National Gun Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule Monday that will designate certain AR-pistols as “short barreled rifles” and place them under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

DOJ also put forward a model red flag law for states to follow in crafting their own legislation.

The DOJ’s proposed AR-pistol rule and red flag law model are put being put forward in compliance with President Joe Biden’s April 8, 2021, executive directive for such gun controls to be issued.

On April 8, 2021, Breitbart News reported that Biden put forward a number of executive gun controls, one of which was new regulations for AR-pistols and another was directive for the DOJ to put forward a red flag law model that states could follow.

Regarding AR-pistols, Biden said, “We want to treat pistols, modified with stabilizing braces, with the seriousness they deserve.” He suggested having a stabilizing brace on a pistol “makes that pistol a hell of lot more accurate” and “more lethal.”

Biden also addressed red flag laws: “We know red flag laws can stop mass shooters before they can act out their violent plans.” He then directed the Justice Department to publish model red flag legislation for states to adopt.

His push for red flag laws came only weeks after a Boulder, Colorado, attacker shot and killed 10 people despite that state’s red flag law.

On June 7, 2021, the DOJ put forward their proposed rule for AR-pistols:

The department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make clear that the statutory restrictions on short-barreled rifles apply to pistols that are equipped with certain stabilizing braces and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
The National Firearms Act imposes heightened regulations on short-barreled rifles because they are easily concealable, can cause great damage, and are more likely to be used to commit crimes.
But companies now sell accessories that make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements.
These requirements are important public safety measures because they regulate the transfer of these dangerous weapons and help ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands.
The proposed rule would clarify when these attached accessories convert pistols into weapons covered by these heightened regulations.
Should this proposal become an actual regulation, it would mean the purchase of certain AR-pistols with stabilizer braces would require the purchaser to be fingerprinted and photographed, undergo a background check, pay the federal government a $200 tax on the firearm, and register the firearm with the ATF. That process takes nine or ten months to complete.

As for the model red flag law, the DOJ designated the proposal under the moniker of
“Extreme Risk Protection Orders.”


The DOJ suggested that their “model legislation and detailed commentary…will make it easier for states to craft ‘extreme risk protection orders’ authorizing courts to temporarily bar people in crisis from accessing firearms.”

The DOJ added:

By allowing family members or law enforcement to intervene and to petition for these orders before warning signs turn into tragedy, “extreme risk protection orders” can save lives. They are also an evidence-based approach to the problem. The model legislation, developed after consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, provides a framework that will help more states enact these sensible laws.
The DOJ did not note that California has a red flag law, yet eight people were killed in a mass shooting in San Jose on May 26, 2021.

They did not point out that Indiana has a red flag law, yet eight people were killed in Indianapolis in an April 15, 2021, mass shooting at a FedEx facility.

The DOJ did not mention that Colorado has a red flag law, yet ten people were shot and killed in Boulder, Colorado, on March 22, 2016.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Wag

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·

On June 7, 2021, the Attorney General signed ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.

What is Proposed in this Rulemaking?
The proposed rule would:

  • Amend the definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition to clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached “stabilizing brace” that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
  • Set forth a worksheet “Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” ATF Worksheet 4999, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the criteria that ATF considers when evaluating firearm samples that are submitted with an attached “stabilizing brace” or similar component or accessory.
This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
124331
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,765 Posts
I have yet to see any mass shooting or murder happen with someone using a pistol brace. I guess this is a preemptive law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stamps6

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
24,379 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,889 Posts
We must stop calling it a slippery slope, as if we are just starting this. We've been on this slippery ride to every firearm being banned since the NRA sided with the anti firearm initiatives. We've had attacks on the Seconded Amendment way before which we see starting in the year 1837, then 1865, 1861, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1968, 1976, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1997, 1998 (lot happened there), 1999, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.

We're way past the slippery slope. See how the dates quickly narrow with the attacks on the Seconded Amendment? I wont even get into all the state and city/town laws, which very few of the dates are for...most are federal.

With over 30K firearm laws on the books and rising we're no longer on any slippery slope. We're in the the eeze pass going warp 7.
 

·
Last Stand on Earth
Joined
·
3,586 Posts
We must stop calling it a slippery slope, as if we are just starting this. We've been on this slippery ride to every firearm being banned since the NRA sided with the anti firearm initiatives. We've had attacks on the Seconded Amendment way before which we see starting in the year 1837, then 1865, 1861, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1968, 1976, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1997, 1998 (lot happened there), 1999, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.

We're way past the slippery slope. See how the dates quickly narrow with the attacks on the Seconded Amendment? I wont even get into all the state and city/town laws, which very few of the dates are for...most are federal.

With over 30K firearm laws on the books and rising we're no longer on any slippery slope. We're in the the eeze pass going warp 7.
the reality...


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,437 Posts
The next big push, and it has bi-partisan support is the universal background check law. It’s a law where every transfer must go through a FFL. You wouldn’t be able to transfer a shotgun to your son or anyone else without going to and paying a FFL to do the paperwork. The move after that is to eliminate most of the small FFLs. It’s getting Republican support because there are kitchen dealers who will go and purchase a number of guns and then go and sell them to anyone who wants to buy one. Since there’s no record of long gun sales, there’s no background check. You could go and buy/ manufacture ( 80% lowers) guns and sell them to BG’s all over town. Is the really happening? Yeah but not to the extent that they’d like you to believe. But it still is a problem.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top