Anyone know what makes this pistol an NFA item?

ATF Rules Honey Badger Pistol Is A SBR And Violates NFA - Are All AR-Pistols Next?!

https://youtu.be/7yImHkoiqmk

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0105858/m/2570023574
It's bullshit.

The Puppy Poppers haven't shot anybody's dog in a while, must be getting rusty.

long past the time to put the ATF in their proper place - the unemployment line

we really need to eliminate this anti-American organization

Well that certainly didn’t take long.

Among all the dumb gun laws the SBR or Pistol is one of the dumbest.

So weapons charges against the typical thug will get dropped, but the ATF implies they will get you for intent by just taking this pistol apart and keeping the pieces? Sorry, but the dog jokes are pretty tame.

Never underestimate the power of incompetence in a large organization, especially when they hold nearly limitless power to exercise control over the lives of others. The fact that a short barreled rifle is deemed more tax worthy than a pistol is the problem, not some asinine brace vs stock on a pistol or rifle argument. Tax them all, or tax none, but the existing jerk fest is retarded.

Taxing the exercise of constitutional rights. I love it. Let’s tax voting too.

Okay, we all hate the BATFE, and think SBR rules, AOW rules, and bans on new automatics are silly. We believe the BATFE is arbitrary and capricious in interpreting statutes. We can agree that the ban on bump stocks does violence to the language of the statutes. We can take that as a given.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think the ruling is very clear about why it is now a pistol, but I can only think it is because they don't think the "brace" is enough of a brace, and crosses into "stock" territory. The BATFE letter says that it believes the gun is meant to be fired from the shoulder.

I agree with jhe888, the honey badger has the best "brace" on the market. If you closed your eyes you could never tell it wasn't a brace. It is odd they didn't go after the Noveske brace as well, I believe it is also made by sb tactical and licensed by Q.

While all the hyperbole and ATF bashing is cool, a serious discussion into the specifics of this issue is taking place in this thread -->
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0105858/m/2570023574

quote:

Noveske brace

One difference I see from the HB brace and Noveske brace is that the Noveske has more than one notch on the rails. That would allow for less than fully extended. shrug

-TVz

I don't get why an SBR is so much more dangerous than a normal rifle. As far as sneaking it in somewhere I doubt either is much of an issue. If someone is wanting to shoot up someplace I'm sure the rifle barrel is more desirable.

What is the reasoning behind not having an SBR?

quote:

Originally posted by David W:
If you closed your eyes you could never tell it wasn't a brace.

I'm looking at the freeze frame of the video that Excam_Man posted and it honestly looks a lot like a stock to me.

I realize people may not like my answer, but that's what it looks like to me.

The fact that these guns are labeled pistols had never made any sense to me. They are SBR’s with funny looking stocks... er braces.

The fact that SBR’s are an NFA item also makes no sense to me.

I Hate politics.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I don't get why an SBR is so much more dangerous than a normal rifle.

Concealability.

The initial intent of the NFA back in the 1930s was to regulate machine guns and all concealable firearms, in response to the uptick in gang violence of the 1920s and 1930s so far. This originally included handguns. By applying a high $200 tax to these (nearly $4000 in today's money), they hoped to cut down on the number of concealable firearms out there on the streets, and regulate/track the ones that were there. But by the time the details was changed multiple times and ultimately passed, handguns had been removed from the language, but the tax on concealable rifles, shotguns, and "other weapons" remained.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I don't get why an SBR is so much more dangerous than a normal rifle. As far as sneaking it in somewhere I doubt either is much of an issue.

The initial intent of the NFA, back in the 1930s, was to regulate all concealable firearms in response to the uptick in gang violence of the 1920s and 1930s so far. This originally included handguns. By applying a high $200 tax to these (nearly $4000 in today's money), they hoped to cut down on the number of concealable firearms out there on the streets, and regulate/track the ones that were there. But by the time the details was changed multiple times and ultimately passed, handguns had been removed from the language, but the tax on concealable rifles, shotguns, and "other weapons" remained.

Thanks for the explanation I've never heard it before.

It makes even less sense to have that rule than I thought.

There are other examples of half-ass remnants in the NFA. Like the fact that you can have a 16 inch rifle barrel but must have an 18 inch shotgun barrel.

Originally, all long guns had to have 18 inch barrels, but that was initially amended down to 16 inches for rimfire rifles only, and ultimately down to 16 inches for all rifles.

2 inches of additional barrel length isn't going to make a difference on a shotgun... They just neglected to change that when they were changing the limit for rifles.

Since we’re offering our opinions about whether a “brace”-equipped pistol should be considered a short barreled rifle and therefore subject to the NFA and whether such guns serve any useful purpose, here’s an opinion:

The history of infringement of gun-owners’ rights includes one tale after another of some of those owners’ willingness to toss other owners out of the sleigh to the wolves in the hope that the wolves will stop chasing the tossers to eat the sacrificial victims. Another way to look at is that they will try feeding the sharks a foot, then a leg, then a hand, then an arm in the continuing hope that at some point the sharks will become sated and leave them alone, never to come back for more.

Throughout the 60+ years that I have followed efforts to infringe on our gun-owning rights, I have seen more such offers to the sharks than I can recall.
“Who needs a handgun? They’re no use for hunting, so not me. Let them have the handguns and they’ll leave me alone.”
“Who needs a small handgun? Not me: They’re just Saturday night specials, no good for target shooting, and are just used for holding up convenience stores. Let them have the small handguns and they’ll leave me alone.”
“Who needs a gun that holds more than seven (or 10 or 15) rounds of ammunition. Not me, because if you don’t hit your game animal with first two or three shots, it’s gone anyway, and target shooting stages never require more than five shots. Let them have the large capacity magazines and they’ll leave me alone.”
“Who needs a gun chambered for military cartridges like 50 BMG? Not me, because all they do is damage targets and they’re impractical for hunting or target shooting. I don’t want to be on the plane that someone shoots down with one. Let them have the .50 caliber guns and they’ll leave me alone.”
“Who needs a semiautomatic firearm? I can shoot just as fast as I need, or want, with a revolver or bolt action rifle. Shooting faster just wastes ammunition. Let them have the semiautomatic guns and they’ll leave me alone.”
“Who needs a silencer? Only gangsters. That’s why we have hearing protection. Let them have the silencers and they’ll leave me alone.”

I could go on and on with examples that have been promoted or at least accepted by some gun owners who were willing to try to protect their pet possessions at the expense of others’. I clearly recall that even the NRA was hesitant to support concealed carry by non-LEO “civilians” at one time.

In short, any gun owner who is willing to give up his rights to keep and bear any gun merely because it’s not something he’s interested in owning and using is a fool. Give them an arm or a leg today, and tomorrow they’ll be back for more. That has happened in states and countries around the world, and there is no reason to prevent its happening again anywhere. The ultimate goal of the gun-banners is to ban all guns—each and every one—and any (present) gun owner who doesn’t recognize that is willfully blind.