Atf decides to redefine common pistols as aow

[MCgrease08]

I don't think so. Until we tell them otherwise, they think they are all black rifles. They didn't know a pistol from a rifle until we tell them.

They may well hate black rifles, but just ask an anti-gunner to define an AR pistol. They can't do it.

They don't need to be able to define different features. They know if it's popular they can try to ban it. Here is an article about a bill to ban braces from back in January 2019. I'm sure you can find examples of house bills that were introduced well before last year.

DEMS INTRODUCE NEW FEDERAL 'ASSAULT WEAPON' BAN THAT INCLUDES PISTOL BRACES

 

[bwframe]

They don't need to be able to define different features. They know if it's popular they can try to ban it. Here is an article about a bill to ban braces from back in January 2019. I'm sure you can find examples of house bills that were introduced well before last year.

DEMS INTRODUCE NEW FEDERAL 'ASSAULT WEAPON' BAN THAT INCLUDES PISTOL BRACES

That article pretty much goes to my point. The dems drafted an AWB. Their top line and most of the content of their ban was for the military style repeating rifles. Pistols and braces were included, but not the highlight of the ban. The dem's intent was all about banning all weapons that act and look military like. They consider them all the same.

It's us the gun crowd that makes pistols and braces the focus. Otherwise, the dems wouldn't know any difference.

It's my contention that every time we make light of "pistol braces" we help target the devices for scrutiny and thus their own separate action rather than their inclusion with all the rest of "assault weapons," to attempt to be banned.

It doesn't do us any good to promote this issue to those who would happily remove all of our 2A, be it all at once or a little at a time. Someone should educate Mike Braun on this.

And yes, I understand that I'm a participant here in educating the anti's. That's why I'm out on this argument, (as should be the rest of us.) Hopefully, I've contributed something to our side with my ?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I received this email from Sen. Braun today...

Dear ---------,
As a Hoosier constituent who has contacted my office in the past regarding Second Amendment issues I wanted to update you on an issue I’ve been working on in D.C. on yourbehalf.
Recently, a group of Hoosiers contacted me concerned about the ATF’s actions concerning the Honey Badger Pistol and non-public standards being used at the agency. My office has looked into it and agreed that this position from the ATF should be clarified and I have requested specific information as you will see below.
I am an avid hunter, a National Rifle Association member, and stand in support of the Second Amendment. In the Senate, I will oppose efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners and willprotect their ability to defend themselves and their families in life-threatening situations.
According to a letter sent by the ATF to Q, LLC, “The Firearms and Ammunitions Technology Division (FATD) examined the Honey Badger Pistol manufactured and marketed by Q, LLC and determined the firearm is a short-barreled rifle as defined under the NFA. A short-barreled rifle is subject to the registration, transfer, taxation, and possession restrictions regarding these regulated firearms, which include criminal penalties relating to the illegal transfer and possession of said firearms.”
The ATF has yet to specifically clarify what constitutes as an “AR styled pistol” besides taking the approach of “you know it when you see it.” I believe the ATF must clearly and distinctly articulate their position, and inform the public of said stances and regulations. A “know it when you see it” approach to firearms by the ATF is ambiguous and can quickly become a slippery-slope for all legal gun owners.
I have inquired about this guidance with the Department of Justice, more specifically the ATF, to ensure that Hoosier gun owners are in compliance with law, while eliminating any needless ambiguity within ATF regulatory language. I have been working with key members of congress in order to get more clarity from the ATF on this specific issue. You can find my letter to the ATF attached below and here.
Thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to serve as your U.S. Senator from Indiana. Please keep in touch with me on issues of concern to you. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook for real-time updates on my activities in the U.S. Senate. If I ever may be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sincerely,

Mike Braun
U.S. Senator

I tagged the wrong thread earlier. This looks very familiar.

 

[actaeon277]

Respectfully senator, this is nonsense. The responsibility to clarify the language belongs to you and the rest of your colleagues in Congress, not the ATF. Especially not an ATF soon to be led by a Biden Administration.

Easiest way to clear up any misunderstandings would be to repeal the NFA, but we know you don't have the desire to do that, nevermind the lack of will.

So now what?

 

[Cameramonkey]

SB Tactical customers: Congrats. Its officially a "shoulderable device", and therefore a SBR. MotherF**er.


https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6emLE3lYC


What pisses me off is SB Tactical has known about this for 2 years according to the FOIA, but continued to sell their braces. Both of my braces are less than a year old.

 

[Ballstater98]

ATF Singles Out 23 SB Tactical Firearms Braces that Do Not Have Determination Letters

https://koliasa.com/military/atf-singles-out-23-sb-tactical-firearms-braces-that-do-not-have-determination-letters

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'll ask because I don't know (good reason to ask...), is there a big difference among the pistol braces? The people who decided rifle barrels are 16" or greater, and shotgun barrels are 18" or greater are behind the thinking, so I see a huge problem coming...

 

[Jericho941Fan]

So, are we at the point where we should be removing our pistol braces to play it safe?

 

[jagee]

I own exactly 0 pistol braces. I've considered it but never got around to it. like this is why I never pulled the trigger.

 

[MindfulMan]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but until now, I've never heard of Ammoland, or this northern Virginia attorney that writes through them.
How could a company like Springfield Armory, for example, still be selling complete AR pistols with the SB3 braces attached ..... if this was true ? Surely, Springfield has a cadre of lawyers who would have sniffed out this info (supposedly from 2018) before presenting these AR pistols for public sale. Something doesn't add-up !

 

[BroodXI]

Bet BRCC is happy as hell about the latest SB tactical news. This year just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Ruger_Ronin]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but until now, I've never heard of Ammoland, or this northern Virginia attorney that writes through them.
How could a company like Springfield Armory, for example, still be selling complete AR pistols with the SB3 braces attached ..... if this was true ? Surely, Springfield has a cadre of lawyers who would have sniffed out this info (supposedly from 2018) before presenting these AR pistols for public sale. Something doesn't add-up !

I was thinking the same thing. Same for Ruger's 10.5", and Sig's 11.5" tread line.

Oh, and FtheATF. How's that for alphabets?

 

[MindfulMan]

I was thinking the same thing. Same for Ruger's 10.5", and Sig's 11.5" tread line.

Oh, and FtheATF. How's that for alphabets?

We're on the same page, amigo !

 

[MCgrease08]

So, are we at the point where we should be removing our pistol braces to play it safe?

Hell no. IMHO, we are to the point of refusing to comply with any of this nonsense. I'm not turning in ****.

 

[worddoer]

I have seen many ask how to comply. I can understand the sentiment as we (those on INGO) are trying to be "legal" gun owners.

However, at this stage in the game, I don't see how that is possible. Currently the ATF is refusing to provide clear instructions on how to stay legal. That means that even for those who want to comply, you can't. The ATF won't let you comply because they won't tell you the rules.

Essentially the ATF is saying "We refuse to tell you what the law is, but if you break it, you will be punished!"

And can we be surprised that allowing the ATF to "interpret" law has come back to bite gun owners in the butt. I mean, no one cared much when they banned bump stocks, or 7N6 ammo. All with no law.....just with the stroke of a pen. Some unelected unaccountable bureaucrat behind a desk taking rights away. It rustled a few feathers when they tried to ban M855 ammo, and that was stopped at the time. If people cared, it all could have been stopped in similar fashion.

The ATF is just doing what gun owners have allowed and even some have encouraged.

Sadly, there are many...even here on INGO...who are happy to hand over gun rights they don't use themselves. Too many gun owners are selfish and practice the "you can take theirs, just don't take mine" philosophy. They hand over someone else's rights thinking they are protecting their own. Lincoln said it best.....

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves" Abraham Lincoln in letter to H.L. Pierce

As gun owners, we must learn to " all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately". - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Floivanus]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but until now, I've never heard of Ammoland, or this northern Virginia attorney that writes through them.
How could a company like Springfield Armory, for example, still be selling complete AR pistols with the SB3 braces attached ..... if this was true ? Surely, Springfield has a cadre of lawyers who would have sniffed out this info (supposedly from 2018) before presenting these AR pistols for public sale. Something doesn't add-up !

What the owner (?) of SB tactical said on a stream with MAC is that ATF basically told them that anytging that utilizes the same technology and basic design was a brace and good to go, they didn’t submit a sample of each and every single configuration of brace and firearm, but took it as the go ahead to produce whatever the hell they wanted to without asking permission.

the owner of CNC warrior let the AK community know this was the case a couple years ago when they came out with their AK brace saying something like “the rest of the companies in. The brace business aren’t getting letters, so we didn’t either” when asked about approval letters.

 

[Hohn]

Except that before he was elected there were hordes of gun people fawning over him because they were telling us how great he was going to be for gun rights. We got more 2A progress under Obama than with Trump with a Republican majority.

No national politician wants us armed from either party. You can be pro Trump all you want, but don’t tell me how great he is going to be for gun owners, because that’s a proven lie.

Don’t forget that Republicans are led by elitist condescending snobs too that aren’t comfortable with uppity citizens thinking they are in charge. There are legit 2a heroes in the party, but until one of them ascends to power, you cannot count on them to prevent more infringement, never mind roll back decades of unconstitutional infringement.

 

[Hohn]

I have seen many ask how to comply. I can understand the sentiment as we (those on INGO) are trying to be "legal" gun owners.

However, at this stage in the game, I don't see how that is possible. Currently the ATF is refusing to provide clear instructions on how to stay legal. That means that even for those who want to comply, you can't. The ATF won't let you comply because they won't tell you the rules.

Essentially the ATF is saying "We refuse to tell you what the law is, but if you break it, you will be punished!"

And can we be surprised that allowing the ATF to "interpret" law has come back to bite gun owners in the butt. I mean, no one cared much when they banned bump stocks, or 7N6 ammo. All with no law.....just with the stroke of a pen. Some unelected unaccountable bureaucrat behind a desk taking rights away. It rustled a few feathers when they tried to ban M855 ammo, and that was stopped at the time. If people cared, it all could have been stopped in similar fashion.

The ATF is just doing what gun owners have allowed and even some have encouraged.

Sadly, there are many...even here on INGO...who are happy to hand over gun rights they don't use themselves. Too many gun owners are selfish and practice the "you can take theirs, just don't take mine" philosophy. They hand over someone else's rights thinking they are protecting their own. Lincoln said it best.....

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves" Abraham Lincoln in letter to H.L. Pierce

As gun owners, we must learn to " all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall hang separately". - Benjamin Franklin

rep mag dry, someone cover me!

 

[spencer rifle]

rep mag dry, someone cover me!

Done.

 

[maxwelhse]

It's us the gun crowd that makes pistols and braces the focus. Otherwise, the dems wouldn't know any difference.

I remember probably 6 or 8 years ago when these things started getting popular a large number of guys writing the ATF so they could get individual letters with their names on them stating that a brace does not make an SBR.

Writing a letter that goes, "Hey, I'm pretty sure this is illegal, but you say it's not, so... do you mean it?" is a stupid idea. If I had to guess based on what I was seeing at the time, at least several thousand guys did exactly that. No one was pretending that there was a significant difference in function between a braced pistol and an actual SBR. It was always a loophole and I think most of us were surprised it existed to begin with.

I don't agree with any of it, but I'm honestly surprised it took this many years of poking the bear right in the eye to get a reaction... although this is like the 5th or 6th reaction because guys just can't stop poking the bear.