• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Biden Gun Plan

I wish there were more reporting about why so many NICS checks are taking longer than 3 days.

The "loophole" they identify is that, should a background check exceed the 3 day wait period, the dealer is then cleared to complete the sale by default. If it later turns out that the sale was not lawful, the burden is on the feds to go seek out this individual and confiscate the firearm.

The proposed fix is changing this window to 10 days. Is there a legitimate need for a longer period, or is this simply a matter of the government under-staffing or otherwise not prioritizing efficient and prompt processing of these NICS checks?

I don't really see how it's just to delay a person from exercising their 2nd amendment rights simply because the government doesn't care enough about the background check system to keep it running well.
 
The media has been clueless about some of this as they are about much of anything to do with firearms.
The “pistol braces” are a kind of weird, niche thing... Normally if you were to purchase say, an AR-15, and cut off the barrel and stock... You’d have just made a “short barreled rifle”, and that’s a no-no.
But.... If the factory produces such a weapon, and markets it as a “pistol”, that’s quite legal under current definitions.
Of course, a short little AR with no stock is rather hard to shoot. So... Again under current regulations, you can add a “brace” which is “not quite a stock”.
A short extension that you can brace against your arm or put in the crook of your arm and now you have a somewhat-easier-to-shoot “pistol”.

All quite legal under current ATF regulations.

Now... The AR-loving crowd thinks these things are the bee’s knees for “home defense”, as they are handy in tight quarters but still... AR firepower.
And as noted in the recent shooting incident, all too effective for that purpose as well, at least at short range.
However, to my knowledge, that’s the only such use of this sort of weapon I’m familiar with; most folks are quite willing to use handguns or anything else they can get hold of.

So I fear this is a bit of “see, we’re doing SOMETHING legislation, that I fear will have little if any impact.
 
Bikewer said:
The media has been clueless about some of this as they are about much of anything to do with firearms.
The “pistol braces” are a kind of weird, niche thing... Normally if you were to purchase say, an AR-15, and cut off the barrel and stock... You’d have just made a “short barreled rifle”, and that’s a no-no.
But.... If the factory produces such a weapon, and markets it as a “pistol”, that’s quite legal under current definitions.
Of course, a short little AR with no stock is rather hard to shoot. So... Again under current regulations, you can add a “brace” which is “not quite a stock”.
A short extension that you can brace against your arm or put in the crook of your arm and now you have a somewhat-easier-to-shoot “pistol”.

All quite legal under current ATF regulations.

Now... The AR-loving crowd thinks these things are the bee’s knees for “home defense”, as they are handy in tight quarters but still... AR firepower.
And as noted in the recent shooting incident, all too effective for that purpose as well, at least at short range.
However, to my knowledge, that’s the only such use of this sort of weapon I’m familiar with; most folks are quite willing to use handguns or anything else they can get hold of.

So I fear this is a bit of “see, we’re doing SOMETHING legislation, that I fear will have little if any impact.
Click to expand...

The "brace" is an obvious run around for the SBR tax stamp requirement. Almost nobody is using them as a brace against their forearm. People use the brace exactly as you'd use a stock, they place the brace into their shoulder. ,It's common to see owners of these braces remove any straps that are included and discard them, because they have no intention of ever using the brace as a brace.

These tend to be a little flimsier than a proper shoulder stock, but work well enough and are a great way to avoid paying the $200 tax stamp and going through the long ATF process.

There was a lot of speculation whether or not it was legal to shoulder a pistol-brace firearm, but that seemed to get sorted when the ATF issued this most recent clarification:

“An NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.’”
Click to expand...

It's hard to source this because it was not a press release, but rather a reply to a private inquiry on the matter that was later shared online second-hand. But with this guidance, the use of pistol braces exploded on the market as an inexpensive way to evade the SBR tax stamp requirement.
 
Last edited:
I think his actual plan is to keep the Senate seat the Dems picked up in Georgia, pick up one in Pennsylvania, maybe one in Wisconsin and North Carolina and kill the filibuster in the next Congress. That's the only way we'll get gun reform. Oh and keep the House.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
I think his actual plan is to keep the Senate seat the Dems picked up in Georgia, pick up one in Pennsylvania, maybe one in Wisconsin and North Carolina and kill the filibuster in the next Congress. That's the only way we'll get gun reform.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how many Democrats would support it. This is a deeply polarizing issue, even among the Democratic party.

Seems odd to me that they would blow their political capital on this and not on something that would actually make them popular, like Medicare for all. I suppose the donors don't really care if gun control is implemented.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm curious how many Democrats would support it. This is a deeply polarizing issue, even among the Democratic party.

Seems odd to me that they would blow their political capital on this and not on something that would actually make them popular, like Medicare for all. I suppose the donors don't really care if gun control is implemented.
Click to expand...

If they keep it to the House bill I think they pass it on a party line vote. They know they can't go too crazy if the expect to keep their seats in Arizona and West Virginia. But, that gives us universal background checks.
 
Bikewer said:
The media has been clueless about some of this as they are about much of anything to do with firearms.
The “pistol braces” are a kind of weird, niche thing... Normally if you were to purchase say, an AR-15, and cut off the barrel and stock... You’d have just made a “short barreled rifle”, and that’s a no-no.
But.... If the factory produces such a weapon, and markets it as a “pistol”, that’s quite legal under current definitions.
Of course, a short little AR with no stock is rather hard to shoot. So... Again under current regulations, you can add a “brace” which is “not quite a stock”.
A short extension that you can brace against your arm or put in the crook of your arm and now you have a somewhat-easier-to-shoot “pistol”.

All quite legal under current ATF regulations.

Now... The AR-loving crowd thinks these things are the bee’s knees for “home defense”, as they are handy in tight quarters but still... AR firepower.
And as noted in the recent shooting incident, all too effective for that purpose as well, at least at short range.
However, to my knowledge, that’s the only such use of this sort of weapon I’m familiar with; most folks are quite willing to use handguns or anything else they can get hold of.

So I fear this is a bit of “see, we’re doing SOMETHING legislation, that I fear will have little if any impact.
Click to expand...

It’s because there was a handgun brace used in the Boulder shooting
 
Craig4 said:
Well regulated.
Click to expand...

I absolutely 100% agree that the signers of the constitution agreed that they intended it to be a group right tied to the necessity of a militia and that is no longer applicable and they would look at the system now and agree to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Irrelevant.

They didn't actually write a rule that says it voids in that case. They gave a reason, and a rule, but once you write the rule the reason is irrelevant.

The government doesn't even have the authority to stop inmates from bearing arms while incarcerated.
 
dirtywick said:
I’m curious which of these EOs infringes on the 2nd amendment. They seem pretty tame
Click to expand...

Indeed. The press releases are conflating what Biden is doing via EO and what he would like to see happen through legislation.

There's not a whole lot he can do via EO. Directing the ATF to reevaluate the status of "pistol braces" seems like the one thing that might have the most immediate impact.

I'm not sure how the whole "ghost guns" thing is going to work. I suppose it could result in making existing "80%" receivers no longer considered non-firearms. But at what point does a hunk of metal become a firearm? Perhaps we'll see the death of 80% lowers and the birth of 75% lowers. Wherever the line is drawn, there will soon be products on the market that are just inside the acceptable boundaries.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I wish there were more reporting about why so many NICS checks are taking longer than 3 days.

The "loophole" they identify is that, should a background check exceed the 3 day wait period, the dealer is then cleared to complete the sale by default. If it later turns out that the sale was not lawful, the burden is on the feds to go seek out this individual and confiscate the firearm.

The proposed fix is changing this window to 10 days. Is there a legitimate need for a longer period, or is this simply a matter of the government under-staffing or otherwise not prioritizing efficient and prompt processing of these NICS checks?

I don't really see how it's just to delay a person from exercising their 2nd amendment rights simply because the government doesn't care enough about the background check system to keep it running well.
Click to expand...

This does seem like a funding and staffing issue. Adding budget to the NICS checks and then investigating when people lie on the forms would be a big step in the right direction that most gun owners would support, even if the NRA didn't.
 
When I saw he was going after gun control via EO I was like “uh oh” but then I read what they were. People are still going to be furious without even knowing why because that’s the default reaction for some to any gun control but reclassification of a modified hand gun and registration of unregistered firearms is really minor league stuff imo. And actually, the “it’s not guns it’s mental health” crowd probably got a bone thrown their way on the last one.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm not sure how the whole "ghost guns" thing is going to work. I suppose it could result in making existing "80%" receivers no longer considered non-firearms. But at what point does a hunk of metal become a firearm? Perhaps we'll see the death of 80% lowers and the birth of 75% lowers. Wherever the line is drawn, there will soon be products on the market that are just inside the acceptable boundaries.
Click to expand...

The further back you push the line the more expensive it is to finish the job, I suppose.

It just seems weird that I can buy all the parts online to legally and easily construct my own semi-automatic rifles without a license but can't distill my own whiskey without a license. It seems quite easy to require a builder's license and basic record keeping requirements just to track who the builders are and where the guns come from.

Data is going to be the key in 10 years and we are not doing much to create or collect it.
 
Dr. Keith said:
This does seem like a funding and staffing issue. Adding budget to the NICS checks and then investigating when people lie on the forms would be a big step in the right direction that most gun owners would support, even if the NRA didn't.
Click to expand...

It's not even lying. I know plenty of gun owners who get the "delay" message every time they try to buy through a dealer. The supposed cause of this is sharing a name or other identifying data with someone who is prohibited from ownership. If you happen to share a name with a convicted felon, you may end up being stung by "delay" responses every time.

These people either get a day or two delay before the transaction clears, or the timer runs out and they get their gun by default and never hear anything more about it.

I am very reticent to give the state an incentive to drag their heels on their duty to process transactions promptly. In my home state of Mass, it's very common for the processing paperwork for licensing to take months, despite it being a fairly quick background check process.

In places where outright gun prohibition is not permitted, the path of deliberately gumming up the process by sandbagging the background check process is a popular tactic by the government.
 
dirtywick said:
When I saw he was going after gun control via EO I was like “uh oh” but then I read what they were. People are still going to be furious without even knowing why because that’s the default reaction for some to any gun control but reclassification of a modified hand gun and registration of unregistered firearms is really minor league stuff imo. And actually, the “it’s not guns it’s mental health” crowd probably got a bone thrown their way on the last one.
Click to expand...

Don't quite agree - "violence intervention", from what I've seen, usually refers to programs like CrimeStoppers where community elders, former criminals, etc, show up to defuse potentially violent situations, more than anything related to suicide. These programs seem effective in many cases, but often see their budgets quickly slashed in hard times.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm not sure how the whole "ghost guns" thing is going to work. I suppose it could result in making existing "80%" receivers no longer considered non-firearms. But at what point does a hunk of metal become a firearm? Perhaps we'll see the death of 80% lowers and the birth of 75% lowers. Wherever the line is drawn, there will soon be products on the market that are just inside the acceptable boundaries.
Click to expand...

Some states have just focused on marketing and instructions. If it is marketed by the manufacturer as something that can be turned into the part of the gun that requires a serial number, or if it is sold with instructions as to how to finish it into such a part (or if the company provides or references such instructions elsewhere), it then gets regulated as such - requiring a serial number and subject to all regulations pertaining to gun sales and ownership.

So if a company wanted to sell a hunk of metal that could be easily milled into a lower, it would not be able to promote that fact or provide instructions unless they stamp serial numbers on them and sell them as actual firearms. That's imperfect, obviously.

Others just require that all guns have a serial number, even if it is just a cheap pipe/nail/rubber band homemade jobbie. Tough to enforce, but it can cut down on or at least "daylight" the more functional ones. They might have trouble prosecuting someone with a pipe and a nail* and a rubber band in their pocket, but would have an easier time if it is a better made thing that has parts that serve little other purpose than to be a gun. I mean, I think they are focusing on the more functional semi-auto things, not zip guns and the like.




* it does not shoot the nail, the nail is the firing pin)
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's not even lying.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying and agree. There should be sufficient staff to clear up such confusions as you describe within the three day window. No excuses. No need for a ten day window. Proper funding should fix the issue.

But, there is a whole other class of applications that are submitted by people who know they can not buy a firearm just hoping to get enough of a delay to sneak pass. Those applications should be investigated and that investigation should be properly funded. People should be punished if they knowingly lied on a NICS form.

My understanding is that this is currently not pursued at all because the "knowingly" is hard to prove. My position is that just knowing that every refused application will be investigated by the ATF would be a huge deterrent for most of these people. That alone could heavily reduce the number of NICS applications being filed. I don't know, though.

Additionally, being contacted by the ATF and having a record of such contact and the ATF explained in detail why it is illegal for them to even file a NICS would make it much easier to prosecute the next time they filed a NICS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom