Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Hunter wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 5:24 am
IMO the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!! Period, end of decussion.
Any questions?
If you want to use some stock that's just janky enough to not be considered a stock because that makes you feel like your rights aren't being infringed, more power to you. Fight the man.
I'd rather have my rights infringed by filling out a form and telling the gov information they already know about me to a) build the rifle how I want, and b) avoid being at the mercy of an ATF ruling that can be changed on a whim.
I'll agree the Form 20 is a pointless waste of time. There's only 1 other state that I travel to with an SBR and the form is good for a year so it's not a big deal for me. For others that travel all over, I can see it being a bigger hassle.
This is EXACTLY my answer when people ask me why I would spend $200 for a tax stamp and go through the hassle of registering my 10” PCC as an SBR. ATF can and do change their minds at the drop of a hat. They are not consistent.
jls in az wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 10:04 pm
With a secure conservative majority on the USSC, it will be time to challenge both the NFA and GCA of 68.
The court has been loath to accept 2nd amendment cases. They have rejected far more than they have agreed to hear.
A person needs to file in a circuit that is pro 2A that has an overwhelming majority of proven conservatives. That way when SCOTUS refuses to hear it, it should have already been found in favor of the plaintiffs.
Since NFA is a tax, it will stand; just as Obama's ACA stood because it was a tax.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the fall of the pistol braces. next in line are the guys selling solvent traps.
I have never got the pistol brace thing. For the cost and risk of ATF changing their minds overnight I would rather just SBR the thing and call it done.
TheAccountant wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 9:32 pm
The premium on the braces over similar function rifle stocks will cover at least half the cost of the stamp. The eform Form 1 is easy and they typically approve pretty quick. Why even mess around with these things?
The real answer is because they're too cheap and think doing the paperwork is aSkInG fOr pErMisSiOn but really they're too lazy to be bothered by it.
But to admit that would actually entail integrity, and everyone wants to act like they're the alpha omega. But the reality is, no integrity and the perception they're giving of themselves is a cat meowing in the shrubs and not an actual lion roaring in the jungle.
I'd respect them more if they would just admit to being either cheap or lazy. Own a pistol AR or don't, I respect either or, so I don't agree with them being messed with for owning a pistol. But what I won't respect is a fool pretending that them being cheap and lazy ain't the answer to not wanting an SBR, when it's the actual answer.
You are quite wrong in your assessment. I have an FX9 and a Banshee in .40S&W. Both would be an SBR if the pistol brace class was completely eliminated. Why should it be classified as an SBR when it is a pistol caliber? There would be no practical reason to make it in a 16" barrel. There is not enough powder and the muzzle velocity in a 16" barrel is actually lower than the m.v. in a 7" barrel.
Taking a cartridge designed for a 5" or 6" barrel and putting it in an AR style weapon should not automatically change it to a rifle cartridge.
Your premise that this involves integrity on the part of the consumer is seriously flawed.
The issue is a matter of common sense...
I should be able to take a 9mm round and design any style of semi auto firearm around that cartridge and still be able to call it a pistol. Adding a stock or brace to a revolver should not reclassify it as an SBR. Using a folding/ expanding brace should not reclassify my pistol AR as an SBR
AZ1182 wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 11:27 pm
All state lines? Are you positively 100% percent sure of of pluralizing that statement?
Obviously not all state lines. I can’t bring to CA, for instance.
Huge difference between blindly saying crossing state lines and still being legal to do so, which is obviously not mutually exclusive.
Lol I never said ALL state lines. I just said state lines.
OBVIOUSLY there are states that do not allow these types of firearms to be in the state, regardless and they don’t apply to that statement. Whereas SBRs cannot travel across ANY state line without approval.
TheAccountant wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 9:32 pm
The premium on the braces over similar function rifle stocks will cover at least half the cost of the stamp. The eform Form 1 is easy and they typically approve pretty quick. Why even mess around with these things?
The real answer is because they're too cheap and think doing the paperwork is aSkInG fOr pErMisSiOn but really they're too lazy to be bothered by it.
But to admit that would actually entail integrity, and everyone wants to act like they're the alpha omega. But the reality is, no integrity and the perception they're giving of themselves is a cat meowing in the shrubs and not an actual lion roaring in the jungle.
I'd respect them more if they would just admit to being either cheap or lazy. Own a pistol AR or don't, I respect either or, so I don't agree with them being messed with for owning a pistol. But what I won't respect is a fool pretending that them being cheap and lazy ain't the answer to not wanting an SBR, when it's the actual answer.
You are quite wrong in your assessment. I have an FX9 and a Banshee in .40S&W. Both would be an SBR if the pistol brace class was completely eliminated. Why should it be classified as an SBR when it is a pistol caliber? There would be no practical reason to make it in a 16" barrel. There is not enough powder and the muzzle velocity in a 16" barrel is actually lower than the m.v. in a 7" barrel.
Taking a cartridge designed for a 5" or 6" barrel and putting it in an AR style weapon should not automatically change it to a rifle cartridge.
Your premise that this involves integrity on the part of the consumer is seriously flawed.
The issue is a matter of common sense...
I should be able to take a 9mm round and design any style of semi auto firearm around that cartridge and still be able to call it a pistol. Adding a stock or brace to a revolver should not reclassify it as an SBR. Using a folding/ expanding brace should not reclassify my pistol AR as an SBR
MV in a 16" barrel is not lower than a 7" barrel for either 40SW or 9MM. It's not even true for 22LR, so you're going to have to find something with a lot less of a charge or a much larger bore to see that phenomenon in a 16" barrel.
Trying to determine what's a rifle vs what's a pistol based on the cartridge itself would be a nightmare for everyone involved. We would inevitably wind up with certain firearms meeting the definition of a rifle when one round is fired, but being a handgun when a different round is fired. Take 300BLK for example. In supersonic form it's close to 7.62x39, but in subsonic form it's pretty close to 45ACP. So I could load a mag with subs/supers every other and change the classification of the firearm with a trigger pull. How about the silhouette pistols? Those would be rifles? What about my lever guns? Two identical firearms, one in 44 mag and one in 30-30, so one is a pistol and one is a rifle? That's common sense?
I'm not defending the NFA and I don't think much of it makes sense, but I'm a realist and don't think it's going anywhere. I would rather keep it as-is and use the 85 years of knowledge we've gained navigating it than start making changes to restrictions that solve 1 problem but create 10 others.
I am curious. If you own one of these and just separate the upper from the lower it is legal to own the parts you just can't making a working firearm, correct?
The GOA is running a campaign to alert PDJT of the situation. Go to their website. I don't own one of these guns, but if they (ATF) are able to pull this off, then all pistol AR's will become SBR's and if you own one, you should be very concerned.
When the ATF said yes no yes to pistol braces, the final decision was that shouldering the wrist stabilizing brace wasn't modifying the brace itself, IIRC.
Anyways....How is the "objective design feature designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder?"
And how is any other brace different?
I'm starting to change my thoughts now (as some here have indicated) that SBR is the way to go, a few months ago, SBRs were being approved in about a month.
AZ1182 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 11:02 am
If SBR's were not restricted and you could freely own it in whatever configuration you want, it still would not be a pistol and be a short barreled pistol caliber carbine. You have zero intention to fire it one hand, be honest now, and that's what a pistol/handgun actual is intended to be fired that way.
You obviously have never seen me shoot either pistol because I have shoot both many times and NEVER from the shoulder yet.
I don't know why your post was so angry and full of hate, but I never called you a liar; though you chose to call me one.
Remow2112 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 9:44 am
I am curious. If you own one of these and just separate the upper from the lower it is legal to own the parts you just can't making a working firearm, correct?
Unfortunately, under current law, NO.
Which is why they instruct you in the letter to move the other half to a separate location until this mess is corrected.
Pro2a wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 3:50 pm
Anyways....How is the "objective design feature designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder?"
And how is any other brace different?
This SB Tactical brace is a unique design only used on these Q firearms. I don't know if I'm just seeing things, but the rubber on the back of this brace looks thicker and more stout. If that's true, it could make the difference.
That is the obvious difference, but the ATF won't come out and say specifically what and why.
Some have said it is the LOP is longer and exceeds the ATF's loose definition of a max pistol brace LOP