sb tactical pistol brace
Courtesy SB Tactical
Previous Post
Next Post

It’s not certain what a court faithful to the law can do to block the proposed rule on stabilizing braces, short of striking down the NFA on the grounds that its per-firearm $200 tax in 1934 (nearly $4,000 today) was intended to be prohibitive, thus is patently a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

However, were the Supreme Court to take one or more cases challenging statewide “assault weapon” bans, it could jettison Heller’s “common use” standard on the grounds that it has no basis in the Second Amendment’s legislative history, is at odds with the amendment’s goal, and is based upon a mischaracterization of Miller and the antecedent to modern brandishing laws.

It could also find that SBRs, commonly used for military purposes since at least the Vietnam War, are “ordinary military equipment” the use of which “could contribute to the common defense,” per Miller. Whether the present court has the courage to do so, only time will tell.

— Mark Overstreet in Biden Is Cracking Down On Guns Again With AR-15 Pistol Ban, And He’s Using Heller To Do It

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Expecting the Supreme Court to rule correctly in a majority opinion based on the Constitution is a fools game. They abandoned that decades ago. It’s just the politicized judiciary with the weak ‘conservatives’ inching their way Left.

    • I’m sure the ATF will use those pro gun comments as evidence… They’ll just be overwhelmed and decide it’s not worth it…

    • Awhile back there was this send the ATF an e-mail and say please may I Big Brother continue to possess this brace gizmo gadget without jack booted nazi thugs burning my home down for a Gun Control photo op? It might as well be please don’t put me between a rock and hard spot like Black Americans who had to hide their meager junkie firearms from the Gun Control military wing of the well armed jack booted Jim Crow Gun Control democRat Party.

      What a few at the ATF are up too is called Gun Control. The brace hoopla is just an “excuse” for it. Excuses don’t fly when History confirms Gun Control in any shape or form is rooted in racism and genocide.

      Gun Control is the rot leftover from nooses, slave shacks, forced labor, concentration camps, burning crosses and terrorizing innocent people for one extremely stupid reason or another.

      I suggest the ATF focus on real criminals and cease stooping to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Otherwise at least be honest about what they are doing and wear sheets, pointed hats, swastikas and don’t forget the torches.

    • “Keep the comments flowing to the ATF site.”

      I have.

      A question – Does anyone know how the comment numbers currently submitted compared to the .556 green-tip ammo comments? Are we at least in the same ballpark of raw numbers?

    • I agree totally my position with the ATF was to just make it go away like they did in December 2020 and spare themselves further embarrassment and political influence charges.

      I am exactly the guy the arm braces were configured for a 100% disabled vet who finally had an opportunity to own and fire an AR pistol.

  2. Oh man I can’t wait to read what resident troll and imaginary lawyer Geoff ‘Perry’ PR has to say about this, although I have swatted him away flawlessly, so he may be off licking his wounds. What a complete pud and coward he is…

  3. Oh man I can’t wait to read what resident troll and imaginary lawyer Geoff ‘Perry’ PR has to say about this, although I have swatted him away flawlessly, so he may be off licking his wounds. What a complete pud and coward he is…

  4. Oh man I can’t wait to read what resident troll and imaginary lawyer Geoff has to say about this, although I have swatted him away flawlessly, so he may be off licking his wounds. What a complete pud and coward he is…

  5. I have no dog in this fight…however the ATF IS coming for my gun’s.Especially my AR. Therefore I joined this fight. Happy FATHER’S DAY to all you dad’s!

  6. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s main concern is the survival of the court. With the left threatening increasing the number of Justices, Roberts is issuing and championing narrower and narrower opinions in an effort to navigate the waters. I believe he is hoping to disappoint everyone, on either side, with the risk of nothing really ever being settled. I believe the newest Justice, Barret, sees this clearly (or is overly influenced by Roberts), and writes her opinions with that in mind. But I also believe that Thomas is pushing for definitive judgements on the major questions facing this country. In my humble opinion, he is the least political of the bunch.

    All that being said, how will the rule on the question of “assault rifles?” I believe it will be a hair-splitting judgement that focuses on obscure or peripheral legalities, rather than a sweeping decision. In effect, they’ll rule narrowly in the case on California, and effectively kick the can down the road. Expect the same for the question of bearing arms. It seems our present day elites are great for that.

    I think it’s obvious to everyone that the majority of justices work backwards, twisting law and reason to reach their previously determined conclusions, in order to further political and cultural agendas or avoid conflict. Justices have been doing this for decades, and our nation has suffered for it.

  7. IF the decide to hear the case which is doubtful, Roberts will default to ” if it saves just one life”……

  8. All the SCOTUS needs to do is apply strict scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment in any gun control case. After about 10 years of additional litigation, most of this unconstitutional gun control nonsense will be relegated to the dust bin of history for at least a generation.

    They need not get into the weeds of gun control.

  9. The Judiciary generally only uses its unconstitutional power for evil. The way forward is through state nullification, undergirded by popular support for these popular firearms and accessories. SBR regulations do not even meet a made up “rational basis” test for regulation since rifles of all kinds account for a couple hundred deaths per year and anyone can make one with existing parts and no skills. It’s a stupid and archaic “law”.

  10. Maybe trump had the right idea put more republicans in the US Supreme Court it seems that the democratic is more demonic than interested in civil rights I hope that the Supreme Court has enough to work to restore the rights of gun owners and defeat some of the nonsense that seems to be the way the gun grabbers are proposing

    • Not so much lately. While some decisions have been activist, a number of recent decisions (some even unanimous) have been firmly on the side of the Bill of Rights, thumbing their noses as progressives in both Congress and multiple states/municipalities.

      There’s hope. But, the best option is a significant change in Congress in 2022 and the WH in 2024.

  11. I agree with the others that believe relying on the courts to do the right thing is…


    Full-stop stupid. (Like my little boy demented troll, when it gets down to it. 😉 )

    Anyways, on to the critical issue at hand –

    From the referenced ‘Federalist’ article –

    “The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) doesn’t define “pistol” or “handgun,” but it defines “rifle” as a firearm that, among other things, is “intended to be fired from the shoulder. Furthermore, it requires federal registration and a $200 tax for any “rifle” less than 26 inches in overall length or having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, commonly referred to as a “short-barreled rifle” (SBR).

    OK, I have a delightful .300 BLK SB Tactical braced build that I have grown rather fond of, and have no interest in getting rid of it.

    A question for the learned TTAG intelligentsia –

    In its current shortest possible configuration, 8-inch barrel, brace fully collapsed, and ‘birdcage’ flash hider removed, its total length is just over 24 inches.

    If I remove and dispose of the 8-inch barrel and replace it with a 10-inch barrel (making the shortest possible length just over 26 inches, as mentioned in the NFA), am I good-to-go, with no hassles expected from folks with literally no sense of humor?

    If not, *why*?

    • “If not, *why*?”


      I can see an analysis that begins with “rifle”, and the intent of a rifle. Then I would reason that in modern weapons, rifles are designed and intended to fire a cartridge that will not fit into a smaller firearm. The intent of such cartridges is to be used in a rifle.

      Any modifications to rifles are intended to make a rifle more effective, lighter, easier to use, safer to use, etc. Thus the intent of a firearm, and accessories, using rifle caliber ammunition (except .22 calibre) is to be a rifle. In the case of those rifles that can fire pistol calibre cartridges, they are mere modifications of a rifle, and remain a rifle.

      Lawyers can always wordsmith a definition that can prevent rifle calibre pistols from being classified as anything other than a rifle. Don’t expect me to create a viable brief to present to SCOTUS, before my third martini.

    • Same reason why a piece of plastic called a bump stock is now a machine gun. It is what they say it is, and the definitions are fluid.

    • Because of the magic number ’16.’ This number, long recognized in numerology, black magic, and in determining the legal age of consent, is also the defining number in determining the difference between a friendly, innocuous, non-threatening ‘rifle’ and a dreaded, minority-baby-and-puppy-killing assaultshortbarreledmachinerifledangerousweapon thingie only fit for massacre and bank robbery.
      The combination of ’26” overall’ AND ’16” barrel’ makes the difference: A full-length Winchester 70 .375 H&H Magnum with a full buttstock and a 15 and 15/16th” barrel might be 26″ in overall length, say, but would still be illegal due to the superdeadlydangerousunusual 15 and 15/16th” barrel. You see, 1/16th” is the razor’s edge between legal and illegal, SBR and ‘huntin’ raffle,’ between good and bad.
      No, it doesn’t make any sense, as a 26″ overall rifle with a short barrel is no more concealable than a 26″overall rifle with a ‘legal’ barrel, but nobody ever said that a law had to make sense.
      Make sense?

  12. This shouldn’t just be challenged on Second Amendment grounds, but also Chicago v. Morales grounds. If a law literally needs an entire branch of a government agency to determine what is and is not permissible, as the NFA does, it fails the test of Chicago v. Morales without question.

  13. As often is the case, the referenced article is more instructive than the summary presented. For instance:

    “DOJ Uses Heller To Promote Its Proposed Rule
    Referring to the reason SBRs were included in the NFA, the DOJ says:
    These weapons were viewed as especially dangerous and unusual, and, as a result, are subject to taxes and are required to be registered with ATF [BATFE]. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized these additional constraints as consistent with the Second Amendment. “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

  14. SCOTUS doesn’t give a hoot about protecting Constitutional rights. It’s just another political institution and the Justices (maybe with the exception Thomas and Alito) are politicians with black robes and lifetime tenure.

    • And the exception of one ‘they’ took out, with one of the top 10 forensically undetectable murder techniques, Premier 2/A proponent Judge Scalia.

  15. Pistol Brace was made for Disabled People…yes Scotus can & should take the case to make it legal…since they are in common use as a cheeseburger…

  16. The U.S. Constitution – including The Bill of Rights – does not convey, give, grant, nor transfer any of our Natural Rights. As expressed in The Declaration of Independence – a template for the future U.S. Constitution – “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” (Note: Not all of our Rights are expressed, only the paramount ones upon which others are based.) Our Natural Rights existed throughout Man’s history, before there was any form of government. The Right to own firearms is based upon all three of the basic of Life, Liberty, Happiness. If you have a Right to Life, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Liberty, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Happiness, you have a Right to ensure it. Our Founders did not declare our Rights in the Bill of Rights; rather, they PROTECTED our Rights.

    There was contentious arguments as to whether or not The Constitution acknowledged and protected our Rights. In order to get some of the hold-out Colonies to Ratify The Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added. It did not convey, give, grant, not transfer any Right. It was written in plain-and-simple language to ensure that there could be no misunderstanding nor misinterpretation.

    Simply, the Second Amendment is MOOT. Take away the Second Amendment and the Right STILL EXISTS!

    Never say, “Constitutional Right” or “Second Amendment Right”. Always state “Constitutional Protected Right” or “Second Amendment Protected Right”.

    Maybe Hamilton was correct when he wrote: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given”

    • Hamilton presented the federalist view of the constitution. The anti-federalists were realists, and understood that a prohibition not declared would be seen by government as an opening to act. When it came to the powers not granted the central committee, the anti-federalists created the 9th amendment to declare, “We really mean it.” The 10th amendment was created to declare, “We really, really mean it.”

    • That type of convoluted logic that Hamilton sometimes liked to throw around to demonstrate his superior intellect was ultimately cleared up with a ‘no exceptions to the rule’ Federal law that declared “we really, really, mean it…or ELSE!” USCC 18-241-242 made it a serious felony for lawmakers to even think about (conspiracy) abrogating, infringing upon, or otherwise violating the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and Supreme Law of the Land Amendments ‘under color of ‘other’ State, Administrative Fiat, or municipal laws, and even illegal Federal laws, like the NFA or the 68’GCA. This means–and there’s plenty of direct case law to back it up besides Heller and Miller–that ANY AND ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE IN VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS AND ARE, IN FACT ALREADY JUDGED, DEEMED, AND DECLARED TO BE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL! WITH A DIRECT ACTIONABLE PUNISHMENT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY A FEDERAL STATUTE to Enforce the action of preventing them from depriving us of our 2nd/A inalienable, uninfringable Natural Right!

      So why arent’ these home invading (4th/A violation) and Swat Raiding (aggravated assault)
      Home destroying (aggravated damaage to property) and seizure of guns from ordinary non violent and not performing an in progress criminal act with a weapon and are NOT actively being used in any crime, but only in Fiat violation of an illegal mandate, Federal Agents NOT being stopped in the act and arrested by Constitutional Oath keeping Sheriffs, and prosecuted for all these charges as well as 18-241-242 Deprivation of Rights statue?!

      You might say that it’s because the Criminal Justice System is so corrupted that they’ve ignored this crime–as long as their Agents and LEO’s–were doing it ‘under color of law) And that would be correct, but it goes egregiously deeper that just that.

      ‘Authorities’ were planning to bring 18-241-242 Deprivation charges against George Floyd’s killer Derek Chauvin who was found guilty of murder after sentencing this month.

      So they don’t have an exclusive ‘qualified immunity’ if it fits their political agenda, if you get the drift? And i, personally, having some experience in LE work, don’t think the event qualified in the ‘intent’ requirement for a murder conviction? The only intent he had was to keep Floyd from jumping up and violently and resisting arrest? Losing his career, maybe a couple of years for negligent manslaughter, a civil suit to take away everything he has, would more than take care of the punishment of destroying his life for whatever would be left of it.

      But no, prosecutors what to charge and convict him in addition to the punishment he already received! That tells you that ‘Deprivation of someone’s rights’ is nothing to take lightly.

      But the Gun Rights violating police seem to get away with it every day? Why isn’t what’s good for the cowboy good for the Indian?

      Because the Gun rights violators have control of the United States Government right now.
      And if you’re a deprivation of rights criminal either an illegal color of lawmaker, or the law enforcement Nazi, You can virtually flip off ALL the people, All of the time, and get away with it. Its all our own fault for allowing a Marxist take over. But no crying over it now. We must fix it.

      And their Totalitarian agenda to turn the State into the boss of all the applesauce and the citizens into obedient milking sheeple, MUST dISARM THE POPULATE, BEFORE ANY OF THEIR AGENDA CAN BE APPRECIATED.

      We all better start working on getting a prosecutor and a Constitutional Sheriff to start working on this.. I know some states are starting to forbid their police agencies to enforce or assist the Federal enforcement of all these illegal gun control laws. But that’s not enough, they must threaten under their state sovereignty to start making an example out of rogue agencies by enforcing 18-241-242 on anyone who tries to enforce illegal gun control, which is ALL gun control.

      Over the decades they’ve been scamming us all with the bullshit notion that it’s a government’s duty to protect your gun rights so you can…well..have them all-right–which like ‘lone-star-hog’ here explains shouldn’t even be necessary, “but that doesn’t mean we can’t ‘regulate’ them a bit, or a little here and there, and then, if we really really need to…you know maybe…confiscate them from people we don’t want to have them because they might be unfriendly toward ‘other’ things we, the G, who knows best for you, plan on doing someday…” Yeah, right assholes. We, the People may have been snoring too long, but we’re about to wake up and really smell the coffee.

      We let this slide while we wallowed in our passive complacency. Now we’re going to pay for it one way or the other. We let them disarm us with illegal laws We cringe in fear as a few Molon Labeyers are used as an example of what’s in store for the rest of us if we resist Or we work very hard now to shift the paradigm of political power back to ‘People Power’ and only a Constitutional Egalitarian government by consent of the people. There doesn’t have to be violence. But there absolutely must be powerful proactive push back of our legislatiors and elected officials and every man woman and child must help in any way they can. Start with serious re-calls, petitions, start PAC non-profit groups. On line petitioning and donating to 2nd/A rights groups, have your sherrif contact Constitutional Sherrif Richard Mack for instructions how to protect our rights and so on. We have to beat them at their own evil manipulative game now. All we need is a few willing, courageous Sheriffs to enforce the Deprivation of Rights laws and a few honest, Constitutional protecting prosecutors. And if we have to, we vote the conspirators out until we get a Sherrif and Prosecutor to make the arrests and charges and hope some judges like the great Constitutionalist one in California who just reversed the Ban on so-called assault weapons will make an example out of them. And see how they like it?

      We should keep telling ourselves that we’re all Americans, first and foremost…

      and you cannot illegally takes our shit away, because… ‘we will, we will…ROCK YOU!’

  17. Does President Biden have to be reminded of the oath of office he took several times as a U.S. Senator requiring him to “support, uphold and defend the constitution”? Sad to note, it so appears.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here