Dayton shooter used a “pistol brace” - another executive order?

The antis call everything they don’t like a “loophole” in order to create an impression in the minds of the uninformed that some action is wrong or the use/ownership of some device is wrong.

Would there have been any fewer casualties if he had used a carbine or a rifle?

Grasping at straws.

Sistema1927 said:

Would there have been any fewer casualties if he had used a carbine or a rifle?

Grasping at straws.

Click to expand...

Those are being banned in some places too ....

I think a replay of the bump stock ban is quite possible, regarding pistol braces. I also think Trump won't do it this close to the election. But I could be wrong.

A bump stock type ruling could very well be in the cards. Pistol braces exist in a legal grey area as it is (just look at all the fuss over shouldering them...), and it would take very little to tip them over the line and make them illegal.

Mosin Bubba said:

A bump stock type ruling could very well be in the cards. Pistol braces exist in a legal grey area as it is (just look at all the fuss over shouldering them...), and it would take very little to tip them over the line and make them illegal.

Click to expand...

There is one distinct difference between bump stocks and pistol braces. The rationale in banning bump stocks was that they were machine guns, and the Hughes Amendment precluded any new registrations of machine guns. (Therefore, they were flat-out contraband and there was no way to make them legal.) The rationale for banning pistol braces is that they are really unregistered SBR's. However, the registry for SBR's is still open, and existing braces could be made legal by registering them and paying the $200 tax. Actually, the way you would do this would be by registering the underlying "pistol" as an SBR. Of course, if you were going to do that, you could just as well get a proper rifle stock. But the point here is that it would be politically much easier to ban pistol braces than it was to ban bump stocks.

AlexanderA said:

I think a replay of the bump stock ban is quite possible, regarding pistol braces. I also think Trump won't do it this close to the election. But I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I would not be so sure....Trump is going to do what he thinks he should do and to hell with how it will fall out....it is just the way he is, and one reason I like him....you know he will do his best to do what he will say he will do.

AlexanderA said:

There is one distinct difference between bump stocks and pistol braces. The rationale in banning bump stocks was that they were machine guns, and the Hughes Amendment precluded any new registrations of machine guns. (Therefore, they were flat-out contraband and there was no way to make them legal.) The rationale for banning pistol braces is that they are really unregistered SBR's. However, the registry for SBR's is still open, and existing braces could be made legal by registering them and paying the $200 tax. Actually, the way you would do this would be by registering the underlying "pistol" as an SBR. Of course, if you were going to do that, you could just as well get a proper rifle stock. But the point here is that it would be politically much easier to ban pistol braces than it was to ban bump stocks.

Click to expand...

Wrong a bump stock is not a machine gun.....so tell me Jerry Miculek...is his finger a machine gun....it does the same thing that a bump stock does.....

One bullet per trigger "interaction"....don't forget binary triggers....is not a machine gun....one pull of trigger and many bullets that is a machine gun.

Now that said IMHO bump stocks, binary triggers and "pistol braces" are all about the most stupid thing out there.....and really owning a machine gun is pretty pointless as well. Before the guberment decided to raise their value through the roof, people still did not have them all over.....it has been $200 from day one....$200 in the 1930's a lot of money....$200 in the 1980's not so much.....and yet during all that time there was not a machine gun on every street corner.

Now granted times have sure changed from when they killed off new machine guns.....but my solution for all this is....you commit a crime while in the possession of a fire arm you get the same deal as if you do it with a machine gun....simple. But if anyone suggests this they will be called racist.

If the brace is viewed as low hanging fruit then it’ll get picked for appeasement.

But we know appeasement is a loosing proposition.

Would there have been any fewer casualties if he had used a carbine or a rifle?

Click to expand...

One thing is for certain, there would have been more if there were not a number of other firearms in close enough proximity to turn off the mind that was pulling the trigger in less time that it takes to microwave a bag of pop corn.

Think about that night club in Orlando.

Trump is only interested in votes and donations.
His skill set is instilling confidence in investors.
J

All my rifles are rifles and all my hand guns are hand guns. No gray area stuff for me. No need for it. But I'm against banning anything that is legal.

We need to focus on the root causes of these shooting. Not the gun used.

Truth is graphic

Jeb Stuart said:

We need to focus on the root causes of these shooting. Not the gun used.

Click to expand...

And what would that Root cause be ?

There is no loophole to exploit, there is no gray area, there is no fuss over shouldering them.

Damn, I swear some of y'all are ready to just hand over your guns to the redcoats.

There is a difference between agreeing with a political or legal outcome and assessing its likelihood.

In real life, I play a lawyer (not a gun-stuff lawyer, though). I often have to tell clients that, although I and they think the outcome of the case should be X, I think there's a higher likelihood that the agency or court will decide Y.

Acknowledging that the legality of "arm braces" that function as shoulder stocks is in an area of sufficient grey-ness to allow the regulating agency to do whatever the heck it wants on the question is simple realism.

The arm brace thing is not going to last. It may end very soon, it may not end until the next Democratic presidency. But it can be ended with a single agency decision, and there is no more than about a 5% chance of defeating that action in court.

To be completely clear, I think that arm braces are a stupid thing for people to be afraid of or want to ban. But I also think the same thing about SBR's in general... yet the NFA is the law. Sometimes the law is stupid.

The only things that the two shooters had in common were a couple of guns and a lot of crazy.
Crazy kills, guns just sit there.

theotherwaldo said:

The only things that the two shooters had in common were a couple of guns and a lot of crazy.
Crazy kills, guns just sit there.

Click to expand...

They had one thing in common. The got notoriety.

fpgt72 said:

Wrong a bump stock is not a machine gun.....

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that a bump stock is a machine gun. It's the ATF and the Trump administration that are saying that bump stocks are machine guns. Likewise, they could easily say that pistol braces make pistols into SBR's. No legislation needed, just a change in regulations.

huntsman said:

If the brace is viewed as low hanging fruit then it’ll get picked for appeasement.

But we know appeasement is a losing proposition.

Click to expand...

Who is doing the appeasement? Certainly not gun owners. The appeasers would be their putative allies, the Trump administration.

Keep in mind that there are three distinct parties here: gun owners, antigunners, and politicians who are trying to juggle the two sides.

Politicians the very definition of appeasers, and dare I say they’ll have an R next to their name.

To all the "it's not a loophole" people: Really?

I mean "the gun show loophole" is not one. But things that are gaps in the law that need to have administrative letters to say "sure, that seems okay... for now" are the very definition of a loophole. Loopholes are "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules." You don't even need an EO to change them, much less a law. ATF, on its own as the agency with the statutory authority as the rules maker, could just change their mind for no reason they are compelled to explain, at all.

Not saying I want that, but let's be realistic during the discussions. This is a regulated industry. A lot of stuff we think is The Way It Is just are not fundamental truths of physics, but are legacies of rule making we've gotten used to.

Seems like the real problem is mental.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data?fbclid=IwAR1ZP-a0yYDPegA1B6L3GqqpaPKCkbpdt3qNbVOtME2dp3JZaxbo1iNkrOo


"Our data show that mass shooters have much in common. Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies."