selling the SBR you didn't know you owned

[Tenring]

[Tenring]

Pistol braces are legal, maybe.

That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.

I don’t agree with it, but the concept isn’t difficult to understand if you just read the rule.

The purpose of the "rule" is tyranny plain and simple, it is subjective at best even after reading the 'rule".

[TheAccountant]

Pistol braces are legal, maybe.

That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.

I don’t agree with it, but the concept isn’t difficult to understand if you just read the rule.

The purpose of the "rule" is tyranny plain and simple, it is subjective at best even after reading the 'rule".

Are you not capable of analyzing things from a different point of view, especially one you don’t agree with? Or was this just an opportunity to meet your “tyranny” quota to prove how 2A you are?

I agree the application of the rule is subjective and parts are not clearly defined, but it is crystal clear that it’s not a “pistol brace ban” and pistol braces in and of themselves are not illegal. The ones struggling to understand the rule are generally the ones that haven’t quite grasped that concept.

[Tenring]

That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.

I don’t agree with it, but the concept isn’t difficult to understand if you just read the rule.

The purpose of the "rule" is tyranny plain and simple, it is subjective at best even after reading the 'rule".

Are you not capable of analyzing things from a different point of view, especially one you don’t agree with? NO Or was this just an opportunity to meet your “tyranny” quota to prove how 2A you are? there's a quota, is that a rule

I agree the application of the rule is subjective and parts are not clearly defined, but it is crystal clear that it’s not a “pistol brace ban” and pistol braces in and of themselves are not illegal. Agreed The ones struggling to understand the rule are generally the ones that haven’t quite grasped that concept. Says who?

[TheAccountant]

If someone is calling it a pistol brace ban or saying braces are illegal then it’s pretty obvious they don’t understand the rule. Do you need a YouTube video to tell you everything?

[YNOTAZ]

Pistol braces are legal, maybe.

The title of the rule is “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” not “Pistol Brace Ban.”

Nobody cares about the title of the rule, they care about the content. Titles of items in Washington usually mean exactly the opposite of the content i.e. "Affordable Care Act", "inflation reduction act".

There’s nothing illegal about pistol braces themselves. Some firearms that have pistol braces (or are equipped to readily accept a pistol brace) may be viewed as an SBR. A different firearm with that same brace may be viewed as a pistol. That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.

I never said pistol braces are illegal. I just pointed out EXACTLY what the ATF wrote v. what they said.

Perhaps you should read the entire rule in its latest iteration. Factoring depends on unquantifiable items such as Manufacturer advertising and the use of the "brace". So if ganbangers in Chiraq are using SBA3s as shoulder stocks it is a shoulder stock, so any brace attached to a firearm with less than a 16" barrel makes it an SBR and illegal.

Feel free to argue with the ATF on what they wrote and what they said. Everyone knows this is to address braces mounted on AR pistols.

If you have an example of one of those that "may be viewed as a pistol" please post a description and how it qualifies as a pistol with a brace instead of an SBR.

[TheAccountant]

Pistol braces are legal, maybe.

The title of the rule is “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” not “Pistol Brace Ban.”

Nobody cares about the title of the rule, they care about the content. Titles of items in Washington usually mean exactly the opposite of the content i.e. "Affordable Care Act", "inflation reduction act".

There’s nothing illegal about pistol braces themselves. Some firearms that have pistol braces (or are equipped to readily accept a pistol brace) may be viewed as an SBR. A different firearm with that same brace may be viewed as a pistol. That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.

I never said pistol braces are illegal. I just pointed out EXACTLY what the ATF wrote v. what they said.

Perhaps you should read the entire rule in its latest iteration. Factoring depends on unquantifiable items such as Manufacturer advertising and the use of the "brace". So if ganbangers in Chiraq are using SBA3s as shoulder stocks it is a shoulder stock, so any brace attached to a firearm with less than a 16" barrel makes it an SBR and illegal.

Feel free to argue with the ATF on what they wrote and what they said. Everyone knows this is to address braces mounted on AR pistols.

If you have an example of one of those that "may be viewed as a pistol" please post a description and how it qualifies as a pistol with a brace instead of an SBR.

“Pistol braces are legal, maybe.” So if they’re not legal, then what are they? Or does your use of “maybe” have some deranged meaning outside of the English language?

If you don’t like the title then you can read the summary of the rule or the rule itself and come to the same conclusion - it’s not a ban. Braces in and of themselves are not illegal.

It’s the advertised or common use of the WEAPON, not BRACE. There’s a big difference there. Like I said in my earlier post, the ones that conflate the two are the ones that can’t seem to grasp the rule. Also, gangsters in Chicago aren’t the “general community” so they have no influence on anything here, much less being the sole factor in determining what is or isn’t an SBR.

I don’t have a need to argue with the ATF about anything. I’ve read the rule. I’ve read their supplementary publications. Based on your poor interpretation of what they wrote, I have no doubt that your interpretation of what they said is also incorrect.

An AR with a long eye relief handgun scope, unmodified cuff-style brace, mounted on a standard pistol buffer is one simple example of a pistol.

[YNOTAZ]

An AR with a long eye relief handgun scope, unmodified cuff-style brace, mounted on a standard pistol buffer is one simple example of a pistol.

I'm not going to argue with a person who doesn't know crap. ATF said that ANYTHING that increases the surface area of the buffer tube of an AR with a barrel length of less than 16" makes it an SBR, so your "cuff-style brace" makes it an SBR. Long eye relief scope, another of your red herrings, nobody cares.

Go argue with the ATF, I'm done with you.

ILEGAL:
.

.

.

Screenshot 2023-02-22 185258.jpg (10.23 KiB) Viewed 1069 times

[QuietM4]

This morning when I read The Accountant's post shortly after 10am, I said to myself, "Oh fun, that idiot posted something...I wonder how many posts until this goes off the rails?".

It was 2 posts. Sadly, not the record.

[TheAccountant]

An AR with a long eye relief handgun scope, unmodified cuff-style brace, mounted on a standard pistol buffer is one simple example of a pistol.

I'm not going to argue with a person who doesn't know crap. ATF said that ANYTHING that increases the surface area of the buffer tube of an AR with a barrel length of less than 16" makes it an SBR, so your "cuff-style brace" makes it an SBR. Long eye relief scope, another of your red herrings, nobody cares.

Go argue with the ATF, I'm done with you.

ILEGAL:
.
Screenshot 2023-02-22 185231.jpg
.
Screenshot 2023-02-22 185541.jpg
.
Screenshot 2023-02-22 185258.jpg

The best part of this is that the slides you posted contradict what you’re saying, but you’re too lazy to actually read the words on the slide:

“When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”

The slides that follow:
Weight/length
Length of pull
Sights or scope
Rearward attachment
Marketing and Intended use
Actual use

If you read the slide you posted for rearward attachment, it’s clear that a firearm can be a pistol even if the surface area allows for the weapon to be shoulder fired:

An AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube may not be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired because it is required for the cycle of operations of the weapon.

To repeat myself for the third time - it’s a wholistic analysis of the firearm. I know you’ve never read anything besides picture books before, but you might actually be able to comprehend something if you read the words.

The definition:
For purposes of this definition, the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” shall include a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as described in paragraph (2), indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

The other factors:
2) When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:
(i) whethertheweaponhasaweightorlengthconsistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

We do agree on one thing: you should definitely tuck your tail and hide. You’ve been wrong enough for the week.

[TheAccountant]

This morning when I read The Accountant's post shortly after 10am, I said to myself, "Oh fun, that idiot posted something...I wonder how many posts until this goes off the rails?".

It was 2 posts. Sadly, not the record.

Coward.

[xmalcomx]

Wait a minute I thought sbr's are not allowed in az unless under a trust

[QuietM4]

Wait a minute I thought sbr's are not allowed in az unless under a trust

Wrong. All NFA items are legal in AZ, registered to an individual or a trust, llc, corp, etc.

[xmalcomx]

The shockwave isnt affected since its not a shot gun its a aow I dont know am I wrong

[xmalcomx]

so this jackass is wrong then