FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·


The ATF under the Biden Administration is about to implement one of the most unconstitutional and illegal acts in its history. They are completely disregarding "ex post facto" laws that make previously ownership of legal personal property remain legal before the passage of rules and regs that make them illegal.

No surprise there. With many states passing laws that are reclaiming their sovereignty and refusing to aid and abet such malicious acts as these by rogue organizations, that rift between the states and the Feds will only continue to get larger due to an illegitimate Presidency that is completley hostile to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that is supposed to protect it from such acts of treason.

This set of "rules" published by the ATF will result in much hardship for the citizens, many of which will be turned into felons by the stroke of a pen.

Yes it's coming...just as we predicted.

That pot is about to boil.


If they get away with this, and your AR or AK pistols have braces, or any other gun for that matter, you'll have to be fingerprinted, photographed and pay a $200.00 tax on each one...or become a felon.

Welcome to Biden's new Amerika.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
908 Posts
"Firearms over 13 ½ inches would automatically be an SBR. If a pistol has a standard buffer tube, then the firearm would be assigned two points. The ATF would consider any gun that is over 120 ounces unloaded an SBR."

Umm ... does this include revolvers?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
513 Posts
I’m just not seeing all the unity from fellow gun owners on this! lmao!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. I'm in...

As a non-American, it surprises me that many people do not fully understand the intent of the 2nd. Amendment.... Many of my friends believe it grants civilians the right to own firearms, whereas, in reality... that right is a given and the 2nd amendment is intended to prevent a Government from infringing upon that right. Well, that's always been my interpretation. If I am incorrect, please feel free to set me straight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,531 Posts
I’m just not seeing all the unity from fellow gun owners on this! lmao!
I personally look at braces like I do solvent traps both non-illegal workarounds. I also see absolutely ZERO practical use for either, that being said if someone wants to hunt an angry lion with a .22LR that's their choice. I wholly and totally morally support anyone who chooses to hunt angry lions with 22LR's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,987 Posts
I really don’t get why we are where we are today when it clearly says shall not infringe. How can that be interpreted any other way? I legit have only one pistol brace I’m not big on them but others are especially if their state like mine used to be dont allow sbr. I have four firearms I would like to sbr but I haven’t bothered with the Nfa since the new rules went into affect back in obozo days. How did sbr end up a nfa thing? I get machine guns even though I don’t agree with it but really sbr what’s the logic behind this? Might as well ask wtf is the logic with 922r?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. I'm in...

As a non-American, it surprises me that many people do not fully understand the intent of the 2nd. Amendment.... Many of my friends believe it grants civilians the right to own firearms, whereas, in reality... that right is a given and the 2nd amendment is intended to prevent a Government from infringing upon that right. Well, that's always been my interpretation. If I am incorrect, please feel free to set me straight.
The thing about most "rights" that we Americans have is that very few are spelled out. Most rights have been legislated by Congress and then refined by the Courts over the past 200 years. The 2nd Amendment says something, but if that is ALL you have to go on, it's ambiguous. Thus, over the past MANY years the issue of gun ownership has been heavily litigated / laws passed / court decisions made.......and then, at the end of the day (today, anyway), we have a somewhat complete idea of what is "legal" and what is not.

However, every day brings a new law / court decision / etc., so the entire thing is always in flux.

The same can be said for everything else. Taxation / foreign relations / immigration / etc. With all of these big issues, there are aspects of the Constitution that help define what is OK and what is not OK, but for the most part, it is then up to Congress and the Courts to refine and solidify what is in the Constitution.

The basic point I'm making here is don't expect the Constitution, just by reading it, to be definitive and comprehensive. It was not written that way, and can't be used that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
The thing about most "rights" that we Americans have is that very few are spelled out. Most rights have been legislated by Congress and then refined by the Courts over the past 200 years. The 2nd Amendment says something, but if that is ALL you have to go on, it's ambiguous. Thus, over the past MANY years the issue of gun ownership has been heavily litigated / laws passed / court decisions made.......and then, at the end of the day (today, anyway), we have a somewhat complete idea of what is "legal" and what is not.

However, every day brings a new law / court decision / etc., so the entire thing is always in flux.

The same can be said for everything else. Taxation / foreign relations / immigration / etc. With all of these big issues, there are aspects of the Constitution that help define what is OK and what is not OK, but for the most part, it is then up to Congress and the Courts to refine and solidify what is in the Constitution.

The basic point I'm making here is don't expect the Constitution, just by reading it, to be definitive and comprehensive. It was not written that way, and can't be used that way.
The constitution is in fact definitive and comprehensive. It lays out things that the federal government can do and says that everything else is the right of the states or the people. Meaning the federal government can’t do anything not defined as things they can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
The constitution is in fact definitive and comprehensive. It lays out things that the federal government can do and says that everything else is the right of the states or the people. Meaning the federal government can’t do anything not defined as things they can do.
Um… just the Constitution? complete? Um no…
Let’s not forget the Bill of Rights (a.k.a. the first 10 Amendments), and the rest of the Amendments.

If the Constitution was complete, there’d be no Second Amendment.

Things change. We amend the constitution as required, lawfully, through our functioning democracy in the interests of the majority of society in our Republic.

Not just for the causes you or I, or any particular single subset of society, necessarily agree with.

some idiot a few miles away here in Michigan recently assaulted a 6-year-old child with a sledgehammer and when he couldn’t catch the faster little kid, he went inside, got his legally owned firearm and shot the kid. why? because the kid “trespassed” to retrieve his tricycle from the guys front lawn.

I enjoy my right to own and use my firearms. I also happen to believe our right to do so does not exclude sufficient registration (and taxation to fund) the ability for our law enforcement to know what types and and quantity of weapons we have so bastards like this nut job never, ever has the ability to shoot another young kid.

The incessant “its my right…” “not to infringe”argument ignores the differences between American society in 1776 and 2021. Amendments are by definition designed to allow improvements.

You don’t like “how” things are changing, fine. Valid opinions all around. Want less “infringement”? How about we try promoting responsible gun laws to punish offenses rather than simply whinging-on about “its our right, you can’t infringe / take / tax my hammer/stock/yadda…”?

Just my $0.02 worth of brass FWIW. Civil dialog always welcome. Thank you for respecting my 1st Amendment rights… and if not, go ahead…flame on if you need to. (though that’d seem a bit hypocritical, no?) I’ve got my kevlar/nomex undies on under my plate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,531 Posts
Um… just the Constitution? complete? Um no…
Let’s not forget the Bill of Rights (a.k.a. the first 10 Amendments), and the rest of the Amendments.

If the Constitution was complete, there’d be no Second Amendment.

Things change. We amend the constitution as required, lawfully, through our functioning democracy in the interests of the majority of society in our Republic.

Not just for the causes you or I, or any particular single subset of society, necessarily agree with.

some idiot a few miles away here in Michigan recently assaulted a 6-year-old child with a sledgehammer and when he couldn’t catch the faster little kid, he went inside, got his legally owned firearm and shot the kid. why? because the kid “trespassed” to retrieve his tricycle from the guys front lawn.

I enjoy my right to own and use my firearms. I also happen to believe our right to do so does not exclude sufficient registration (and taxation to fund) the ability for our law enforcement to know what types and and quantity of weapons we have so bastards like this nut job never, ever has the ability to shoot another young kid.

The incessant “its my right…” “not to infringe”argument ignores the differences between American society in 1776 and 2021. Amendments are by definition designed to allow improvements.

You don’t like “how” things are changing, fine. Valid opinions all around. Want less “infringement”? How about we try promoting responsible gun laws to punish offenses rather than simply whinging-on about “its our right, you can’t infringe / take / tax my hammer/stock/yadda…”?

Just my $0.02 worth of brass FWIW. Civil dialog always welcome. Thank you for respecting my 1st Amendment rights… and if not, go ahead…flame on if you need to. (though that’d seem a bit hypocritical, no?) I’ve got my kevlar/nomex undies on under my plate.
Yes the entire world has changed since 1776 however if you allow tampering even in the smallest amount with the SA you open the door to more tampering. The incessant "shall not be infringed" you mention is also the only amendment of all that has those words in it. In 1776 had they had shall we say "sufficient registration" do you suppose these United States of America would even exist? There will always be nutcases that is human nature, infringing even in tiniest degree an inalienable uninfringeable right of We the People for a fraction of a fraction of the population of this nation makes zero sense.

I can appreciate and respect your outrage over the incident however we must never let emotions and knee jerk reactions dictate or influence decisions with far reaching consequences. Those who you would offer sufficient registration to would at some point use that information against you. This is historical fact for each time in history there was registration it lead to confiscation and this too is human nature.

One cannot say they enjoy a right then allow others to restrict that right essentially meaning it wasn't a right to begin with but a privilege. Understand the full measure of your willingness to register your firearms, eventually you won't own any and might even be labeled a criminal for owning them at all. Again, there are incidents that remind us humans can be savage by nature although we have been savage by nature long before gunpowder was invented. Removing firearms from any equation does not eliminate anything but a tool, there are plenty of tools to be had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
908 Posts
Three sock puppets walk into a bar from three different countries (flags next to names) and have a political discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Any legislation that opposes the Constitution will be treated as NULL AND VOID and everyone should treat it as such! If everyone stuck together instead of folding and rolling over we could beat this and more!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Obama did have one thing right when he stated/implied that that pesky Bill of Rights was, in his opinion, a bill of negative rights, meaning that the rights restricted the federal government, and empowered the individual. The states created the federal government. It is far past time for the states to remember their original duty, regardless of the party letter following the name of the occupant of the White House.

I do not own a stabilizing brace. Maybe one day, as I age, I will find one very useful.... time will tell.

A thought uttered by many others before me:

What part of "shall not be infringed" is incomprehensible.

When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, they had not just come back from a hunting trip, they came back from liberating a new nation. The spark that initiated the Revolution began with the British attempt to confiscate firearms.

It's sad that the state of civil education has been so watered down over the past half century. Marx and Engels would be proud.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top