SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    More AR Pistol Drama from the ATF for the SBR wannabees
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
More AR Pistol Drama from the ATF for the SBR wannabees Login/Join 
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted
Its a big photo, nothing I can do to fix that as it isn't mine but is making the rounds. Yeah the guy failed at redacting all his info but oh well.

 
Posts: 38199 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Doesnt seemed like anything has changed, just says not to alter your brace in any way?


________________________________
 
Posts: 7010 | Location: One step ahead of you | Registered: February 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
For real?
Picture of Chowser
posted Hide Post
This is where it is vague. IMO. I'm not a lawyer.


If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock -

for example -

*****

-
and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock.


They are very vague about steps to configure.


What's to say that one day they say that installing the brace at a specific length constitutes configuring. I know there are braces out there that come with a tube where the brace is designed to stop at a certain length making it a nice sbrish length.

I gave up trying to figure out what's what and sbr'd a bunch of lowers when eforms was taking about a month to process way back in the beginning.



Not minority enough!
 
Posts: 5574 | Location: South of Cleveland, OH | Registered: August 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
This is why we all need SBA3 braces.


________________________________
 
Posts: 7010 | Location: One step ahead of you | Registered: February 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TAP
posted Hide Post
Seems their position has not changed, just a bit more clarification.
1) Do not alter the brace. 2) Do not utilize the brace to intentionally use it as a stock.

May be some legal implications for a brace mounted on a buffer tube; on a firearm which did not come with or need one to operate.
 
Posts: 792 | Location: Portland, OR. | Registered: October 10, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
My hypocrisy goes only so far
Picture of GrumpyBiker
posted Hide Post




U.S.M.C.
VFW-8054
III%

"Never let a Wishbone grow where a Backbone should be "



 
Posts: 5815 | Location: Central,Ohio | Registered: December 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
None of this is any different than what’s in the 2017 letter to SB Tactical which also clearly said that an item that functions as a stock and objectively allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder may be considered a SBR. People tend to gloss over that in the 2017 letter because they focused on the OK to shoulder part.

Regarding the SBA3, the interesting thing is that this letter refers to the acceptance of braces reviewed by and approved by the ATF, and the word is that SB Tactical has not sent the SBA3 in for review and they don’t intend to. I’d be more worried if I had a brace that works pretty poorly as a brace (because the strap is too short or the flap that goes around the arm is too rigid) but much better as a shoulder stock.
 
Posts: 1694 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
More blahblahblah on the subject from ATF which changes nothing at this point.

What people really need too focus on is that pistol braces have been out for quite some time and blood has not filled the streets up to the curb tops. This should add momentum to the fact that SBR's should not be an NFA item at all. They simply are not used in crimes, and the hoops to own one are excessive.




Proudly deplorable
 
Posts: 8195 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc
 
Posts: 5281 | Location: S.E. NC | Registered: November 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc


Or financially viable for the Feds.




Proudly deplorable
 
Posts: 8195 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
quote:
Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc


Or financially viable for the Feds.


True indeed

cc
 
Posts: 5281 | Location: S.E. NC | Registered: November 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I don’t know I’ve always thought the brace would help push SBR’s off the NFA list. One is a pistol but the other is a rifle? Not sure they will ever let silencers off.
 
Posts: 580 | Location: PHILADELPHIA,PA,USA | Registered: October 24, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get on the fifty!
Picture of Andyb
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KML:
I don’t know I’ve always thought the brace would help push SBR’s off the NFA list. One is a pistol but the other is a rifle? Not sure they will ever let silencers off.


Put both in front a jury and they would probably scratch their heads.




When in doubt, pinky out.
 
Posts: 2965 | Location: Oklahoma | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:
None of this is any different than what’s in the 2017 letter to SB Tactical which also clearly said that an item that functions as a stock and objectively allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder may be considered a SBR. People tend to gloss over that in the 2017 letter because they focused on the OK to shoulder part.

Regarding the SBA3, the interesting thing is that this letter refers to the acceptance of braces reviewed by and approved by the ATF, and the word is that SB Tactical has not sent the SBA3 in for review and they don’t intend to. I’d be more worried if I had a brace that works pretty poorly as a brace (because the strap is too short or the flap that goes around the arm is too rigid) but much better as a shoulder stock.


Well if its adjustable I figure that would rule out the ATF being able to hamstring you by saying you "adjusted your brace to rifle length, permanently" I have long arms, my bracrs are set pretty far back on the tube.


________________________________
 
Posts: 7010 | Location: One step ahead of you | Registered: February 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Thye need to sit on a brace for a couple of days, then spin.
 
Posts: 83234 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of myrottiety
posted Hide Post
Meh...

Where's the old Jurrasic Park meme about "shouldering the brace and the ATF" when I need it?




Train how you intend to Fight

Remember - Training is not sparring. Sparring is not fighting. Fighting is not combat.
 
Posts: 7520 | Location: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: August 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
quote:
Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc


Or financially viable for the Feds.
Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12165 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of CandyMan.45
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:

Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.


Money is Money to the government !

https://rocketffl.com/nfa-fire...-revenue-statistics/
 
Posts: 1028 | Location: The Edge of Nowhere... | Registered: April 05, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by CandyMan.45:
quote:
Originally posted by DMF:

Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.


Money is Money to the government !

https://rocketffl.com/nfa-fire...-revenue-statistics/

Exactly. They could give a flying flippety fuck if it costs more to do the work than what they take in. If they were asked to explain it, the fed would happily provide what appears to be a profit, conveniently leaving out the other side of the ledger.




Proudly deplorable
 
Posts: 8195 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
Use a brace as a brace. If you do that, you're good. If you use it as a way around an SBR, you could get yourself in trouble.

I have one AR pistol with a brace on it and use it that way. My preferred method is to brace it on my chin rather than the arm strap. I do use the arm strap too though.

I don't shoulder it. I like that the ATF allows incidental shouldering so that I don't have to worry about some technicality being a felony if it brushes up against my shoulder...especially when I have a coat on.

Using it as an end-around for the NFA is playing with fire IMO.

As a complete aside, if you'd like to avoid all of this gray area, just buy yourself an IWI X95. I have one and love it. It's basically a 10" SBR in OAL.

I like owning a pistol AR for the fact that it's covered under my CCW. Otherwise, I'd just take my X95 everywhere.


E.S. Dunbar
________________________________
I'm confused...wait, maybe I'm not.
 
Posts: 6293 | Location: Toledo, Ohio | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    More AR Pistol Drama from the ATF for the SBR wannabees

© SIGforum 2018