Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Equipment Discussions
Shoulder mounted "recoil pad" Can the ATF regulate non-firearm mounted accessories?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SWHandldr" data-source="post: 2720806" data-attributes="member: 114858"><p>IANAL; to the best of my knowledge, no. Many commentators on the issue have spoken to the AFT publishing nearly 300 ppgs of rules + 'clarification' yet how many issues remain ambiguous: Weight, buffer tube length, Lord only knows what else - and likely subject to change. </p><p></p><p>IMO this is a combination of intention and bureaucratic incompetence (redundant?). F-Troop knows this issue is politically driven by the current Oval Office occupant so ambiguousness is to their benefit. </p><p></p><p>The longer they can avoid being pinned down on specifics, the more time they have to jack with armed citizens. They seem to have stretched the rule-making / implementation over the longest time they could to produce the most convuluted / ambiguous verbiage possible. But clear, specific rules still ain't <strong>law</strong>. They know this and that declaring illegal what has been specifically & in writing been ruled legal for years not months is likely NOT to stand up to The Supremes' common use ruling. </p><p></p><p>Latest example of malicious intent, as reported by Jared of Guns & Gadgets (YouTube & other social media), is a GOA attorney directly reaching out to AFT at Shot Show, asking about the '88 day automatic NO' as applied to all who 'seek amnesty' by completing a Form One, supplying ID including fingerprints & address <em>and photos </em>of the firearm. AFT personnel told the attorney 'We would initiate enforcement' wrt owners who's apps are incomplete after 88 days. </p><p></p><p>If even a fraction of the millions of estimated owners of pistols with braces apply, no way will Feds will be able to complete processing & issue stamps to all applicants: GOTCHA!!! </p><p></p><p><strong>The entire effort is political theater and undermines whatever tiny credibility the AFT may still have with law-abiding gun owners</strong>. It's stupid & short-sighted as it only allows Biden to say 'Lookee what we've done!' to Anti's and urban females terrified of gunzzzz - while convincing the rest of us the left is out of touch with reality, willing to further alienate us and to ignore and violate the Constitution in pursuit of their idiotic quest to disarm the law-abiding. </p><p></p><p>If we could sear ONE fact into their pea-sized brains, it would likely be something like '<strong>Criminals ignore laws</strong>.' But the anti-freedom lawmakers already know that / don't care while the sheep think regulating everything down to & including how much cellophane tape one may use at a time will result in a More Perfect World. </p><p></p><p>Freedom and Responsibility are Scary. GET USED TO IT. </p><p></p><p>/rant mode off</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SWHandldr, post: 2720806, member: 114858"] IANAL; to the best of my knowledge, no. Many commentators on the issue have spoken to the AFT publishing nearly 300 ppgs of rules + 'clarification' yet how many issues remain ambiguous: Weight, buffer tube length, Lord only knows what else - and likely subject to change. IMO this is a combination of intention and bureaucratic incompetence (redundant?). F-Troop knows this issue is politically driven by the current Oval Office occupant so ambiguousness is to their benefit. The longer they can avoid being pinned down on specifics, the more time they have to jack with armed citizens. They seem to have stretched the rule-making / implementation over the longest time they could to produce the most convuluted / ambiguous verbiage possible. But clear, specific rules still ain't [B]law[/B]. They know this and that declaring illegal what has been specifically & in writing been ruled legal for years not months is likely NOT to stand up to The Supremes' common use ruling. Latest example of malicious intent, as reported by Jared of Guns & Gadgets (YouTube & other social media), is a GOA attorney directly reaching out to AFT at Shot Show, asking about the '88 day automatic NO' as applied to all who 'seek amnesty' by completing a Form One, supplying ID including fingerprints & address [I]and photos [/I]of the firearm. AFT personnel told the attorney 'We would initiate enforcement' wrt owners who's apps are incomplete after 88 days. If even a fraction of the millions of estimated owners of pistols with braces apply, no way will Feds will be able to complete processing & issue stamps to all applicants: GOTCHA!!! [B]The entire effort is political theater and undermines whatever tiny credibility the AFT may still have with law-abiding gun owners[/B]. It's stupid & short-sighted as it only allows Biden to say 'Lookee what we've done!' to Anti's and urban females terrified of gunzzzz - while convincing the rest of us the left is out of touch with reality, willing to further alienate us and to ignore and violate the Constitution in pursuit of their idiotic quest to disarm the law-abiding. If we could sear ONE fact into their pea-sized brains, it would likely be something like '[B]Criminals ignore laws[/B].' But the anti-freedom lawmakers already know that / don't care while the sheep think regulating everything down to & including how much cellophane tape one may use at a time will result in a More Perfect World. Freedom and Responsibility are Scary. GET USED TO IT. /rant mode off [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Equipment Discussions
Shoulder mounted "recoil pad" Can the ATF regulate non-firearm mounted accessories?
Top