ATF Issues Cease and Desist Order

[A_C Guy]

Not sure if this is a dupe. Was posted on AR15.com today:

Dear Customer:

On August 3rd, 2020, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued Q® a formal Cease & Desist letter, notifying us that ATF has taken the position that the Q Honey Badger Pistol is a short-barreled rifle (“SBR”) regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). In response, Q has ceased all production of the Honey Badger Pistol, and submitted a comprehensive letter to ATF and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) stating why we disagree with this classification[1]. Additionally, we have provided recommendations on how to address the firearms already in circulation. Q is seeking solutions that best protect you, the individual, and Q’s distribution network from falling out of compliance with ATF regulations, and federal law. At this time, Q has not received any definitive guidance from the ATF.

In the meantime, Q encourages possessors of the Honey Badger Pistol to take these proactive measures until a resolution is reached between Q and ATF.

Complete one of the following:

Remove the barreled upper receiver from the lower receiver and dedicate it as a replacement
for another AR-style pistol or registered short-barreled rifle; or

If you do not possess another AR-style pistol or registered short-barreled rifle, remove the barreled upper receiver from the lower receiver and temporarily transfer it out of your possession by, for example, transferring it to the dominion and control of another individual; and

Once the previous step is completed, you may file an ATF Form 1 to register the lower receiver as a short-barreled rifle. Upon Form 1 approval, the firearm may be reassembled.

Failure to complete option a or option b could result in prosecution and is subject to a $10,000.00 fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.

If you are concerned with this situation - as Q is - we urge you to contact the Department of Justice (ATF’s parent agency) by using the below OneClickPolitics link.

ONECLICK LINK

Additionally, we encourage you to reach out to the White House and ask President Trump to halt and rollback ATF’s efforts to issue arbitrary and capricious decisions affecting millions of legal gun owners.
White House Comment Line:
(202) 456-1111 / Email

Residents from the following states and districts should reach out to their congressional representatives to let them know what they think of ATF’s actions:
Kentucky - Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) - https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/
(202) 224-2541 / Email

Alabama – Sen. Richard Shelby (R) - Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and oversees funding of DOJ/ATF. https://www.shelby.senate.gov/public/
(202) 224-5744 / Email

Kansas – Sen. Jerry Moran (R) – Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) which is responsible for funding the ATF.
(202) 224-6521 / Email

South Carolina – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) – Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for ATF oversight.
(202) 224-5972 / Email

Ohio 4th District - Congressman Jim Jordan (R) – Ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over 2nd amendment issues. https://jordan.house.gov/
(202) 225-2676 / Email

If you are not from one these States, you can find your representative’s contact information here: https://www.contactingcongress.org/

Q takes extreme care to remain in compliance with federal law, and we share your frustration with this development. We apologize for this situation and want to assure you that we, in conjunction with SB Tactical® and the National Rifle Association (NRA®), are doing everything in our power to resolve this matter amicably for all parties involved.


Regards,


Adam Johnson, CEO

[1] Neither statements by Q, LLC nor the linked Wiley letter constitute legal advice or may be relied upon as stating a legal opinion regarding the proper treatment of the Honey Badger. Wiley is acting as counsel for Q, LLC in advocating to the ATF that ATF has misapplied the law. Unless and until it is changed, the ATF’s position is that the Honey Badger Pistol is a short-barreled rifle regulated under the National Firearms Act.

 

[A_C Guy]

Of course, the obvious question is,"What is stopping them from re-classifying ALL AR pistols as SBRs?"
Is this any different from re-classifying the bump stocks?
You are supposed to give half of a thousand dollar pistol to a friend for safe keeping?
What if you have no friends?

 

[A_C Guy]

The actual letter sent:

https://mcusercontent.com/557cc802f...5cd2/Q_LLC_6_02_02814_Cease_Desist_Letter.pdf

 

[A_C Guy]

Their reply letter:

https://mcusercontent.com/557cc802f...6f5-7ee60ff78d3a/Q_C_D_Response_9_2_20_1_.pdf

 

[A_C Guy]

The One Click Link mentioned in the OP:

https://act.nraila.org/actions/campaigns/9840

 

[Suck My Glock]

Of course, the obvious question is,"What is stopping them from re-classifying ALL AR pistols as SBRs?"
Is this any different from re-classifying the bump stocks?
You are supposed to give half of a thousand dollar pistol to a friend for safe keeping?
What if you have no friends?

Well, the Honey Badger's brace is a unit custom made for them by SB Tactical. It is exclusive to them and no one else has it. Q also sells the Sugar Weasel, which is a nearly identical version of the Honey Badger, but with SB Tactical's SBA3 brace, rather than the custom one on the Honey Badger. So the real question is how does the brace differ from other SB Tactical braces to the point that ONLY the Honey Badger has been reclassified, and not the Sugar Weasel?

 

[tlieberman240]

So the real question is how does the brace differ from other SB Tactical braces to the point that ONLY the Honey Badger has been reclassified, and not the Sugar Weasel?

For now at least. ATF said Q needs to send them a Sugar Weasel as well to review. Potentially a precursor to a harsher ruling on pistol braces?

 

[Pima Pants]

This is the first time I have seen these pistols. My question is, how did people ever consider these to be arm braces, like many others on the market now? These look like stocks to me. On the Honey Badger, where does the shooter's arm slide into the brace? Same with the the Sugar Weasel. I see it has a velcro-looking strap on it but I can't see where a person's forearm would slide in. I think the company may have been playing fast and loose with BATF's definition of a pistol brace. What am I missing here?

 

[tlieberman240]

This is the first time I have seen these pistols. My question is, how did people ever consider these to be arm braces, like many others on the market now? These look like stocks to me. On the Honey Badger, where does the shooter's arm slide into the brace? Same with the the Sugar Weasel. I see it has a velcro-looking strap on it but I can't see where a person's forearm would slide in. I think the company may have been playing fast and loose with BATF's definition of a pistol brace. What am I missing here?

The brace is flexible and allows the arm to be slid through to grasp the pistol grip, allowing the gun to be fire single handed.

ATF originally said they could be shoulder fired.. then they couldn’t... and then they could; even though it wasn’t intended to be done as such when designed.

These are just more arbitrary rules crafted by unelected officials who change their position every couple months on some type of ruling, showing exactly how bogus they are as a whole.

The whole thing between AR Pistols and SBRs is ridiculous. Should be able to have either without issue.

 

[TheAccountant]

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?

 

[tlieberman240]

Less hassle when crossing state lines among a variety of other reasons.

Plus ANOTHER tax, on top of the sales tax paid when buying the firearm with taxed wages paid by a taxed company who provided a product/service that somebody else paid for, including tax, with their taxed income and so on.

It shouldn’t be there to begin with.

 

[jls in az]

With a secure conservative majority on the USSC, it will be time to challenge both the NFA and GCA of 68.

 

[Harrier]

IMO the answer is... paperwork=registration

 

[tlieberman240]

Less hassle when crossing state lines among a variety of other reasons.

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.

But I can bring to Nevada, without requesting approval in advance.

 

[Hunter]

IMO the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!! Period, end of decussion.

Any questions?

 

[TheAccountant]

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.

 

[birdleggs1]

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.

 

[A_C Guy]

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.

 

[rockbronco]

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.

 

[A_C Guy]

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