ATF Showdown: How The Bump Stock Case Affects Braces

43 thoughts on “ATF Showdown: How The Bump Stock Case Affects Braces”

1. The ATF sure as hell isn't going "unregister" all of those pistols.
   If you fell for the okie joke and took the "free stamp" bait….put a stock on it. You now own a SBR

2. 👍🔫

3. Once can shoulder an AR pistol without a brace. It's very easy to shoulder an AR with a rifle receiver extension. One could shoulder a 1911 very awkwardly but it's not that difficult. Shouldering a 1911 does not a short barreled rifle make. She's obviously not aware of the shoulder extension that exists to shoulder revolvers. It's just an extension that fits between the shoulder and a revolver but doesn't attach to either. Once again, not a short barreled rifle. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dcuA8A3gHpo <—– See here

4. Alex Bosco was a prosthetic maker for the disabled. He created the first pistol brace in compliance with the American Disability Act. Pistol braces exist because of the American Disability Act. What should have happened was an administrative rule that required a doctor prescription to own one similar to a steering wheel knob aide. That didn't happen but you still have the American Disability Act to deal with. That's why she's not correct. She's missing the power of the ADA.

5. Repeal the Hughes Amendment

6. I have AR pistols with pistol buffer tubes. While not shouldering, can I brace my pistol against my cheek – legally?

7. 1) Manufacturer determines designation (within certain legal parameters). END USERS CANNOT WITHOUT "MAKING" A PARTICULAR FIREARM.
   2) IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FIRE A PISTOL FROM YOUR SHOULDER
   3) IF YOU PUT A BRACE ON A PISTOL THEN IT IS STILL ON A PISTOL
   4) IF THE BRACE HELPS YOU SHOOT BETTER, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A BENEFIT

8. Simply put, ANY law restricting citizen access to firearms in whatever format is a violation of the Second Amendment. Period.

9. I'm hoping for door number 4. SBR's and suppressors are taken off the NFA list .

10. OK, I've been citing the wrong amendment in the Bill of Rights. THE NINTH AMENDMENT is the one which nobody seems to talk about. THE NINTH AMENDMENT says that if you have the right to do something today, then government can't use its rights to make laws to take away your right to do that thing. Like to own a Tommy Gun, for instance. THAT MEANS that the NFA of 1934, the NFA of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the erroneously named "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986 are ALL null and void. PERIOD.

11. ATF does not have the authority to make the act of "shouldering" anything illegal, whether a "rifle" or a homemade tactical nuke or Emily's glass of chardonnay. All they can do is enforce the NFA, and under the NFA, a weapon is a "firearm" if, in this case, it's a "rifle" with a barrel less than 16 inches, and a "rifle" is DEFINED as a weapon "intended to be fired from the shoulder" etc . . . . And herein lies the ATF's dilemma: up until now, this "intended to be fired from the shoulder" definition has been applied as an objective criteria that invokes the application of the NFA, whether a user actually shoulders the weapon or not. If the ATF were to change its stance to make the ACT of shouldering what invokes NFA jurisdiction, the ATF will no longer be able to regulate any SBR, whether equipped with a brace OR A BUTTSTOCK, if the weapon is never shouldered. The definition is either subjective (is it actually shouldered) or objective (is it intended to be shouldered by some configuration of the weapon), but cannot be one standard for braces and one for buttstocks. Another way to look at it is that INTENT TO POSSESS an NFA weapon without proper registration can't be the criminal standard for SBR's equipped with buttstocks, while INTENT TO SHOULDER an NFA weapon without proper registration is the standard for SBR's equipped with pistol braces. Of course, using the passive voice "is intended" as some sort of objectively measurable criteria to define "rifle" was and is the problem–very bad drafting. So where does that leave the issue in my opinion? Because ATF allowed the proliferation to common use of braced pistols by declaring that braced pistols are not SBRs, the cat's out of the bag. ATF can't change its mind now.

12. I don't underatand why we're talking rules. Are rules laws? If so are laws rules? The ATF cant make laws, only congress can. So I dont underatand how you can be charged with breaking a rule which isn't a law. All this is so stupid.

13. When I commented in earlier vids that I wanted to see more buttons open I didn't mean Him

14. Heres an idea since bumpstocks are not machine guns and with the recent pistol brace win. all those who registered theirs as an SBR can now go get a real stock a bumpstock and be legal because it is registered as a rifle. WARNING DO NOT DO THIS TO A PISTOL

15. No surprise that the SCOTUS upheld the domestic violation prohibition to own firearms in the U.S. v. Rahimi case. Can't wait to hear y'all take on this.

16. I WANT pistol braces to be considered SBRs!

    Wouldn't that make SBRs in common use?

    Let's attack the NFA 1934 instead of trying to get pistol braces legalized.

17. How about talking about Cruikshank(1876) and how it invalidates ALL future federal firearms laws?

18. How about making the lefties pay back the legal fees.

19. Touching a spoon to your shoulder doesn't make it a knife

20. How does the ruling affect Forced Reset Triggers? They do the same thing as bump stocks.

21. We just need to hurry up and get people in Congress with enough guts to repeal NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Hughes Amendment. Make the AFT irrelevant.

22. https://youtu.be/dc3gLvnOuAc?si=NXx5SCRZxwTmClxj

23. When are we going to see defense attorneys bring NFA challenges to the SBR rules?

24. No, we need to get rid of the stupid SBR rule in general, which would get rid of the entire brace argument. The ATF should only have jurisdiction on illegal firearm sales when it comes to guns. There should be no NFA stamps. Bump stocks, braces, SBRs, suppressors etc., shouldn't be regulated by the ATF.

25. If you challenge braces on bruin grounds, the entire nfa could be challenged. What in our history and tradition restricts the length of rifle barrels?

26. So you can have the brace and your own personal ATF agent to make sure you don't shoulder the pistol. Meh…

27. You can buy a SBR or a machinegun if you aren't a felon and have the money. It's all a tax grab.

28. Let's take the SBR law off the NFA, congress.

29. IMO, we should not return to the "don't shoulder it" rule. We should get rid of the SBR law. It serves no useful purpose. IIRC it was meant as a companion piece for another law that didn't get passed. So technically, the SBR law never should've been passed in the first place.

30. Completely illogical and unenforceable…what a joke, as usual, thanks for wasting our time and money ATF. If you’re not already, please join Firearms Policy Coalition and give them some cash to fight these morons.

31. The ATFE can have rules?
    RULES ARE NOT LAWS!

32. Would we be there,if the YouTube clowns didn't make a bunch of videos shouldering their pistol brace ?

33. I love my Country—I fear my Government.

34. Let consider this . Definitely defund the nasty discussing ATF murders. The put on their Swazi stickers years ago in Waco Texas.

35. How about we just remove SBR's from the NFA since every gun law is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

36. My statutory regulation class prepared me for this video. As annoying as the APA is, it’s great when the fed govt doesn’t follow its own rules (laws passed through the bicameral legislature) and the citizenry benefits or is relieved as a result.

37. I want to know two things.
    1. Why don't we use Bruin to get rid of the 1934, 1968 and 1986 laws completely?
    2. Why is Matt still sitting in jail with the keycard case? Why haven't you guys commented on this before?

38. What we should get back to is History, Text and Tradition. 2nd Amendment never considered barrel length, braces, magazine capacity nor any accessory. Everything must bechallenged. #Bruen

39. I will Not be voting for Senator Sherrod Brown but I Will be voting for convicted felon Donald J Trump for president of the United States of America 🇺🇸 $$$😊

40. How is this ATF standard not an attack against people with disabilities? Braces are designed as an assistive aid for folks that find it hard(er) to shoot due to a physical issue.

    I couldn't care two figs in an olive tree about some perfectly healthy person shouldering his braced AR. Throw his butt in jail; he's in violation of the law that was established in 2015. But to make an aid unavailable for those who need it(not want, need)? Thats out of bounds.

    Why haven't I seen anyone fight these rule changes on those grounds?

41. respectfully we need to go back to 1920 where the AFT wasnt

42. So our Iatelligence agencids has been doing psyops to interfere with elections and our federal law enforcement tried to setup and frame a duly elected president, they coerced a good portion of the population into taking an experimental medical procesure and they are talking about banning gas stoves and we're expected to think that banning a pistol brace is too dangerous for civilians to own. I dont think so.

43. Emily making the 2 biggest points!!

Comments are closed.