ATF Issues Cease and Desist Order

[tlieberman240]

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.

This difference is pretty obvious. But carry on.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Remow2112]

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?

 

[xerts1191]

Love me some Badger and Weasels. Send your dislike to the Trumpster!

 

[storage_man]

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.

 

[Pro2a]

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.

 

[A_C Guy]

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.

 

[A_C Guy]

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.

 

[AZ_Five56]

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.

 

[A_C Guy]

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

 

[Gunslinger55]

Back on track: seems like it was a new brace design that was not approved. That was pretty dumb.

Am I wrong?

 

[nvgdude]

Since NFA is a tax, it will stand; just as Obama's ACA stood because it was a tax.

The court ruled in Star v. Commissioner that a tax on an enumerated right, or the means to exercising that right, is unconstitutional.

The government's taxation authority is not unlimited.

 

[XJThrottle]

Anyone feel the need for pistol braces, or even a knurled tube? They came with other used stuff that I bought and won't use. I've SBR'd mine. The Form1 process is SO easy....and I think pistol braces are the gun version of AIDS..
Ammo trades..

 

[Gunslinger55]

I have SBRs and I don’t have a problem with braces at all. Both have their uses. I don’t descriminare and I don’t like paying taxes. I look at a braced pistol as a throwaway (afford to lose) like a Glock

 

[TheAccountant]

Maybe they've gotten better or maybe they're just not good unless you like/need a short LOP. I bought the Sig version of the brace 5 or so years ago. Took it out twice and Form 1'd the lower. The brace has been sitting in a box ever since.

 

[Rock Hardson]

You should be able to buy one tax stamp to cover all your SBR's
You should be able to buy one tax stamp to cover all your suppressors

I mean seriously, how many SBR's would you own??? 10 or more????
How many suppressors would you own??? 10 or more????

I don't have any stamps because I don't believe that anyone should have to pay for right to have these items. I own 4 arm braced AR's, I shouldn't have to pay $800 just to have some arbitrary stock on it vs a brace.

If I could buy one stamp to cover all SBR's and one stamp to cover all suppressors, I would might consider it, but I would still think it is extremely stupid the stock vs arm brace

 

[Kingjoey]

Some of you guys sound disgustingly like CA transplants. I miss the days when gun owners here embraced ways to legally defy govt infringement and now many of you seem to make excuses to justify your desire to comply with whatever BS comes down the pipe. Used to see a lot more "molon labe" and now seeing a lot of "more cuck". The ATF is once again making unconstitutional decisions to force taxation and registration RETROACTIVELY. They are using their unchecked power to attack gun owners and gun companies. Any of you that are arguing about the merits of a pistol brace to avoid seeing the elephant in the room should sell your guns off now instead of waiting for the eventual govt gun "buyback" which you will no doubt find an excuse to comply with as well. Seeing more and more CA and fudd mentality here every day

 

[Kingjoey]

See the same thing any time the open carry issue comes up. The chorus of idiots chime in about "tactical disadvantage" or "loss of surprise" or whatever other excuse they use to justify their opinion which really boils down to that they don't want to offend some soyboi, fat karen, or CA transplant by having them see an American in AZ openly carrying a gun. We used to have open carry dinners, we used to proudly carry our guns, we used to defy those who opposed that right. Now we got 300lb phatphucks here that yammer about how they can supposedly lift their fat roll and draw their gun from some deep concealment holster faster than anyone could from a hip holster when in reality they are just trying to pacify anti-gun people and places, probably while wearing a mask too to not offend the karens screeching about the COVID bogeyman. Compliance is compliance, having an excuse just makes you a cuck

 

[was21]

^^^Amen Joe!!
.... but tell us what you really think. LOL
Seriously though, this thread is just another reminder of how things have gotten to this point... capitulation and grandiose talk with a ‘but’ attached.
My granddad had a saying “ It’s easier to straddle a fence if’n you don’t have balls” and his meaning was ‘pick a side’.

 

[cool arrow]

Back on track: seems like it was a new brace design that was not approved. That was pretty dumb.

Am I wrong?

unfortunately, this may open the door for more restrictions on braces or an outright ban, now that it is back on their radar.