ATF seeks to reclassify pistol braces as NFA items
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
I’m not really taking sides as I own pistol braces too...
But, if I were to design a brace to better accommodate one handed shooting... it wouldn’t look like a butt-stock, just saying.
All the braces I’ve seen, seems like they were trying to make something that would minimally work as a brace while maximizing its appearance as a stock.
But, if I were to design a brace to better accommodate one handed shooting... it wouldn’t look like a butt-stock, just saying.
All the braces I’ve seen, seems like they were trying to make something that would minimally work as a brace while maximizing its appearance as a stock.
I understand we are dealing with a bureaucracy that has power. They may not be looking for the same thing I am. Maybe I want Freedom,and maybe they want power and control (anti-freedom)
So what makes sense to me might not make sense to them.
I hate to do it,but I'll quote Hillary Clinton: Brace/no brace ??? "What Difference Does It Make"???
What horrible effect will take place if the BATF just shrugs and says "Braces are OK." and, "Use it however you like,so long as its safe and you aren't commiting crimes"
You know,what inspired the interest in these guns,for many people, was the violence of uncontrolled mobs in the streets taking over.
Government and law enforcement were not protecting the people.
IT WAS TO DANGEROUS FOR THE POLICE TO BE THERE
And now we know we cannot rely on any help in the future. I have to rely on myself.
At ranges appropriate to self defense, my AR pistol is among the best tools could have for protecting myself from a mob.
Why is that a problem?
So what makes sense to me might not make sense to them.
I hate to do it,but I'll quote Hillary Clinton: Brace/no brace ??? "What Difference Does It Make"???
What horrible effect will take place if the BATF just shrugs and says "Braces are OK." and, "Use it however you like,so long as its safe and you aren't commiting crimes"
You know,what inspired the interest in these guns,for many people, was the violence of uncontrolled mobs in the streets taking over.
Government and law enforcement were not protecting the people.
IT WAS TO DANGEROUS FOR THE POLICE TO BE THERE
And now we know we cannot rely on any help in the future. I have to rely on myself.
At ranges appropriate to self defense, my AR pistol is among the best tools could have for protecting myself from a mob.
Why is that a problem?
Trouble is, they can't say that. And if you use it as a stock, you ARE committing a crime. Unless you have prior ATF approval.
and here's another point to consider, about defending yourself from a mob,
WHO do you shoot? Who are you JUSTIFIED shooting?? I don't know if we have established legal guidelines about shooting a mob other than you can't...
You can be justified shooting to defend your self from an immediate threat. Now, which ones of the mob are such a threat? The guy throwing a brick? Probably, deadly weapon, etc. The guy with the molotov cocktail? I'd say so. The guy with a club 30 feet away??? not so much..the guy with no weapon yelling threats, standing next to the guy with the brick?? doubt he's an immediate threat,
Can't think of anyone a prosecutor would more like to send to prison than the "right wing gun nut" who "took the law into his own hands" and sprayed the "mostly peacful" protesters with his "assault weapon" causing multiple injuries and deaths...
You DON'T want to be that guy....
Of course, if you're no longer alive, court rulings against you are of little concern...
That right there is the scariest part of it being to dangerous for LEO to be there . The only defense I can think of but would likely never fly , well not in CA anyways would be ( disparity of force ) . I don't see a mob being much different then several young men aggressively moving towards an old frail "victim" . The young men need not even have weapons , there numbers and ability to beat the living snot out of the old frail victim is enough to allow him to use deadly force to defend him self .
When trying to hold back a mob and LEO ordered to stand down . The single homeowner or business owner should have some leeway in defending them selves and property . I would also add that the "if" one were to injure one of the "Mostly Peaceful" mod protesters . The guy with the brick should be charged with that assaults' because had it not been for them that "protester would not have been injured . haha yeah right , like that will ever be the law .
You'd need one hell of a lawyer and several judges as you move through the appeal process on your side as well . ;-)
Oh yeah I forgot one other thing you'll need . A whole lot of money !$!$!$!$!$!
Last edited:
I'd say the Rittenhouse trial is worth paying attention to.
Is anyone really advocating spraying a crowd? I'm not. Why stigmatize the guy who considers "If I have to fight for my life,what do I want in my hands?"
Rittenhouse did not spray the crowd,and he MAY have inflicted collateral damage to the crowd had he been whacking away with a Glock 19. He only hit who he intended to hit.
You have not noticed the tactics of the mob? One or two on one might be handled with a J-frame S+W but how about 9 on one? Swinging blunt force weapons and head stomps? Times have changed.
I've read well reasoned TFL Mod advice your EDC pistol should hold at least 12 rounds.
To be fair,you are probably right about the prosecutor.
Is anyone really advocating spraying a crowd? I'm not. Why stigmatize the guy who considers "If I have to fight for my life,what do I want in my hands?"
Rittenhouse did not spray the crowd,and he MAY have inflicted collateral damage to the crowd had he been whacking away with a Glock 19. He only hit who he intended to hit.
You have not noticed the tactics of the mob? One or two on one might be handled with a J-frame S+W but how about 9 on one? Swinging blunt force weapons and head stomps? Times have changed.
I've read well reasoned TFL Mod advice your EDC pistol should hold at least 12 rounds.
To be fair,you are probably right about the prosecutor.
This is all a bit crazy. From an ATF enforcement perspective, I see they have these options:
1) Declare braces as something not written into current law and set to ignore. Maybe even state that brace is defined nowhere in current law, so congress must act. Without congress, brace is an undefined term.
2) Declare braces as stocks. Declare that they totally screwed up the entire AR15 marketplace for years and require all be quickly and easily converted to sbr’s by some kind of short form, no fee.
3) Define some new brace device. Create some form to track what serial number they were sold with and add this to the process of buying a brace AR. Grandfather all previous sold.
Only #1 seems to not require the atf to make law. #3 is simple well, until you try to track or enforce laws that don’t exist. #1 is the solution.
I’m sure there is some kind of buyback thing that could be worked into this....but why?
1) Declare braces as something not written into current law and set to ignore. Maybe even state that brace is defined nowhere in current law, so congress must act. Without congress, brace is an undefined term.
2) Declare braces as stocks. Declare that they totally screwed up the entire AR15 marketplace for years and require all be quickly and easily converted to sbr’s by some kind of short form, no fee.
3) Define some new brace device. Create some form to track what serial number they were sold with and add this to the process of buying a brace AR. Grandfather all previous sold.
Only #1 seems to not require the atf to make law. #3 is simple well, until you try to track or enforce laws that don’t exist. #1 is the solution.
I’m sure there is some kind of buyback thing that could be worked into this....but why?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Probably not possible. Short barreled rifles are NFA items by federal law, so the BATFE can't waive the fee. It's not a "fee" -- it's a "tax."Nathan said:
90 House Members push back
I'd rather give up the brace and keep the pistol status.
Unlike a NFA SBR, its not unlawful (in my state) to carry an AR pistol concealed(with concealed permit), to have the chamber loaded in a vehicle,and it is not necessary to notify the BATF to cross a state line.
Under the circumstances I face today, I have no interest in carrying my AR pistol concealed,or loaded in a vehicle.If I were traveling interstate....maybe I'd want it along.
An NFA weapon can carry a stigma,depending on the beholder.
But all that is subject to change.Who knows what the next couple of years will bring.
2020 might become "The Good Old Days"
This article came up regarding 90 House Members suggesting the BATF should back off on braces.
And the article credits the NRA as being part of the effort.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9...ting-of-popular-gun/ar-BB1cbhgc?ocid=msedgntp
I'd rather give up the brace and keep the pistol status.
Unlike a NFA SBR, its not unlawful (in my state) to carry an AR pistol concealed(with concealed permit), to have the chamber loaded in a vehicle,and it is not necessary to notify the BATF to cross a state line.
Under the circumstances I face today, I have no interest in carrying my AR pistol concealed,or loaded in a vehicle.If I were traveling interstate....maybe I'd want it along.
An NFA weapon can carry a stigma,depending on the beholder.
But all that is subject to change.Who knows what the next couple of years will bring.
2020 might become "The Good Old Days"
This article came up regarding 90 House Members suggesting the BATF should back off on braces.
And the article credits the NRA as being part of the effort.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9...ting-of-popular-gun/ar-BB1cbhgc?ocid=msedgntp
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
And just like that it's over for now..........
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
Frank Ettin
Administrator
We’re done for now. If things start up again so can the discussion.
- Status