@BBMW

So what? The definition says that to be considered a rifle it had to have been designed to fire from the shoulder. The braces were not that. The definition is clear. If they don't like the definition then they should go through the proper channels and attempt to amend or pass new legislation.

I plan on putting a little thought into my response before submitting it for public comment.

I have several complaints and objections to the proposal, but I'd like to organize my thoughts a little more. A few members have posted their comments here, but I'd really be interested in hearing even more thoughts, comments, objections, and arguments against this proposal...might just help me to bring my own thoughts into focus.

I don't think they can walk back all braces.

But those they have no real useful function as a brace and are clearly designed primarily to function as a stock, are stocks.

I would like to comment but I have a policy of staying OFF of our governments radar and most certainly off the ATF's radar. So I will not be commenting at that link.

What I will do is contact my local senate critter. Because IMO the ATF should NOT even be allowed to even consider doing this. IMO any time the ATF treads into an area that can effect the 2ND they should be limited to just asking for a national referendum on a proposed change and that change can only be made after 2/3 of the Voters approve the change.

quote:

I would like to comment but I have a policy of staying OFF of our governments radar and most certainly off the ATF's radar. So I will not be commenting at that link.

So in order to accomplish this task you have taken the time to tell us.....by posting.....on a gun board. Just saying I don’t you’ve gone full B2 as far as your radar signature.

Added my comment. Everything else aside - arbitrary and subjective nature of the document, previous approval, etc...what exactly is the reasoning? Braced pistols are a fraction of a single percentage point in the commission of crime. They just are not used/there is not a rash of crimes with braced firearms. The definition of NFA is to regulate firearms commonly used in the commission fo crimes...

I know, ration and reason with the government. Lost cause.

quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
Added my comment. Everything else aside - arbitrary and subjective nature of the document, previous approval, etc...what exactly is the reasoning?

Because gun owners keep asking for “clarification” letters and keep the spot light turned around on arm braces. Because gun companies keep making stocks, that aren’t stocks, that function and look just like a four position stocks, and saying they are “ATF approved”.

If you were bypassing IRS laws by being obvious that you are using tools to bypass IRS laws, would you really be surprised when you get audited?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
Added my comment. Everything else aside - arbitrary and subjective nature of the document, previous approval, etc...what exactly is the reasoning?

Because gun owners keep asking for “clarification” letters and keep the spot light turned around on arm braces. Because gun companies keep making stocks, that aren’t stocks, that function and look just like a four position stocks, and saying they are “ATF approved”.

If you were bypassing IRS laws by being obvious that you are using tools to bypass IRS laws, would you really be surprised when you get audited?

No one is bypassing a law. The ATF opened the door to braces, continued to approve new braces and designs, and now that they have become commonplace they want to eliminate them. Make no mistake about it, the ATF created this entire fiasco.

quote:

Originally posted by dgshooter:
Hate to say it, But if you thing BATFE will take any comment from the public seriously, you are naive. They have already made their decision, they just have to go through the motions.

This.


Now, if people would quit writing and asking batfe about shit, the rules would not being changed...do what you do and if an atf guy shows up and asks questions answer them.

I would love to hear their argument even against SBR’s. One of the dumbest gun laws there is.

For those of us who haven't yet built their AR pistols, is there one brace design that should remain "safe" to use?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
Added my comment. Everything else aside - arbitrary and subjective nature of the document, previous approval, etc...what exactly is the reasoning?

Because gun owners keep asking for “clarification” letters and keep the spot light turned around on arm braces. Because gun companies keep making stocks, that aren’t stocks, that function and look just like a four position stocks, and saying they are “ATF approved”.

If you were bypassing IRS laws by being obvious that you are using tools to bypass IRS laws, would you really be surprised when you get audited?

No one is bypassing a law. The ATF opened the door to braces, continued to approve new braces and designs, and now that they have become commonplace they want to eliminate them. Make no mistake about it, the ATF created this entire fiasco.

You naive or just looking to be argumentative?

We surely run around with a different class of shooter. Because apparently EVERYONE I know is a scumbag, because everyone that I know buys arm brace pistols to get around SBR rules. And I don’t blame them. Since the beginning, I have only seen the arm brace used as an arm brace in the early advertisement videos. All the others have been to SBR a rifle without having to pay the .gov. As someone said, the right way to do this is to remove SBRs from the NFA. But, that is never going to happen, no more than people will magically start using arm braces as arm braces.

If I am not correct, why do so many gun owners and companies feel the need to CONSTANTLY ask for guidance letters?

You know, it’s kind of like the hate over Polymer 80. Everyone wants to blame the fed, but no one seems to want to entertain the fact that likely gun manufacturers constant complaints about them having to pay FET and polymer 80 skirting the law by selling a “kit” is how we got there.

It’s one thing to think it’s horseshit, but it’s another to pretend that we didn’t bring this on ourselves but not just leaving well enough alone. When you fail to take yes for an answer, and constantly pester lawyers, this is what happens.

I agree, if everyone would have just shut up and accepted it as done, I don’t think we’d be getting screwed with about this now.
Some guys at batf probably just said ok, if we’re gonna keep hearing about this let’s review the whole damn thing.
So here we go.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:


You naive or just looking to be argumentative?

We surely run around with a different class of shooter. Because apparently EVERYONE I know is a scumbag, because everyone that I know buys arm brace pistols to get around SBR rules. And I don’t blame them. Since the beginning, I have only seen the arm brace used as an arm brace in the early advertisement videos. All the others have been to SBR a rifle without having to pay the .gov. As someone said, the right way to do this is to remove SBRs from the NFA. But, that is never going to happen, no more than people will magically start using arm braces as arm braces.

If I am not correct, why do so many gun owners and companies feel the need to CONSTANTLY ask for guidance letters?

You know, it’s kind of like the hate over Polymer 80. Everyone wants to blame the fed, but no one seems to want to entertain the fact that likely gun manufacturers constant complaints about them having to pay FET and polymer 80 skirting the law by selling a “kit” is how we got there.

It’s one thing to think it’s horseshit, but it’s another to pretend that we didn’t bring this on ourselves but not just leaving well enough alone. When you fail to take yes for an answer, and constantly pester lawyers, this is what happens.

Actually, in this instance, you are coming across as passive-aggressive, abrasive, argumentative and sanctimonious. YMMV

As to the question of yours in bold, because the ATF has by their own documentation formed a recurring habit of being arbitrary and capricious.

jljones

quote:

We surely run around with a different class of shooter. Because apparently EVERYONE I know is a scumbag, because everyone that I know buys arm brace pistols to get around SBR rules

Unbeleivable


The ATF just recently ruled that shouldering a brace was not breaking the law. So how have gun owners skirted the law?

"incidental, sporadic, or situational use" of an AR-15 pistol's arm brace as a shoulder stock is legal.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
jljones

quote:

We surely run around with a different class of shooter. Because apparently EVERYONE I know is a scumbag, because everyone that I know buys arm brace pistols to get around SBR rules

The ATF just recently ruled that shouldering a brace was not breaking the law. So how have gun owners skirted the law?

We tend to read parts or skim. The guidance letter stated that they would not prosecute if you shouldered an arm brace. No where did it say that you could circumvent the NFA. And constantly playing “what if” makes it clearer that some people 100 percent just trying to skirt the NFA. It may even be plants doing it. But, it’s a constant barrage of “guidance requests”.

Then people/companies send in requests that say “oh yeah, what about this?”. People should have taken yes for an answer.

People can be mad all they want. They can shoot the messenger if they like. We did this to ourselves. We should have accepted that you could shoulder the brace here and there.

Didn't help the bump stock folks and it won't matter here. This cake is baked but I will tell the .gov folks what I think.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
[

We tend to read parts or skim. The guidance letter stated that they would prosecute if you shouldered an arm brace. No where did it say that you could circumvent the NFA.

Then people/companies send in requests that say “oh yeah, what about this?”. People should have taken yes for an answer.

People can be mad all they want. They can shoot the messenger if they like. We did this to ourselves. We should have accepted that you could shoulder the brace here and there.

For clarification, can you provide me with the letter that said they would "prosecute" if shouldered?

This isn't shooting the messenger, this is 2A 101. ATF says here is the line in the sand. We, the 2A community, hold them to their line in the sand. ATF says "oops, my bad, line was actually 2' behind you" now your actually illegal.

ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS!

Since they have let millions of them into circulation,why not reverse themselves again and say absolutely no shouldering.

Why did you remove not from my post when you quoted it? The guidance letter stated they would not prosecute. Just as WCB mentioned.