EXCLUSIVE–Rep. Andrew Clyde: Do Not Register AR Pistols with ATF

[Reptile]

Breitbart News sat down for an exclusive interview with Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) Friday, during which he made clear his hope that Americans will remove stabilizer braces from their AR pistols, making them ATF compliant, rather than register them with the ATF.


Clyde stressed his concern that the ATF is actively trying to form a database of gun owners and his belief that stabilizer brace registration is simply one more way the agency can get gun owners’ names on a list.

EXCLUSIVE--Rep. Andrew Clyde: Do Not Register AR Pistols with ATF

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) Friday recommended Americans remove stabilizer braces from their AR pistols rather than register them with the ATF.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Reptile]

But wait...

If they add regular stocks on an AR pistol - they'd have a SBR (short barreled rifle).

That would violate the NFA right if not registered.

 

[71montess]

Just a buffer tube.

 

[Reptile]

Just a buffer tube.

It's legal to just have a buffer tube???

 

[T-Unit]

It's legal to just have a buffer tube???

The way the new rule is written... not on a pistol and all of these factory braced pistols people bought are likely non-compliant and there is no legal way to posses them.

So, IMO, the ATF did a de facto gun ban and wants the names of owners so they have the info of those they will do the door to door raids on.

 

[Dennis in MA]

It's legal to just have a buffer tube???

Gonna be tough to argue the ancient early 90's AR pistols are suddenly illegal. Not saying they won't try, but it's gonna be tough to justify in court at that point.

"We've decided after 30 years to reinterpret the language we use. . . . because people are using them. We didn't think they'd actually WANT them. Our goal is to only ban things that people are buying. It's too hard to ban things that no one wants. The list is too vast."

 

[CRSIII]

When did AR pistols become no-no’s?

 

[eboos]

When did AR pistols become no-no’s?

depends on the state. CT: no stock on AR = assault pistol; stock on AR = assault rifle; goofy fin thing on buffer tube = perfectly fine.

 

[Mesatchornug]

When did AR pistols become no-no’s?

depends on the state. CT: no stock on AR = assault pistol; stock on AR = assault rifle; goofy fin thing on buffer tube = perfectly fine.

This seems to be mostly about the new BATFE brace re-definition

The way the new rule is written... not on a pistol and all of these factory braced pistols people bought are likely non-compliant and there is no legal way to posses them.

So, IMO, the ATF did a de facto gun ban and wants the names of owners so they have the info of those they will do the door to door raids on.

I'm not sure that's true. A bare buffer tube is central to the mechanical function of an AR-pattern firearm. Among the guidance that's been offered by the ATF was (in my understanding) "remove the brace."

 

[Andy in NH]

Clyde stressed his concern that the ATF is actively trying to form a database of gun owners and his belief that stabilizer brace registration is simply one more way the agency can get gun owners’ names on a list.

No matter what anyone says, if you filled out a 4473 and bought a gun, they already have your name on a list.

Plan accordingly.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Among the guidance that's been offered by the ATF was (in my understanding) "remove the brace."

more here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KfcnuvDTsE

 

[Reptile]

more here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KfcnuvDTsE

So, what about in Mass?

Do you think I can have a AR15 lower and a 10.5 inch upper?
I'll just have the buffer tube and no stock or brace.

As far a federal law goes - they just nullified the need for a SBR tax stamp for folks who do not with to have a stock or brace.

 

[Mesatchornug]

So, what about in Mass?

Do you think I can have a AR15 lower and a 10.5 inch upper?
I'll just have the buffer tube and no stock or brace.

As far a federal law goes - they just nullified the need for a SBR tax stamp for folks who do not with to have a stock or brace.

For a (e.g.) 10.5" firearm without a brace, nothing has changed.

To the feds, it remains a pistol.

In the eyes of MA, it remains a "firearm," i.e., It must still comply with AWB, etc.

 

[Tartakovsky]

So, what about in Mass?

Do you think I can have a AR15 lower and a 10.5 inch upper?
I'll just have the buffer tube and no stock or brace.

As far a federal law goes - they just nullified the need for a SBR tax stamp for folks who do not with to have a stock or brace.

As long as it’s under the 50 oz weight limit.

 

[Reptile]

As long as it’s under the 50 oz weight limit.

Right!

I forgot that Mass has a weight limit.

 

[Mountain]

As long as it’s under the 50 oz weight limit.

Or has a fixed mag?

 

[Mesatchornug]

I don't think any of this has changed the ATF definition of "Other" firearms as long as the brace is removed. So as long as from buffertube to tip of barrel is over 26", and has a foregrip. It should be MA legal as a "Firearm" that doesn't meet any definition of the AWB

While that works in CT, that is not true in MA.

 

[Tartakovsky]

Or has a fixed mag?

Lame

 

[Tartakovsky]

Also I'm torn on this whole brace debacle. To me it's like Rowe V Wade. Rowe V Wade was bad case law to get right to choose passed. There were other and better ways to do it. But it did become the accepted case law, so I think it's bullshit to then up and change it. Same with the pistol brace. I have never once seen someone pickup an AR pistol with a brace and not IMMEDIATELY shoulder it. We all saw this honey dicking from the ATF coming. All the pistol brace rulings in the past made zero sense and we all knew it. Don't believe me? Attach a pistol brace AR to your forearm. It's like saying I have use of one arm but I demand to be a tree trimmer, so lets velcro that chainsaw to my arm and get to work.

You’re right. The NFA should be repealed.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Can you cite an MGL to support your argument?

Sure. MGL C140 s 121 defines:
''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994,

And

''Firearm'', a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.

Since our definition is the historic federal definition, and that definition never has the exception you're claiming, please provide a citation for why that should change.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Correct for weapons that fall under the AWB definitions.

I am referring to “other” firearms that do not meet AWB definitions from 1994.

Most AR pistols that didn’t meet those definitions had a secondary problem. The “any other weapon” definition.

“Other” firearms do not meet the AOW definition

https://www.atf.gov/file/58141/download

SBRs have under 16” barrels and a stock
AR pistols have just a buffer tube and fall under the AWB
AR pistols with a foregrip fall under AOW
AR Pistols with an OAL over 26” and a foregrip are not considered concealable and do not fall under any AWB definition.
The ATF has issued multiple variances supporting this. (As overturnable as the pistol brace variances, but currently not overturned)

In MA a “Firearm” with a 14” barrel, a foregrip and an OAL of over 26” does not fall under the AWB definitions and is not illegal under any MGL. This isn’t an exception to the AWB definition. It simply does not meet the definition and therefore the AWB does not apply.

AR pistols with barrels under 16" remain pistols in MA, regardless of the addition of a foregrip. They still have to meet the AWB.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Unfortunately you are simply making up laws in MA which do not exist. The NFA predates the 1994 AWB. The NFA states that a short barrel rifle has a barrel under 16” and a OAL length under 26”. The ATF has clarified that a non rifle with a OAL over 26” and a foregrip is not an SBR, Rifle, Pistol, AOW. It does not meet any definition of any law ever. Including the 1994 AWB. They have determined these weapons as “other” firearms. In MA you are 100 percent correct. They are firearms. Or you could call them pistols under the MA MGL definitions. But the AWB in MA uses the FEDERAL definitions and does not apply.

This sounds an awful lot like the theory that SBRs are not subject to the AWB. My understanding is that's not true.

 

[Coyote33]

Federal Judge Grants Injunction Blocking Enforcement of ATF's 'Frame or Receiver' Rule - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ From the Second Amendment Foundation . . . A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s enforcement of the final rule regarding partially manufactured firearm parts and kits in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com