:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Biden ordered it in April and the TB wasn’t prepared for it so it’s been pushed back several times. It was supposed to be finalized in December. Yep supposed to go into effect this month, but haven't heard anything else on it lately.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8758214
12/15/22 01:50 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,906
luv2brode
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,906 |
So remove the brace, still a pistol.
i am cancelling my subscription, i am tired of your issues!
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Greg]
#8758232
12/15/22 02:32 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 484
howl
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 484 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp? One article said there will be an initial grace period when you register it without paying the tax. Free SBRs for everybody!
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: howl]
#8758235
12/15/22 02:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp? One article said there will be an initial grace period when you register it without paying the tax. Free SBRs for everybody! That’s over now.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8758244
12/15/22 02:48 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp? One article said there will be an initial grace period when you register it without paying the tax. Free SBRs for everybody! That’s over now. That's over as in we had the opportunity and missed the window? Or over as in it's no longer going to be instituted?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8758249
12/15/22 02:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Missed the window I believe. I don’t really know for sure they’ve change it so many times and I’ve watched so many videos with conflicting information my brain is fried lol. I think the window was October and November.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8758301
12/15/22 04:03 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
Well, hell. If I'd have known that, I'd have built a couple of SBRs.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8758570
12/15/22 03:52 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 780
DonPablo
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 780 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DonPablo]
#8758650
12/15/22 05:57 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687
SherpaPhil
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach? Might want to brush up on your civics lessons.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8758955
12/15/22 11:16 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569
TexFlip
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach? Might want to brush up on your civics lessons. Which part?
Just to make sure that it is done thoroughly, I go both ways.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: TexFlip]
#8759037
12/16/22 12:37 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687
SherpaPhil
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach? Might want to brush up on your civics lessons. Which part? Where state laws cannot overrule federal.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759069
12/16/22 01:01 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,695
krmitchell
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,695 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach? Might want to brush up on your civics lessons. Which part? Where state laws cannot overrule federal. Seems to be ok for pot so what’s the big deal? If sanctuary cities are acceptable for illegal immigration why not for the second amendment?
Last edited by krmitchell; 12/16/22 01:01 AM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759100
12/16/22 01:27 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569
TexFlip
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569 |
So who wants to draft a letter for our TX reps asking them and Abott can make a TX law protecting us from this federal overreach? Might want to brush up on your civics lessons. Which part? Where state laws cannot overrule federal. Sure they can, Supreme Court would have to decide though.
Just to make sure that it is done thoroughly, I go both ways.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8759128
12/16/22 01:51 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687
SherpaPhil
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8759192
12/16/22 02:54 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Missed the window I believe. I don’t really know for sure they’ve change it so many times and I’ve watched so many videos with conflicting information my brain is fried lol. I think the window was October and November. I think I read in the ATF documentation that they did not move forward with this because braces are not serialized and there wasnt a way to verify if someone had actually bought a brace, so ppl could essentially claim they bought 10 and get 10 SBRs tax free.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759202
12/16/22 03:01 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp. Waiting for the response of “well then TX should just secede then, because you know…we’re the only state that has the right to and we’d survive as our own nation just fine”. In 3,2,1
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: jeepercreeper]
#8759208
12/16/22 03:05 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Missed the window I believe. I don’t really know for sure they’ve change it so many times and I’ve watched so many videos with conflicting information my brain is fried lol. I think the window was October and November. I think I read in the ATF documentation that they did not move forward with this because braces are not serialized and there wasnt a way to verify if someone had actually bought a brace, so ppl could essentially claim they bought 10 and get 10 SBRs tax free. Smart of them because I was going to SBR every lower I own and could get my hands on quickly regardless if they had 16”+ barrel on it or not.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8759258
12/16/22 03:51 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Missed the window I believe. I don’t really know for sure they’ve change it so many times and I’ve watched so many videos with conflicting information my brain is fried lol. I think the window was October and November. I think I read in the ATF documentation that they did not move forward with this because braces are not serialized and there wasnt a way to verify if someone had actually bought a brace, so ppl could essentially claim they bought 10 and get 10 SBRs tax free. Smart of them because I was going to SBR every lower I own and could get my hands on quickly regardless if they had 16”+ barrel on it or not. That was my plan too. Yes Mr ATF Agent,I bought these 5 AK pistols, 5 AR pistols, 5 PCC pistols all with braces so here’s all 15 Form 1s and excited about saving $3000.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759275
12/16/22 04:09 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569
TexFlip
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,569 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp. Everything is open to interpretation.
Just to make sure that it is done thoroughly, I go both ways.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: TexFlip]
#8759310
12/16/22 06:03 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687
SherpaPhil
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,687 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp. Everything is open to interpretation. Good point. Girls can be boys. Boys can have babies. It's all open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759324
12/16/22 08:17 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275
jeepercreeper
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,275 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp. Everything is open to interpretation. Good point. Girls can be boys. Boys can have babies. It's all open to interpretation. I have my 2022 year end performance review today. No matter what I hear from my boss or what my rating is, Im just gonna respond with “well, everything is open to interpretation”. I think this is the answer to any problem Ive ever faced. Best tool since “i know you are, but what am i?”
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: SherpaPhil]
#8759664
12/16/22 05:19 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 780
DonPablo
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 780 |
Not really open to interpretation... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that federal law controls in cases of conflict. It's not a grey area.
Pot is still illegal federally, regardless of what states do. If they were so inclined, the DEA could bust everyone in Colorado and there is absolutely nothing the state could do about it.
Texas could pass whatever they want as far as SBRs and the feds would completely ignore it. That's why you still can't buy a Texas made suppressor without a tax stamp. Sure the feds could/would ignore it but wouldn't it be nice for Texas to tell all city/county/state LEOs to ignore the ATF's rule change? Part of the reason states' decisions to ignore federal marijuana laws has been successful is that once the state gave it their rubber stamp of approval, the masses threw their support behind it. Laws are great and all, but when they don't have the support of the masses (nor the support of the state gov), they're fairly difficult to enforce.
Last edited by DonPablo; 12/16/22 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: unclebubba]
#8760696
12/18/22 01:50 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,330
DeckArtist
Pro Tracker
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,330 |
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8780322
01/14/23 05:26 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248
DeRico
Mobius 1
|
Mobius 1
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248 |
Guess ATF went ahead with the illegal move
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8780332
01/14/23 06:36 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638
Greg
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,638 |
So if they make everyone register does that mean they will have to throw down $200 for a tax stamp? Absolutely, you think they gonna miss out on their mullah. Been warning people about this for a month or two.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8784468
01/20/23 04:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 29,132
TXHOGSLAYER
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 29,132 |
Has the rule actually been added yet?
LETS GO BRANDON
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8784697
01/20/23 09:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8787261
01/24/23 07:00 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,131
Hunter_Man
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,131 |
Any update on rule being added to register
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8787274
01/24/23 07:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8787649
01/25/23 12:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248
DeRico
Mobius 1
|
Mobius 1
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248 |
My opinion, ATF is doing this because DOJ needs money. Quickest way is to force people to pay $200.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DeRico]
#8787689
01/25/23 01:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
My opinion, ATF is doing this because DOJ needs money. Quickest way is to force people to pay $200. Would love for you to explain the tax forbearance for 40 million items in circulation that ATF is now calling SBRs. Seems like not many folks are going to go this route once the forbearance is done, so no money in it except through fines from prosecution (good luck getting any quantifiable number of those)
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: TLew]
#8787763
01/25/23 03:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248
DeRico
Mobius 1
|
Mobius 1
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,248 |
My opinion, ATF is doing this because DOJ needs money. Quickest way is to force people to pay $200. Would love for you to explain the tax forbearance for 40 million items in circulation that ATF is now calling SBRs. Seems like not many folks are going to go this route once the forbearance is done, so no money in it except through fines from prosecution (good luck getting any quantifiable number of those) Don’t have to explain much on that, after 120 days it’ll be payup time.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DeRico]
#8787789
01/25/23 04:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
My opinion, ATF is doing this because DOJ needs money. Quickest way is to force people to pay $200. Would love for you to explain the tax forbearance for 40 million items in circulation that ATF is now calling SBRs. Seems like not many folks are going to go this route once the forbearance is done, so no money in it except through fines from prosecution (good luck getting any quantifiable number of those) Don’t have to explain much on that, after 120 days it’ll be payup time. ATF is not doing any of this for Money. The current administration is anti-gun, and they are doing anything that they can think of to infringe on the 2nd amendment.
Last edited by unclebubba; 01/25/23 04:33 PM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8792506
01/31/23 11:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8795092
02/04/23 11:32 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,336
Dave Davidson
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,336 |
noted that the “cost’ of the rule/law is $288,000,000. WTF?
Without a sense of urgency, nothing ever happens.
Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley, Rancher Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8806504
02/23/23 12:01 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Gekko68
Light Foot
|
Light Foot
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28 |
This brace thing isn't going to happen.The ATF came straight out and admitted to screwing up.The 2nd amendment attorney spoke with one of the main agents at atf.They now realize that there is no way 20 million people can register for an sbr in 3 months lol..They can barely handle 500-1k cases a year.SO ,,the under-breath is saying,,,never happen.And who would enforce it.No leo will,most states have spoken up and said they wont. The atf worded it as a rule,,,not a law,YET... Rules are only regulated by the person of biz that made it.I don't think any Leo could enforce it. Please correct me if im mistaken on that or am confused in the meaning. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/distinguish-between-laws-and-rules/
Last edited by Gekko68; 02/23/23 12:11 AM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8806572
02/23/23 01:49 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201
ntxtrapper
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201 |
The atf worded it as a rule,,,not a law,YET... Rules are only regulated by the person of biz that made it.I don't think any Leo could enforce it. Please correct me if im mistaken on that or am confused in the meaning.
Texas Penal Code: Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice: (A) an explosive weapon; (B) a machine gun; or (C) a short-barrel firearm
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Gekko68]
#8806638
02/23/23 02:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
This brace thing isn't going to happen.The ATF came straight out and admitted to screwing up.The 2nd amendment attorney spoke with one of the main agents at atf.They now realize that there is no way 20 million people can register for an sbr in 3 months lol..They can barely handle 500-1k cases a year.SO ,,the under-breath is saying,,,never happen. Your not wrong although the time doesn't matter since it just has to be submitted within the 120 window or rectified to be legal (a few options) And who would enforce it.No leo will,most states have spoken up and said they wont. The atf worded it as a rule,,,not a law,YET... Rules are only regulated by the person of biz that made it.I don't think any Leo could enforce it. Please correct me if im mistaken on that or am confused in the meaning. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/distinguish-between-laws-and-rules/You're completely wrong as ntx pointed out
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8809089
02/27/23 03:23 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Gekko68
Light Foot
|
Light Foot
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28 |
but thats my point,,in no way could they even look at 200k let alone millions of entrys.. Its an impossible task.The fed laws say if its an impossible task made by a rule or law,then it cant be regulated or be a law.
Basically it has to be possible,you cant say people cant take a poop after midnight. Its an impossible rule or law.
Last edited by Gekko68; 02/27/23 03:24 AM.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8809090
02/27/23 03:29 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Gekko68
Light Foot
|
Light Foot
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28 |
knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:????
so your saying they sent a letter to every person that bought a brace?
Half or more of the people i have spoken with that have no clue about laws or guns,that own a brace or gun, said they had no idea of the brace law.
Theres just too many loopholes in this law,im guessing that is why they overturned the bump stock ban...
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8809103
02/27/23 03:41 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201
ntxtrapper
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201 |
You sure the bump stock ban has been overturned?
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: ntxtrapper]
#8809544
02/27/23 11:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Gekko68
Light Foot
|
Light Foot
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28 |
The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court. Its getting there .when has the courts moved quickly
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8810707
03/01/23 08:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28
Gekko68
Light Foot
|
Light Foot
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 28 |
Ok,,the latest news I have is that liberty for america attorneys are suing the atf.They are basing it on the 2nd amendment as well as other past documentation.
Over 30 states have joined the lawsuit so far..
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8816510
03/11/23 08:08 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,173
J.G.
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,173 |
800 Yard Steel Range Precision Rifle Instruction Memberships and Classes Available
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: J.G.]
#8816768
03/12/23 01:49 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 927
GNTX
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 927 |
I’m sure the ATF will continue to thumb their nose at any congressional requests or demands as long as they have the administration on their side.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8846160
05/04/23 05:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 461
DeerT
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 461 |
any more updates on this? Not that I have one but just curious. I can't find any recent info.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: GNTX]
#8846218
05/04/23 06:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
I’m sure the ATF will continue to thumb their nose at any congressional requests or demands as long as they have the administration on their side. I've watched a bunch of this hearing, the ATF chief was definitely in over his head. He did the typical bureaucratic deflection on pretty much every questions. He did however admit he doesn't know much about guns. After that bloodbath, I don't see this rule standing in the end. Might take a few years like the bumpstock did, but it will be nullified sooner or later.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8846348
05/04/23 09:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8846652
05/05/23 01:36 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,578
Gumbeaux
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,578 |
I read an article this morning stating that the ATF has received only 125K applications for registration. Estimates on the number of AR pistols out there varies from about 3M to 40M. At either end of the spectrum, that's a really small %.
Quickly running out of time for the courts to do something though.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Gumbeaux]
#8846670
05/05/23 02:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
I read an article this morning stating that the ATF has received only 125K applications for registration. Estimates on the number of AR pistols out there varies from about 3M to 40M. At either end of the spectrum, that's a really small %.
Quickly running out of time for the courts to do something though. Well if time runs out and courts still hasn't acted, according to the head of the ATF you can just detach the brace from the pistol and you're good. If they try to prosecute you for constructive intent just tell your lawyer to play the congressional hearing in court. He states plain as day that you won't be prosecuted if you just detach the brace and keep it separate.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8846772
05/05/23 03:33 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,578
Gumbeaux
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,578 |
I read an article this morning stating that the ATF has received only 125K applications for registration. Estimates on the number of AR pistols out there varies from about 3M to 40M. At either end of the spectrum, that's a really small %.
Quickly running out of time for the courts to do something though. Well if time runs out and courts still hasn't acted, according to the head of the ATF you can just detach the brace from the pistol and you're good. If they try to prosecute you for constructive intent just tell your lawyer to play the congressional hearing in court. He states plain as day that you won't be prosecuted if you just detach the brace and keep it separate. And waiving the fee doesn't do any good because it still costs you $200 to get it from individual the trust. Might as well just pay the $200 to go straight to trust if and when the time comes.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: Gumbeaux]
#8846797
05/05/23 03:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
I read an article this morning stating that the ATF has received only 125K applications for registration. Estimates on the number of AR pistols out there varies from about 3M to 40M. At either end of the spectrum, that's a really small %.
Quickly running out of time for the courts to do something though. Well if time runs out and courts still hasn't acted, according to the head of the ATF you can just detach the brace from the pistol and you're good. If they try to prosecute you for constructive intent just tell your lawyer to play the congressional hearing in court. He states plain as day that you won't be prosecuted if you just detach the brace and keep it separate. And waiving the fee doesn't do any good because it still costs you $200 to get it from individual the trust. Might as well just pay the $200 to go straight to trust if and when the time comes. Yes, which is exactly what I just did with my PSA Jakl. I've also heard that all these "free stamps" aren't actual SBR stamps because there was no tax paid. So say you get the free stamp, now you have an SBR why would you run a brace when you can run a real stock. You throw a stock on the gun and a year later this rule is overturned by the courts. Well you now have an illegal SBR sitting in your safe. By that time most people that did this won't even be following this ruling anymore. Now the ATF has a gun registration of all the people that applied for the free stamp which now all have illegal SBRs. If they wanted to, they could go door to door to check them, and they might out of spite for their rule being overturned. Also I'm pretty sure according to the ATF that once a gun is a "Rifle" it can not be converted back to a "Pistol". So even if this is overturned all those people with free stamps won't be able to just put a brace back on, they'll have to put a 16" barrel on it, destroy it, or pay the $200 tax stamp. So basically back to square one, but now the ATF has a huge list of names and addresses...
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8846818
05/05/23 04:24 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201
ntxtrapper
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12,201 |
I’m sure the ATF will continue to thumb their nose at any congressional requests or demands as long as they have the administration on their side. I've watched a bunch of this hearing, the ATF chief was definitely in over his head. He did the typical bureaucratic deflection on pretty much every questions. He did however admit he doesn't know much about guns. After that bloodbath, I don't see this rule standing in the end. Might take a few years like the bumpstock did, but it will be nullified sooner or later. "The decision doesn't have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed." https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/1147698112/bump-stocks-ban-struck-down-court
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8849254
05/09/23 03:03 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
I read an article this morning stating that the ATF has received only 125K applications for registration. Estimates on the number of AR pistols out there varies from about 3M to 40M. At either end of the spectrum, that's a really small %.
Quickly running out of time for the courts to do something though. Well if time runs out and courts still hasn't acted, according to the head of the ATF you can just detach the brace from the pistol and you're good. If they try to prosecute you for constructive intent just tell your lawyer to play the congressional hearing in court. He states plain as day that you won't be prosecuted if you just detach the brace and keep it separate. And waiving the fee doesn't do any good because it still costs you $200 to get it from individual the trust. Might as well just pay the $200 to go straight to trust if and when the time comes. Yes, which is exactly what I just did with my PSA Jakl. I've also heard that all these "free stamps" aren't actual SBR stamps because there was no tax paid. So say you get the free stamp, now you have an SBR why would you run a brace when you can run a real stock. You throw a stock on the gun and a year later this rule is overturned by the courts. Well you now have an illegal SBR sitting in your safe. By that time most people that did this won't even be following this ruling anymore. Now the ATF has a gun registration of all the people that applied for the free stamp which now all have illegal SBRs. If they wanted to, they could go door to door to check them, and they might out of spite for their rule being overturned. Also I'm pretty sure according to the ATF that once a gun is a "Rifle" it can not be converted back to a "Pistol". So even if this is overturned all those people with free stamps won't be able to just put a brace back on, they'll have to put a 16" barrel on it, destroy it, or pay the $200 tax stamp. So basically back to square one, but now the ATF has a huge list of names and addresses...No, a pistol can be turned into a rifle and back to a pistol. A rifle cannot be turned into a pistol as it was always a rifle. Let's move from 101 to 401 class now. ATF says that our AR pistols have always been SBRs so they are NFA items, but they are allowing tax forbearance because when they were purchased the law was not clear. So, our once AR pistols are rifles, have always been rifles, and will continue to be rifles. Let's say the rule gets struck down, so does that definition, which means that the same guns the ATF said were, are, and always will be SBRs are now back to what they were classified as on your 4473, in other words a pistol. Assuming you're confused at this point, you can take the stock off and put a brace back on and it's a pistol IF the rule gets struck down.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: TLew]
#8849449
05/09/23 04:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Let's move from 101 to 401 class now. ATF says that our AR pistols have always been SBRs so they are NFA items, but they are allowing tax forbearance because when they were purchased the law was not clear. So, our once AR pistols are rifles, have always been rifles, and will continue to be rifles. Let's say the rule gets struck down, so does that definition, which means that the same guns the ATF said were, are, and always will be SBRs are now back to what they were classified as on your 4473, in other words a pistol. Assuming you're confused at this point, you can take the stock off and put a brace back on and it's a pistol IF the rule gets struck down.
But there has never been a law passed on AR Pistols, they've always been pistols. Have the ATF made "rulings" on pistols? Yes, but there are no laws just unelected bureaucrats making rules as they see fit with no authority to do so. So really none of this is the law of the land just antigunner rulings, none of which have passed congress who actually makes the laws. You're correct on the pistol to rifle back to pistol thing. I was just too lazy to go look it up LOL. Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length.
Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such configuration would not be considered a “weapon made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(4).
[26 U.S.C. § 5845, 27 CFR § 479.11]
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8849495
05/09/23 06:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429
TLew
Veteran Tracker
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,429 |
Let's move from 101 to 401 class now. ATF says that our AR pistols have always been SBRs so they are NFA items, but they are allowing tax forbearance because when they were purchased the law was not clear. So, our once AR pistols are rifles, have always been rifles, and will continue to be rifles. Let's say the rule gets struck down, so does that definition, which means that the same guns the ATF said were, are, and always will be SBRs are now back to what they were classified as on your 4473, in other words a pistol. Assuming you're confused at this point, you can take the stock off and put a brace back on and it's a pistol IF the rule gets struck down.
But there has never been a law passed on AR Pistols, they've always been pistols. Have the ATF made "rulings" on pistols? Yes, but there are no laws just unelected bureaucrats making rules as they see fit with no authority to do so. So really none of this is the law of the land just antigunner rulings, none of which have passed congress who actually makes the laws. You're correct on the pistol to rifle back to pistol thing. I was just too lazy to go look it up LOL. Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length.
Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such configuration would not be considered a “weapon made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(4).
[26 U.S.C. § 5845, 27 CFR § 479.11] Don't try to detangle the birds nest. The official rule is pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 which was amended with the GCA of 1968. (I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that we need to get the courts to look at overturning chevron deference)
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: TLew]
#8849501
05/09/23 06:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
(I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that we need to get the courts to look at overturning chevron deference)
I've heard that term a lot listening to the 2A Attorneys on this case, went and looked it up still don't 100% understand it. Guess that is why I'm not a lawyer I get the gist of it, but when I read legal mumbojumbo my eyes glaze over.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8849512
05/09/23 07:31 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
(I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that we need to get the courts to look at overturning chevron deference)
I've heard that term a lot listening to the 2A Attorneys on this case, went and looked it up still don't 100% understand it. Guess that is why I'm not a lawyer I get the gist of it, but when I read legal mumbojumbo my eyes glaze over. The way I understand it, Chevron Deference is deferring to the government agencies to interpret any parts of laws that are not specifically addressed by congress. i.e. pistol braces are not specifically addressed by congress. Chevron Deference would defer to the ATF to decide if they are part of the NFA.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: unclebubba]
#8849528
05/09/23 08:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
(I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that we need to get the courts to look at overturning chevron deference)
I've heard that term a lot listening to the 2A Attorneys on this case, went and looked it up still don't 100% understand it. Guess that is why I'm not a lawyer I get the gist of it, but when I read legal mumbojumbo my eyes glaze over. The way I understand it, Chevron Deference is deferring to the government agencies to interpret any parts of laws that are not specifically addressed by congress. i.e. pistol braces are not specifically addressed by congress. Chevron Deference would defer to the ATF to decide if they are part of the NFA. Yea I get that, but just like in the latest EPA case where the SC stripped the EPA of its power to enact policy without Congress. It should be a pretty open and shut case. The ATF has no authority or power to do this.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8849534
05/09/23 08:13 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934
unclebubba
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,934 |
(I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just that we need to get the courts to look at overturning chevron deference)
I've heard that term a lot listening to the 2A Attorneys on this case, went and looked it up still don't 100% understand it. Guess that is why I'm not a lawyer I get the gist of it, but when I read legal mumbojumbo my eyes glaze over. The way I understand it, Chevron Deference is deferring to the government agencies to interpret any parts of laws that are not specifically addressed by congress. i.e. pistol braces are not specifically addressed by congress. Chevron Deference would defer to the ATF to decide if they are part of the NFA. Yea I get that, but just like in the latest EPA case where the SC stripped the EPA of its power to enact policy without Congress. It should be a pretty open and shut case. The ATF has no authority or power to do this. You're preaching to the choir, Kyle.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: DustyArmadillo]
#8849548
05/09/23 08:30 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Oh I know. I just don't see how our elected officials and SC Justices don't see it lol.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: KRoyal]
#8849875
05/10/23 11:06 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 6,113
soooo
THF Trophy Hunter
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 6,113 |
Oh I know. I just don't see how our elected officials and SC Justices don't see it lol. There's no money in it.
|
|
|
Re: ATF ruling on SBRs
[Re: soooo]
#8849906
05/10/23 12:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198
KRoyal
Texoma Legend
|
Texoma Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,198 |
Oh I know. I just don't see how our elected officials and SC Justices don't see it lol. There's no money in it. True, it’s always about the money. Home of the free my [censored]..
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, txcornhusker
|