A rifle built as a rifle by a manufacturer cannot be made into pistol; that receiver was "built" as a rifle and transferred as such. The practical matter for those assembling at home is that, simply buying the stripped lower to start with, it is transferred on the 4473 as 'Other'. You don't have to state anything; it can be a paperweight. You can then build a pistol, using one of the many pistol braces as the 'stock' - which it isn't, it's a 'brace' and the ATF evaluates them as such and issues letter to manufacturers about that. (Arfcom has a whole sub-forum on this subject.)

One can then pull that, say, 10.3" upper off, attach a 20" upper, and go back to the pistol later when done with your coyotes or whatever. If one isn't going to go through the SBR nutroll, building the pistol first conceptually is the most versatile. But once a rifle (initially, by you or a licensed manufacturer) always a rifle unless you register as a SBR.

Edit: Sorry for diverging from the original intent of the thread but hope that helps some.

I don't either. It's held by the FFL holder and no one knows what's on it until there is a criminal investigation. But, how does that investigation proceed? If a weapon is reported stolen, that's one thing, but if the original owner committed the crime or didn't report it stolen, how does law enforcement proceed from there?

The Form
 

You as the Purchaser are present when the form is filled out. You’re there when it’s completed and you don’t SIGN it unless it’s complete and accurate.

With a lower receiver, as stated previously, you have the FFL mark it off as “pistol” or “other”.

There are some lowers that are manufactured as “rifle”, but almost all today are gender neutral until the form is filled out. Yeah, my tribute to diversity this month. :p

If the business where you are purchasing over the counter or conducting the transfer (the FFL) says he will not mark it as pistol or other, then you do not complete the sale. Don’t say “I don’t know” when it’s time to fill out the form.

Can we defund the ATF please
 

https://breaking911.com/rep-gaetz-ca...m-brace-usage/

Rep. Gaetz Calls on ATF to Cease Plans Restricting Arm Brace Usage
June 16, 2020

Congressman Matt Gaetz announced today on his podcast he is sending a letter to the ATF demanding they cease any plans to restrict lawful possession of arm braces, which are pistol stabilizing accessories, by American citizens.

“We understand that ATF is currently considering restricting one arm brace model owned by over 700,000 Americans,” Congressman Gaetz writes along with six other members of Congress. “We strongly urge ATF to cease taking any actions and reconsider or rescind any secret determinations which call into question the legality of firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.”

“There is always a need to vindicate our Second Amendment rights,” Gaetz says on his podcast, “Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz.”

He explains that even during very conservative administrations, like President Trump’s, some do “try to make it more difficult to acquire things that shooters need and gun owners need, for safety and for the unique circumstances that an individual may have.”

The congressman emphasizes that Americans must remain proactive in defense of their Second Amendment Rights.

“But now, what we find, is that the ATF is making it very difficult for people to have arm braces. They’re changing standards and changing rules.” Gaetz continues: “And I am particularly frustrated when our government, at the administrative and executive level, goes beyond their grant of authority in our Constitution and in our Federal Statutes. Nothing gives anyone at ATF the ability to constrain the use of arm braces.”

“So the breaking news is this – I’ll be sending a letter to the Department of Justice, asking for a review of the decisions made by ATF and asking that ATF stop, in this crazy effort to limit access to arm braces for people who seek to have them.”

Congressman Gaetz addresses Attorney General William Barr and Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Regina Lombardo in his letter, and says that he is concerned about the ATF’s practice of creating secret regulation, which could have devastating impacts on law-abiding citizens.

Gaetz and his colleagues pose three specific questions to the Attorney General and the Acting Director:

1. What specific criteria does ATF use to determine whether a firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder?

2. What specific ATF publications are available for Americans to determine whether their firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder?

3. How many firearms with affixed arm braces have been evaluated by the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division in support of other law enforcement agencies or criminal prosecutions?

“This practice not only burdens the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens,” Gaetz concludes, “but has recently been used by ATF to stifle innovation within the firearms industry and prosecute unwitting firearm owners.”

as is the current phrase de jour "Unfund the ATF"


:lifter:D:lifter

Agreed.

The BATF & E:
 

AGREE; UNFUND & REDUCE THEIR ABILITY TO IMPOSE LAWS & RULES. Another example of a Gov. Bureaucracy employees imposing their will to infringe the rights of citizens.

This is going to be interesting. ATF doesn't seem to have a history of evaluating firearms in that sense. They evaluate the device (e.g., a brace). There are also in the wild copies of letters from them wherein:

- the first inspector's eval letter invoked a warning against shouldering the completed firearm and, when the company's lawyer pushed back to clarify...
- got an answer back from that inspector's boss who spent 1-1/4 pages using a lot of words to say "my subordinate was full of shit. We evaluate the DEVICE, not the intentions of the owner."

So 2 different takes on something without any guidance for a citizen to know whether he just made himself into a felon. And when bossman retires, and the first inspector takes over... that's how "policy" changes, again without the citizen knowing it. The whole thing needs to be in a dumpster.

This without any doubt.
Bureaucrats creating policy/regulation/law without congressional oversight is tyranny in the making. Where is our representation in the ivory tower.

TK,

Good point here to be teased out and what we have forgotten as the momentum that brought the current Administration into office.

CABINET LEVEL AGENCIES CAN NOT CREATE LAWS

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN NOT CREATE LAWS.

The ability of cabinet-level and independent agencies to unilaterally create "regulations" outside of the legislative process has gone off the rails. It is a political tool right up there with the executive order. Whether this is BATFE, EPA or other self-proclaimed regulatory agencies.

"We the People" stopped paying attention and this creep of regulatory policy is like a mold growing inside the walls of your house silent yet killing you slowly.

The unfortunate glitch in the system is the legion of bureaucrats that roam the streets enforcing laws that don't exist.

June 2020 the trend continues...3,931,607 background checks.

For context, last June 2019 there were 2,312,309 background checks...that was previously the largest June on record.

NICS Firearm Background Checks:
Month/Year
November 30, 1998 - June 30, 2020

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf

Probably more than that. Here in AZ, if you have a CCW, you don't need another NICS as long as the license is active.

California ban on high capacity magazines rejected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/u...magazines.html



LHC

Biden on the 2A
 

The threat to Second Amendment rights as we currently know them is evident in his stated plans.

With the sudden increase in crime do these positions really make sense in saddling otherwise - law abiding citizens - with this type of choking regulation?

You know...they often say that Chicago is flooded with guns from “gun friendly” states...but those gun friendly states (those state’s allegedly awash in legal gun ownership) don’t seem to suffer from the same levels of gun violence as Chicago.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the people and not the inanimate object ?


THE BIDEN PLAN TO END OUR GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#

.

The 2nd Amendment:
 

This is not the only part of the U S Constitution that the radical communist democrats are targeting for elimination. They, the radical progressive democrats have the intention of complete control over the people living in the U S A today, tomorrow, and forever...They must be stopped, not by voting them out of office but by cutting off their life-support THE MSM, propaganda machine, we all know the bad actors, CNN, NYT, Wash. Post, MSNBC, ABC, CBS. The MSM is controlled by people like Jeff Bezos & his billions of dollars. Their objective is power. They must be stopped.

Mayhem inspires new firearm owners
 

With Governor’s, Mayor’s, DA’s and other government officials essentially ordering the police to “stand down” ...along with reckless and irresponsible calls to defund the police during these riots...this piece caught my eye.

Confessions of a New Gun Owner
Even in suburbia, people are losing confidence the police will keep them safe.

By William McGurn
WSJ
Sept. 14, 2020 7:09 pm ET

On Monday it became official: The police issued me a gun permit.

Never did I imagine I’d be here. Not because I was anti-gun. My dad was a career FBI agent, so my siblings and I grew up with guns.

At the same time, my father was never particularly interested in guns. To no avail, we would beg him to go to shoots to show off his skills. More frequently he would remind us that many who keep guns in the house are more likely to shoot a friend or family member than a would-be robber or rapist. His proudest boast about his own career was that not once did he have to shoot anybody.

This may help explain why we all grew up supporting the Second Amendment in principle while not much interested in the practice. What changed? Certainly the rioters played a key part. But far more shocking than the rioters themselves has been the associated spectacle of police and political authorities across America standing down in the face of night after night of criminal behavior directed at the lives and livelihoods of innocent, law-abiding citizens.

Even in suburbia, many are no longer confident our authorities would or could keep us safe. In a small suburb such as mine, what would happen if even 100 or 200 people bent on violence were to arrive at once? Could our small police force really handle it? Or would we be left to fend for ourselves like Mark and Pat McCloskey in St. Louis, who defended their home and were then treated as if they were criminals?

A few years back, I asked a former colleague whom I knew to be pro-Second Amendment philosophically if he owned a gun. He answered no, and then asked if I had one. I said I wouldn’t know what to write down as my reason for wanting one.

He told me, “Write down, ‘Because I don’t trust the government.’ ”

That might have worked for the Founding Fathers. But in today’s New Jersey—a state ranked by the Giffords Law Center’s annual Gun Law Scorecard as the nation’s most restrictive after California—the response might be 40 squad cars on the front lawn by morning. I say this only half in jest: Do other Americans buying guns for the first time find it as grating as I do to learn that we need government permission to exercise a constitutional right?

Equally illuminating has been learning about guns and those who own them. Over four decades in the news business, I have often written about the National Rifle Association, usually about some proposed new gun law. Most recently the NRA has been in the headlines over a lawsuit filed by New York’s attorney general in which she accuses top leaders of decades-long corruption and misspending.

But our family’s decision to buy a gun has introduced us to the side of the NRA more Americans see: the education side. The NRA has courses, online and in person, for almost everything. The NRA instructor my wife and I engaged, Billy De Almedia, was firm, professional and patient.

It’s not just the instruction that impresses. It’s the sheer Americanness of a private organization established to support a constitutional right in all its manifestations, from defending the Second Amendment legally and philosophically to instilling in newbies such as myself the respect for guns necessary to keep and use them safely. Not to mention a taste of the satisfaction that comes from mastering a new discipline.

Surely if the government were to assume the functions the NRA provides, the experience would be akin to going to your local Department of Motor Vehicles. In America, by contrast, the ethos emphasizes private initiative and responsibility. In our new interactions with gun owners, gun instructors and owners of gun ranges, my wife and I have found them unfailingly eager to help and to answer even the dumbest questions.

This year a record five million law-abiding Americans, like us, have become new gun owners. Many don’t fit the stereotype: African-Americans account for the largest percentage jump in gun ownership, while women are 40% of first-time buyers. These new buyers join an even larger demographic: the 43% of American households that already have a gun.

The record gun sales for 2020 may have implications for swing states in November as well. In Pennsylvania alone, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reckons there are 276,648 first-time gun owners this year. To put this in perspective, in 2016 Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes.

Now, I appreciate how unlikely it is that I will ever reach for a gun to defend my home or myself. But after watching the mayhem that’s taken over so many city streets I wonder, probably with plenty of my fellow first-time gun buyers, what alternative I’d have if ever I had to make that terrible 911 call—and it went unanswered?

<snip>

https://www.wsj.com/articles/confess...er-11600124943

Isn't the guy running for re election supposed to be a second amendment guy?
Why doesn't he direct his agency to stand down on the issue DACA style?

THE ATF & E.
 

President Trump needs to PURGE the deep state radical democrats in ALL of the AGENCIES...These corrupt career deep state holdovers have more control over "Rules & Laws" than the Congress & the executive branch...DEFUND THE ATF...NOW

August 2020 numbers and the trend continues.

The people are speaking...3,115,063 background checks for August.

NICS Firearm Background Checks:
Month/Year
November 30, 1998 - August 31, 2020

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf

An interesting and some might say timely thesis.

Gun Control Puts Your Life at Risk
In the 20th century, far more people were murdered by genocidal governments than by armed criminals.

DAVID B. KOPEL | FROM THE OCTOBER 2020 ISSUE
Reason

According to gun prohibitionists, Europe is much safer than the United States, because Europe has stricter gun control. In fact, the historical record shows that excessive gun control (as in Europe) is about a hundred times more deadly than "insufficient" gun control (as, supposedly, in the U.S.). While a lone criminal with a gun can be very dangerous, a criminal government with a disarmed population is the deadliest thing on Earth.

Let's start with the data. If U.S. gun homicide rates had been as low as European rates in the 20th century, how many lives might have been saved? According to a 2018 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1990—a bad year for violent crime in the United States—the age-adjusted U.S. firearms homicide rate was 5.57 per 100,000 population. That same year, the rate in Western Europe was 0.53 and the rate in Eastern Europe was 1.31, giving us a European average of 0.92.

The difference between the European rate and the American rate is 4.65 per 100,000. Since the U.S. population in 1990 was nearly 249 million, these data indicate that the U.S. had 11,785 more firearms homicides that year than it would have had if the rate had been as low as it was in Europe. If we apply the estimate of 4.65 additional gun homicides per 100,000 population to every year of the 20th century, taking into account changes in the U.S. population, we find that the United States had 745,162 more firearms homicides than it would have had under the European average.

For the sake of argument, we'll assume that every excess American gun homicide would not have been a homicide if the United States had adopted European-style gun control. That is, we'll assume that other lethal means would not have been substituted for firearms. We also won't consider that many American gun homicides are justifiable self-defense. In other words, when a would-be killer is shot by a law enforcement officer or a citizen, we'll consider the criminal's death to be just as bad as the death of an innocent victim.

Finally, we'll ignore the extensive evidence that nonfatal defensive firearm use often prevents homicides and other crimes.

With the above assumptions, the failure to adopt European-style gun control would be responsible for almost three-quarters of a million excess deaths in the United States in the last century. That is a very large number. It is, however, two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of Europeans killed by governments during the same period.

International homicide statistics usually only count murders by individuals or small groups. A serial killer may murder two dozen people over the course of many years. A mass shooter may murder dozens at once. Those who use explosives or arson sometimes kill even more. But even in the aggregate, individual criminals or criminal gangs perpetrate vastly less homicide than do criminal governments.

In Europe in the 20th century, governments killed about 87.1 million victims, according to research by the late University of Hawaii political scientist R.J. Rummel. That figure does not include combat deaths, such as in World War I or II. It includes only the murder of civilians, from 61.9 million killed by the Soviet Union to 20.9 million killed by Germany. Over the long run, one's risk of being murdered is much lower in the United States than in Europe. It's no surprise that migration between the two has always been very heavily in one direction!

I am alive to write this article because my Jewish German and Lithuanian ancestors migrated to the United States in the 19th century. By doing so, they increased their risk of being shot by an individual criminal but drastically reduced their risk of being murdered by a criminal government. As we all well know, those risks did materialize in Germany (under the Nazis and the Communists) and in Lithuania (under the czars, the Nazis, and the Communists). Because governments are so much more effective at killing than are individual criminals—even looking at all individual criminals combined—the United States was much safer than Europe in the 20th century.

Rummel found that the less free the government, the more likely it is to perpetrate domestic mass murder. Totalitarian regimes perpetrate by far the most; authoritarian regimes less so; and democratic ones least of all. Indeed, no democratic government has committed large-scale murder against a population that was able to vote.

If you could be sure that a given government would forever be democratic, there would be no need for arms to resist a possible domestic dictatorship. Unfortunately, certainty on that score is impossible. The list of nations to have maintained both independence and free government at all times since 1900 is short: Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That's just seven nations out of 196 worldwide.

Only a foolish version of American exceptionalism would imagine that the United States has been granted permanent immunity from the dangers of tyranny. Democracy was founded in Greece, yet that country has succumbed to dictatorship many times. Germany in 1900 was a progressive democracy and one of the most tolerant places in the world for Jews; a lot can change in a few decades.

According to gun prohibitionists, armed victims cannot meaningfully resist a murderous dictatorship with weapons of war at its disposal. The dictators who do the murdering think just the opposite.

In 1942, Adolf Hitler explained the necessity of disarming his victims: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police."

Tyrants past and present have come from virtually every continent and ethnic background. Their ideologies have varied, but they are united by a number of common practices. They do not allow freedom of the press or an independent court system. They attempt to bring religion under state control. And they claim for themselves a monopoly of force. Search the history of the world, from ancient times to the present, and you will not find many tyrants who deviated from the principle that the state must be stronger than the people.

Mass shootings by criminal governments occur predominantly in gun-free zones—places where the population has been disarmed. As soon as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union began on June 22, 1941, special S.S. units called Einsatzgruppen began assembling all the Jews or Gypsies from a village and marching them out of town. The victims could then be easily machine-gunned at once. Within a year, just 3,000 Einsatzgruppen, aided by a few thousand helpers from the German police and military, had murdered about 1 million people.

Regime change is difficult once a tyrant has taken power, as today's China and Cuba illustrate. So as an anti-tyranny tool, widespread citizen arms ownership works most effectively when it deters tyranny in the first place. Among the reasons there was no Holocaust in Switzerland was that the people there were heavily armed and organized in a very well-regulated militia. The German military almost certainly could have conquered its uncooperative neighbor to the south. Yet because of the costs that the Swiss militia would inflict on the Wehrmacht, Hitler never had the nerve to mount an invasion.

Even after mass murders have already begun, victims who obtain guns can save lives. During the Holocaust, armed Jews caused the Nazis much trouble—in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during Passover 1943 as well as in many lesser-known actions. The Nazi extermination camps of Sobibor and Treblinka were shut down forever because prisoners stole guns from the guards and led mass revolts. The Bielski commando unit in the forests of Belarus grew to 149 armed fighters and saved a thousand more Jews.

During World War I, when the government of the Ottoman Empire began murdering Christians, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by armed resistance—which relied on guns that the Christians had secreted in defiance of confiscation orders.

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person," observed then–California Gov. Ronald Reagan in a 1975 article for Guns and Ammo, "but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed."

As the last century demonstrates, the short-term risks of a well-armed civilian population are far less than the long-term risks of a government that is stronger than the people.

https://reason.com/2020/09/22/gun-co...-life-at-risk/

The National Shooting Sports trade association (NSSF) on Biden and his plans for gun control.

Yeah, tax, tax, tax...ban, ban, ban...mix well with...defund, defund, defund...shake, shake, shake...that oughta work out well.


TAKE BIDEN ON HIS WORD WITH GUN CONTROL
By Larry Keane
NSSF
NOVEMBER 10, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden declared election victory, even as President Donald Trump continues to challenge results in several states. Runoffs are slated for both U.S. Senate seats from Georgia, which could decide the balance of power in Washington, D.C. and whether agendas get an unquestioned green light or hit roadblocks.

The Biden camp is already forming the presidential transition team and increased gun control is on the table. While everyone is trying to read the political tea leaves to predict what will happen, the firearm industry is taking a pragmatic approach.

When it comes to gun control, take Biden at his word.

He’s given plenty of public comment to know exactly what he wants to do if he’s unchecked. It’s nothing short of ending Second Amendment rights and reducing them to a nanny-state privilege that’s closely monitored and meted out piecemeal to a select few. It also means the firearm industry would be decimated through harassing litigation, overburdening regulation and a bevy of laws that won’t improve public safety but would render law-abiding Americans vulnerable to criminals.

‘The Enemy’

Biden made it crystal clear his thoughts on firearm manufacturers at the onset of the Democratic presidential primary race in July 2019.

“Our enemy is the gun manufacturers, not the NRA, the gun manufacturers,” Biden said.

Biden’s gun control plan would criminalize private firearm sales, requiring every firearm transfer to be conducted through licensed firearm retailers. He’d also crack down on those retailers, using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as an anvil by which to crush businesses for even minor clerical errors in inspections. He argued for the same failed so-called mandatory “smart gun” technology for which he led a task force in the Obama administration. It wasn’t ready for testing then and it’s still not ready today.

That was the beginning of the Biden gun control agenda. That’s now burgeoned to include every radical gun control wish list item. It starts at a national state-by-state licensing scheme and rationing gun rights to just one sale per month for every law-abiding American.

That’s not all. He’d destroy the firearm industry by pushing to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, exposing manufacturers to harassing lawsuits by activist lawyers that long to bankrupt manufacturers for political means and use the courts to advance an agenda that doesn’t survive legislative scrutiny.

‘Bingo’

Biden unequivocally admitted to CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a 2019 interview that he would pursue an unconstitutional firearm confiscation agenda.

“To gun owners out there who say a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns…” Cooper said.

“Bingo,” Biden interrupted. “You’re right, if you have an assault weapon,” which the former vice president deridingly refers to when he speaks of MSRs. “The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period.”

That goes much further than reenacting the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, to which in the same interview, Biden agreed it didn’t reduce crime. That means he’d go after the more nearly 20 million MSRs in circulation today.

“What I would do is institute a national buyback program,” Biden explained. He admitted then that outright confiscation of MSRs for lawful ownership was a Constitutional hurdle.

“Right now, there’s no legal way that I’m aware of where you could deny the right if they had legally purchased them,” Biden told CNN of his confiscation plans. “But we can, in fact, make a major effort to get them off the street and out of the possession of people.”

That was 2019. Today, he’s looking for the loopholes. One way Biden’s trying to achieve his agenda is by reclassifying the MSR to fall under the 1934 National Firearms Act so the more than century-old technology would be treated in the same fashion as short-barrel rifles and machine guns. That would require owners to be put on federal lists, submit fingerprints, photos, inform chief law enforcement officers, endure duplicitous background checks, wait more than nine months for approval and pay a $200 tax for the privilege to continue to own what they already legally purchased.

Those who don’t would see their firearms confiscated by a Biden administration.

‘I Don’t Work for You’

A Biden administration would be quickly hounded by gun control cronies like billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. They’ll be joined by others including Brady and Giffords. Both groups issued press releases on their laundry list of action items to limit and deny Second Amendment rights.

That’s who a Biden administration would work for and not every day, law-abiding Americans who want to exercise their rights. Biden made that clear when he toldDetroit union worker Jerry Wayne, “You’re full of sh*t.” Biden later added, “I’m not working for you. Don’t be such a horse’s ass.”

Biden, who claims blue-collar roots, doesn’t think much of the “everyday” individual carrying a lunch pail to the factory floor and wants to exercise Second Amendment rights during free time. He’s much more attuned to the far-left radical agenda his running mate U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) brought to the ticket, wanting to bring California-style gun control to the rest of the country.

The firearm industry believes him. There’s no reason to doubt or to equivocate with calls to unite. Taking Biden at anything less than his word is malfeasance.

https://www.nssf.org/take-biden-on-h...e=bulletpoints

That was a good reminder
 

These other people aren't joking. And there is never, in history, since ever, any other reason to disarm a populace except:

They want to do something to you that you'd normally shoot them for.

Organize to Defend:
 

The citizens of the U S A who are not communist democrat socialist progressive BLM or any other label that will destroy the U S Constitution & the Bill of Rights will need to ORGANIZE to defend the rights granted by these documents. The MSM will decry the organization as a racist, white Supreme group but the MSM is the propaganda arm of the radical democrat communist left. The enemy of the people is the communist democrat must be neutralized by in their words "By any means necessary" Get it DONE.

Tom, there is an organization it's called, "Americans", and they are being demonized by those who would see our country turned into something it's not. Do not believe what you see on the boob tube or read. For the last 2 years I have worked with young people and they are Americans, they do not like what is going on, any of it. The "force multiplier", media wants all of us to think we are outnumbered. Nothing could be further from the truth, example, why the heck would the enemies of America be spending billions of dollars to convince us of their superiority why not just steam roll over us? They know they are shoveling an agenda/propaganda, nothing more.

Respectfully,

Bob

AMERICANS:
 

Need some additional Information on this group, I am interested in preserving THE U S A , The Constitutionalists and WESTERN CIVILIZATION...

I looked in a mirror today. Yep still American.

I'm all IN. My Oath has never expired. :lifter

November 2020 numbers are in and the trend continues.

The people are speaking...3,626,335 background checks for November.

NICS Firearm Background Checks:
Month/Year
November 30, 1998 - November 30, 2020

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf

Get 'em while you can! Biden and his anti-gun ATF are going to go fast and furious to ban as much as possible by executive fiat.

From ARFCOM

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/...rs-/5-2401363/

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/1...er-ghost-guns/

Looks like anyone with a braced pistol will have a decision to make.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/1...edium=facebook

“God made man, Sam Colt made men equal, but John Browning keeps men free.”

The out of control ATF is going to be a lasting legacy of the Trump administration. Another swamp not only failed to drain but allowed to grow wider and deeper.

Yeah, Trump should have cleaned house at the BATFE and made it more friendly to the folks that pay their salaries and benefits. ATF has definitely put the carrot out there and pulled a bait and switch on braces. If a private entity conducted business as the ATF does they would be sued into oblivion.

It's going to be interesting. I read people hooting and hollering they won't comply, but if your choice is a possible felony versus an SBR or new class firearm with no $200 fee what are you going to do. If you already have NFA items your in the data base, if you filled out a 4473 you can be found and if you purchased pistol upper from a dealer there is a transaction record.

I think it is fair to say that if the ATF processed NFA items in 1-2 months instead of a snails pace far more folks would have opted for a SBR instead of a flimsy brace.

Speed Limit
 

The time is coming that the ATF will be relegated to the same place the HWY patrol was in the 80’s when the interstate speed limit was 55mph. If they make “assault weapons” “taxable”, people will not comply, and will likely punch the 3rd hole in their now illegal receivers and let the chips fall where they may.

If the Chinese sock-puppet succeeds in his plan to “get rid of assault weapons”, there will be a bridge that they will try to cross...... same as it ever was. People who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.

Where I have a real problem is the proposed $200 for the pistol plus $200 for each magazine over 10 rounds. I know people that make a great living that would be bankrupt if that went through. One friend of mine bought a pallet of 1000 military surplus magazines. He'd have to mortgage his house to pay the fees on them.

I really think it won't matter though. The people that are surrendering P80's are going to sue and it will go to the Supreme Court. I'll hold out for that decision. I'm pretty sure an injunction prohibiting confiscation until the matter is settled will come out quick.

ATF Withdraws Notice & Request For Comment On Pistol Braces
 

BREAKING: ATF Withdraws Notice & Request For Comment On Pistol Braces


https://mailchi.mp/americansuppresso...2?e=8a5cd22368


We are not felons for the now.

December 2020 numbers are in and the trend continues.

The people are speaking...3,937,066 background checks for December.

Look at the overall number for 2020...39,695,315...yes, 39 million and change.

NICS Firearm Background Checks:
Month/Year
November 30, 1998 - December 31, 2020

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf

That's a huge number!