A lot of gun owners do not support the 2a…it’s sad. One day American’s will lose their gun rights and they’ll be the reason…you know, sensible rules and all

I once believed I wouldn’t be around to see it…after the last three years, I’m not as certain.

I switched out the bbls for 16" and the brace for buttstocks

Same here.

Keeping those parts though, just in case a miracle happens in the next year or so.

I lost all my old brace parts a little at a time when I realized they weren't for me and wouldn't be for anyone else at some point.

Braces never bothered me. I have four SBRs with regular stocks, but the SB Tactical SOB brace worked fine for me on my AR and 10/22 pistols.

The brace was designed to help handicapped folks enjoy shooting sports.
Just like designated handicapped parking spaces, some little bitches just had to park there and screw it up for the people that actually need it.

This makes no sense. They can make goofy laws that don't make sense and don't make anyone safer, but red-blooded Americans can't work within those laws to find ways to provide products people want? I can't believe anyone on a hunting forum would have this kind of take on it...

We can have 3" barrel pistols and 20" barrel rifles but can't have anything in-between. So I can take a 22LR with a pistol brace and a 7.5" barrel, and magically the world is safer if I remove the brace or swap the barrel to 16"? Nobody is stupid enough to believe that's actually the case....

See the post above yours

fans of the View & Clinton News Network & the like are....



& apparently the Director of the 'AFT' knowingly lied to Congress

or is it the 'AFT' is not following guidance from their Director?
lol, smh

I don't fault anyone for wanting to own full-auto, SBRs, suppressors and the like but I always avoided such things because I've always expected capricious behavior from the politicians and the feds. And here we are.

So the libs win by default in that scenario...

I still think it will eventually get overturned. Maybe not in the next 8 days, but, eventually. It took somewhere around two years for the bumpstock ban to make it's way through court before being overturned. I figure that this has at least two years in court.

No more than they win when you jump through all the hoops they hold out in front of you.

"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

It has also been overturned in a 2nd district court on appeal. So, this one is still going through the courts.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...ainst-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-25/

My thoughts:

1 Move to Oklahoma? https://www.fox23.com/news/multiple...3dca171-be6f-52d8-9536-9c8a2f2877ff.html

2 I'll ignore it (assuming I had any of course).

3 Bump stocks round 2.

AND - why doesn't Texas just make them legal? States have made weed legal, although against federal law. So Texas could do the same with crap like this. I've tried with my representatives, but been totally ignored.

Because legalization of weed is a democrat/liberal policy so of course the alphabet agencies won't enforce the federal laws, even though they could. But you can bet your [censored] if Texas made them legal the ATF would definitely come down hard and throw normal citizens under the jail.

Just look at the difference between BLM/Antifa riots vs the J6ers. Tells you everything they need to know.

And there you go - I totally went against what I always say - Logic does not exist at the government level. But it would be fun to watch our AG fight them

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court dealt a legal setback to the Biden administration on guns Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging tighter regulations on stabilizing braces, an accessory that has been used in several mass shootings in the U.S.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the Biden administration's rule from going into effect for the gun owners and groups who filed the lawsuit. The order came shortly before a deadline that would have required people to register stabilizing braces and pay a fee, or remove the braces from their weapons.


The full impact of the decision wasn't immediately clear. The order applied only to the plaintiffs in the case: two gun owners, a company that makes pistols with stabilizing braces, and a gun-rights group. The appeals court did not say whether the rule was blocked for others, including people who buy the guns from the company, Maxim Defense Industries, and members of the Firearms Policy Coalition.

An attorney on the case, Erik Jaffe, said they were pleased with the ruling and looking forward to arguments in the case, which the Fifth Circuit also ordered be argued quickly.

The lawsuit came before the court after the Firearms Policy Coalition appealed a lower-court order from a Texas judge who declined to block enforcement of the rule as the case played out.

The ruling comes amid upheaval in the legal landscape for guns after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation’s firearm laws, requiring that they be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Fifth Circuit also ruled in February that the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns.

This YouTube vid is informative as well.

https://youtu.be/FhqCOEAflYg

Lol. That was a convenient pretext for why they were designed. The real reason was to do an end around stupid ATF regulations.

I own several braces (and SBR's), and I'm not getting rid of the braces because this will get overturned by the Courts.