Urgent PSA - Received the following via email from Q LLC today

Q Honey Badger Pistol Notification

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.

1. Complete one of the following:

• A - 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
  
  
• B - 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

2. 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

ATF Cease & Desist Letter

Q LLC Comprehensive Letter

_______________________


ETA - Everyone should view the following embedded video, with an update from Kevin Brittingham re: the Honey Badger Pistol reclassification. ATF has 'Gone Dark' and no longer responding to 'Q' regarding this matter. This could mean that they're trying to figure out how to respond/change course and not look bad, or something more dire!

It's clear that 'Q' got to the point where ATF would no longer respond/communicate with them, and was left with no choice but to go public with an announcement, advising current customers on options to 'Stay Within the Law' until this is resolved.

While the Brace design in question is proprietary, VERY similar designs w/ IDENTICAL design features/components are sold by SB Tactical and/or licensed to other Firearms manufacturers. This could affect MILLIONS of Gun Owners, and is especially problematic for those located in GDC Ban States where SBR's are verboten!

PLEASE READ All of the linked documents in this post, and contact EVERYONE; The White House, Senators, Congressmen, as well as, ANY & ALL National Pro 2A orgs (NRA-ILA, GOA, SAF, etc) to Demand Action, and a change in course by ATF! Our Second Amendment Rights are at stake here!

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

Ho Lee Crap!

I read the C&D letter and a few other comments online, and it appears that's a total reversal of the previous "'braces' don't make pistols SBRs" ruling, and that's how others are interpreting it. Can someone explain how that ruling won't apply to countless other similar guns?

Q LLC's response letter, through their Attorney (Wiley Rein LLP), attached THIRTEEN previously issued Sample ATF Classification Letters!

Ho Lee Crap is Right!!!

Ok, this is some kind bullshit, not from Q, but from some "Special agent in charge" in their Boston Field Divvision. That's where the C&D letter came from. Q needs to take it all the way up to ATF central in VA. Previous rulings on these braces/pistols have always come from their big boss, not some field special agent.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
some field special agent.

Thanks for pointing that out.
I wonder if the local guy was even aware of the previous questions and rulings.

It's also curious that the 'Special Agent in Charge' isn't the one who actually signed the C&D letter, sent by the 'Special Agent in Charge'

Yeah, I bet this bs is going to blow up in the face of that "Special Agent in Charge".

Whenever a new bill, law, or regulation suddenly pops up out of the blue one of my first questions is why now, and that is exactly what I was thinking even before I read through the C&D and Q's response.

From Q's response:

"it is worth noting that ATF conducted a full compliance inspection of Q last year and did not raise any objections about the Honey Badger at that time."

So, I'm even more interested to have my question answered now...why now?

Someone at ATF "taking another bite at the apple"? Upcoming election?

Also from Q's response:

"Please be advised that Q is currently working to develop a new arm brace design to rectify the points raised in FATD's Report."

It would be interesting to know what specifically about the Honey Badger brace design the FATD objected to, as opposed to other brace designs.

Q has made it clear that a redesign and retrofitting of a Title 1 barrel is not an option, either mechanically or financially speaking.

WAG on my part, but I'm betting ATF will accept a brace redesign as a solution.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

I have seen some speculation that one or more Obama appointees whose replacement has been getting stonewalled are doing this as an attempt to get the president involved. If Trump does get involved it brings awareness to the "workaround" that is pistol braces and potentially results in some damage to the voter base- either by being against braces and upsetting the 2A community, or being for pistol braces and losing moderates who don't want such a "workaround" to exist (once they learn of it). Sadly the stance of "this is illegal and should be stopped regardless of your opinion on braces" is likely too nuanced of a position to actually be what is reported, even if that's the stance taken.

Hopefully this is handled without national attention and the DOJ is able to reign in the ATF

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
WAG on my part, but I'm betting ATF will accept a brace redesign as a solution.

I bet you're right.
I'm wondering if the 'cheek weld' portion is the problem? I don't remember seeing that on other AR pistol braces.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

Also from Q's response:

"Please be advised that Q is currently working to develop a new arm brace design to rectify the points raised in FATD's Report."

It would be interesting to know what specifically about the Honey Badger brace design the FATD objected to, as opposed to other brace designs.

I too, like many, would be VERY interested to know what characteristics of the current 'Pistol Stabilizing Brace' design they've deemed NOT a Pistol Brace!

As I read that letter, it's specifically that brace, not other braces.

So I'm curious why that one in particular as well.

I looked at close up pics of the brace and videos of the brace.

It's a brace, but I guess maybe the atf guy had issue with the large rear of the thing makes it so much easier to shoulder??

Informative comparison between the SBR and Pistol versions of the Q Honey Badger here:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....by-q-sbr-and-pistol/

Interesting that BOTH are a telescoping design, and as such, have an Adjustable LOP! It's NOT surprising the the ATF might have a problem with this design feature of the Pistol Brace. Further, the telescoping rails, cheek rest, and abbreviated receiver extension are identical on both variants, which draws add'l attention/scrutiny.

Of course, it's all the more problematic for the firearms community, that the any specific regulations regarding LOP for a Pistol are NOT published anywhere. They're NOT in the Gun Control Act (GCA), and NOT in the NFA (National Firearms Act), and seemingly aren't actually Federal Law! As is all too common, this is just another example where the ATF makes things up as they see fit. Unfortunately someone inevitably ends up as the 'test case', and ultimately a victim of an overreaching .gov agency, but I digress.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
As I read that letter, it's specifically that brace, not other braces.

So I'm curious why that one in particular as well.

I read a description of the honey badger brace saying "two position stock". Maybe a red flag right there?

Brittingham has a lot of resources and will fight this. That said, sounds like somebody within that ATF office is looking to make an impression.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:


Interesting that BOTH are a telescoping design, and as such, have an Adjustable LOP! It's NOT surprising the the ATF might have a problem with this design feature of the Pistol Brace. Further, the telescoping rails, cheek rest, and abbreviated receiver extension are identical on both variants, which draws add'l attention/scrutiny.

Of course, it's all the more problematic for the firearms community, that the any specific regulations regarding LOP for a Pistol are NOT published anywhere. They're NOT in the Gun Control Act (GCA), and NOT in the NFA (National Firearms Act), and seemingly aren't actually Federal Law! As is all too common, this is just another example where the ATF makes things up as they see fit.

I'm only chiming in because I've been compiling notes recently for my AR build still out in the future. But from somewhere, I picked up that for a pistl, length of pull from grigger face to rear of brace has to be less than or equal to 13.5" for it to be legal.

Does that ring a bell with you?

^^^I too had a similar question regarding a Pistol Brace I was considering for a B&T KH9 and was advised of the same 13.5" limitation. The only place I've seen anything published that had any resemblance of credibility was regarding an 'Unregistered SBR' prosecution by the ATF in Ohio, detailed here:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....l-rifle-prosecution/

I've searched EVERYWHERE, far & wide, and read the GCA & NFA to no avail. I find NO specifics, in Law and/or Regulations published ANYWHERE! In fact, curiously the BATF had the critical ATF Opinion Letters (Defense evidence and seemingly the ONLY thing we ever have to go on), as well as other court documents sealed with the respect to the 'Unregistered SBR' case in OHIO, so that's not even something to credibly reference anyway!

You'd think that there ought to be a law they could stand on, but you'd be mistaken...

A “brace” doesn’t have a length of pull. Or a cheek weld. Or product videos showing it repeatedly being shouldered. This last one I haven’t personally seen, but I read that in their Instagram page they only showed it shouldered.

This entire “brace” thing is a gift from the ATF. Throwing it in their face is not a good idea.

When I say it’s a gift, I mean it’s a gift of a workaround to the SBR requirements. I am NOT saying I’m in favor of the NFA, but it is the current law.

Their brace design is proprietary. I am wondering, do they submit a prototype to BATF for approval prior to production, or do they just make it and hope it flies?