Good news is this would likely cover the pending 80% and brace ban.
Yea I think I got ahead of myself. Should have kept reading...
2. "Infringement" shall mean any law that reduces, represses, diminishes or subverts the right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, parts and accessories in any amount that is legal as of the effective date of this act of any citizen in this state; and
Looks like it only applies to future laws, making it as useful as tits on a boar. These guys ought to be ashamed of themselves for posturing like this. It means NOTHING, and it's a waste of their time and our money. This is purely for brownie points for their reelection campaigns and nothing else.
Unless it does away with the NFA I don't see the point . . .
Probably not, because that's an existing law, and reading the last page it looks like they define "infringement" as only applying to laws made after the act.
The thing about the braces is they're not banning them, they're just saying that you can't use one to manufacture an SBR. And if you're going from the assumption that the NFA is legal, which this act apparently is, then it wouldn't stop the ATF from going after many if not most pistol braced firearms. There are a scant few that got ATF approval early on, but those were the very early ones that came configured from the factory, and had almost zero utility as a stock, vs. the currently ones that are for all intents and purposes an actual stock.
To my knowledge we currently do not have laws on the books banning pistol braces or 80% components. I would think that this law would cover those if the xiden admin and AFT decide to ban. All that being said, I could be wrong. I usually am... 
It's a long convoluted story, but the short version is they're already illegal.To my knowledge we currently do not have laws on the books banning pistol braces or 80% components. I would think that this law would cover those if the xiden admin and AFT decide to ban. All that being said, I could be wrong. I usually am...
Very early on, the ATF approved a few specific models on a few specific firearms, in a specific configuration. Then people ran with that and said oh we can now put this brace on any AR pistol and it's approved. Well, no, that's not how it works, but the manufacturers told people that. When all the ATF ever said is that in their opinion this specific brace wasn't an SBR on that specific gun, as it was configured when submitted to them.
Unfortunately a lot of people in the industry pretty much lied about getting ATF approval for their products. In some cases, they got denied approval, and then claimed the opposite.
So what the ATF is saying is that no new laws or anything are needed, because the majority of the braced firearms out there are actually SBRs. And they have extremely good standing to argue that. Some of these newer braces I'm seeing you honestly can't even tell they're braces just by looking at them. They're basically stocks that can, in theory, fold out to be a brace.
Again, the ATF nor the oval office is proposing a ban, as far as I know. They're just saying that you can't put a random brace on a random short barreled upper and automatically assume that it's legal to do so.
According to OK2A, anything after 1968 is null and void in OK. It also goes into effect immediately. At least that is how I read it?
Last edited:
That would include the NFA tax on MGs, but exclude the 86 Hughes Amendment banning them outright. So I guess I just send the ATF 200 dollars and tell them the Hughes Amendment no longer applies to me?
If that's the case, would bumpstocks be protected too? Lol, like anyone could find/afford ammo for 'em. 
I'm thinkin' there's gonna be a lot of misinformation regarding this bill. Where are all the lawyer members when ya need one...
I'm thinkin' there's gonna be a lot of misinformation regarding this bill. Where are all the lawyer members when ya need one...
Same thing as the braces. They're claiming they're machineguns. So if that's allowed to stand, then...well like I said, I guess send in your 200 dollars on a Form 1 and just politely inform the ATF that the Hughes Amendment no longer applies to you, and would they kindly reopen the registry thank you very much.If that's the case, would bumpstocks be protected too? Lol, like anyone could find/afford ammo for 'em.
I'm thinkin' there's gonna be a lot of misinformation regarding this bill. Where are all the lawyer members when ya need one...
Similar threads
