What are people likely to do with their AR pistols after Augusts rule change?

[MCgrease08]

So, if you own an AR/AK pistol and a shoulder brace, sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the brace and you're good.

What other legally owned property should one destroy based on the whims of some unelected beauracrat?

 

[TrueSeanamus]

Sounds then like they are of “common use” and the US Supreme Court has already ruled that you cannot ban “common use” firearms. Thank you for pointing that out attorney Colion Noir.

United States vs Miller

US v Miller ruled that only weapons useful for use in the militia were protected by the 2a as well iirc.

There have been so many contradicting rulings it doesn’t really seem to matter what any but the most recent say and those don’t even matter if they aren’t enforced.

 

[MCgrease08]

And I'm not defending the ATF, in any way shape or form. I just think a) this particular accessory is silly and defeats the purpose of owning a rifle caliber pistol, b) this accessory is the ONLY thing that's under "attack" here and rifle caliber pistols are not - spreading any other message is spreading FUD.

Oh yeah, I'm totally sure they'll stop here. No aaaaaay they'll come after anything else if this scheme works.

 

[FishersCPA]

This will be before SCOTUS soon. I see them stopping this cold.
As to the new AWB aka Semiautomatic firearms ban. It will be before SCOTUS and get a big slap down. In fact the House of representatives passed that when it is a clear violation of previous SCOTUS ruling. Even if the senate doesn't save us I believe SCOTUS will.
Thank you Trump!

My only fear is that what I said about Obamacare...and then Roberts happened.

 

[ditcherman]

Oh yeah, I'm totally sure they'll stop here. No aaaaaay they'll come after anything else if this scheme works.

Your accessory is silly, stop whining.
ETA: also, I learned you are a fudd.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Your accessory is silly, stop whining.
ETA: also, I learned you are a fudd.

To be clear, the wambulance emoji is easy to trigger. I think one of the few that doesn’t require colons. That wasn’t intentional as I had it happen the other day.

 

[ditcherman]

To be clear, the wambulance emoji is easy to trigger. I think one of the few that doesn’t require colons. That wasn’t intentional as I had it happen the other day.

I’m aware of the ambulance emoji and didn’t read it as “whaa”, like whining, I read his words as the reasonable sarcasm they were meant to be.
Hence, my purple. Would have used deeper purple if it was available.
I think he knows I agree with him.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Missed the purple on my phone, sorry. carry on.

 

[Onebad06vtx]

That dreaded boating accident!

 

[rooster]

That dreaded boating accident!

ah the ol “someone else will take action so I don’t have to” line of thinking.

It’s this exact effect that makes me think the whole “Q” phenomenon was planned “opposition”. As long as people thought someone else was gonna take care of the problem they just stayed quite in hopes “the plan” would materialize.

Also known as the bystander effect.

 

[Brownbyhonor]

Well since shoelaces are machine guns I expect velcro from shoes to become an NFA good as well.

Edit: and while we're on that side discussion I firmly believe rubber bands should be banned from being around AsSaULt WeaPOnZ too because of the bump-stock-ability. I heard online you can use them to fire those AR-16s on FULLY SEMI AUTOMATIC with a rubber band.

So they need to go, asap, ideally yesterdee.

Rubber bands have been my choice for years. I got a huge bag of full auto rubber bands in my office

 

[nagantoid]

What other legally owned property should one destroy based on the whims of some unelected beauracrat?

I hear you. I agree with your sentiment. I'm _only_ saying that the firearm itself is not being "delegalized", just the accessory.

 

[nagantoid]

Oh yeah, I'm totally sure they'll stop here. No aaaaaay they'll come after anything else if this scheme works.

Sure (it's happened before), but that will be tomorrow's battle. Right now, no point battling a "ban" on rifle-caliber pistols that doesn't actually exist. Anyone who wants to fight the good fight regarding what's _actually_ being shadow-banned - viz. "stabilizer braces" - now that's a real fight that's happening right now. Focus your energy there and not on a putative future ban on the firearms themselves.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Sure (it's happened before), but that will be tomorrow's battle. Right now, no point battling a "ban" on rifle-caliber pistols that doesn't actually exist. Anyone who wants to fight the good fight regarding what's _actually_ being shadow-banned - viz. "stabilizer braces" - now that's a real fight that's happening right now. Focus your energy there and not on a putative future ban on the firearms themselves.

I think you're misreading the discussion here.

The point is, for the vast majority of people, without a stabilizer brace their AR pistol becomes either extremely difficult or impossible to use for its intended purpose, which, unless I'm way off base here, is as a home defense/CQB gun essentially designed to fill the role of an SBR, just without the tax stamp. Without the stabilizing brace, using an AR pistol as a shoulder-fired weapon is simply not practical, which entirely defeats the purpose that most people bought/built their AR pistol for.

Now, yes, it's true that the brace is really just a blatant attempt to jump through a loophole and create something that is effectively an SBR, while not technically being one. You'd have to be silly to try to deny that. Based on this fact, if you want, you can easily argue that it's perfectly fair for the ATF to make an effective ban on these AR "pistols." That's gonna be a really hard sell, especially after they previously declared them legal and let several years go by for thousands of people to spend money buying them, but you can make that argument.

However, getting all "Oh, they're technically not making AR pistols illegal, just the braces" is just being disingenuous: banning the braces would make AR pistols borderline unusable for what most people want them for now, so yes, it's fair to talk about this rule change as being, for all practical purposes for 90% of AR pistol owners, a ban on AR pistols.

 

[nagantoid]

I think you're misreading the discussion here.

The point is, for the vast majority of people, without a stabilizer brace their AR pistol becomes either extremely difficult or impossible to use for its intended purpose, which, unless I'm way off base here, is as a home defense/CQB gun essentially designed to fill the role of an SBR, just without the tax stamp. Without the stabilizing brace, using an AR pistol as a shoulder-fired weapon is simply not practical, which entirely defeats the purpose that most people bought/built their AR pistol for.

Now, yes, it's true that the brace is really just a blatant attempt to jump through a loophole and create something that is effectively an SBR, while not technically being one. You'd have to be silly to try to deny that. Based on this fact, if you want, you can easily argue that it's perfectly fair for the ATF to make an effective ban on these AR "pistols." That's gonna be a really hard sell, especially after they previously declared them legal and let several years go by for thousands of people to spend money buying them, but you can make that argument.

However, getting all "Oh, they're technically not making AR pistols illegal, just the braces" is just being disingenuous: banning the braces would make AR pistols borderline unusable for what most people want them for now, so yes, it's fair to talk about this rule change as being, for all practical purposes for 90% of AR pistol owners, a ban on AR pistols.

Thanks for that courteous and logical read on the situation. My disconnect was: I don't use my AK pistol that way (it's a semi-concealable truck gun and also a fun toy to me), and it didn't occur to me that "de facto SBR" was the primary reason people would buy/build these guns, because the few people I know who own them, own them for the same reasons I do. I get it now.

Thanks again.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Thanks for that courteous and logical read on the situation. My disconnect was: I don't use my AK pistol that way (it's a semi-concealable truck gun and also a fun toy to me), and it didn't occur to me that "de facto SBR" was the primary reason people would buy/build these guns, because the few people I know who own them, own them for the same reasons I do. I get it now.

Thanks again.

And thank you for the additional perspective. I'd never really met/heard from anyone who used an AK or AR pistol for practical purposes that would work without a stabilizing brace; maybe there's actually a lot more out there than I realized.

As for being courteous, I'm still working on it. I find that I tend to be way too snarky when I post online, but I'm trying to improve, so I'm glad my post came across well in this case.

 

[HoughMade]

There have been AR pistols for a long time and stabilizing braces were introduced in 2013 as the "SB-15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace" from SB Tactical.

Is the position I'm hearing is that there was no practical use for an AR pistol before 2013?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

There have been AR pistols for a long time and stabilizing braces were introduced in 2013 as the "SB-15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace" from SB Tactical.

Is the position I'm hearing is that there was no practical use for an AR pistol before 2013?

That's been my impression, or at least, that any practical use for AR pistols without stabilizing braces was extremely limited compared to how they are generally used now. It could be that my perception is heavily skewed, though, but the only people I've know who had any interest in AR pistols wanted something to use as a home defense gun that was short enough to be more maneuverable indoors, or else a truck gun, but in either case the ability to shoulder it was the main desired feature. I recognize that this goes blatantly against the "spirit" of the whole definition of a pistol vs and SBR, but the ATF did at one time say it was legal to shoulder such braces. It's certainly been my impression that the majority of people who bought/built AR pistols after that determination was made did so in large part intending to have a weapon that could be shoulder-fired with reasonable ease.

I'm pretty new to the gun community, though, so like I said my impression could be way off. I'd also love to see statistics on how many people bought/built AR pistols before and after stabilizing braces became possible, if such statistics even existed.

 

[bwframe]

Again, we are here educating the anti's on every little nuance of the what's and why's of how this topic is such a desired thing for gun owners.

We are giving a fairly obscure part, that has evolved into a legit work-around for an overbearing policy, way more light than is needed in the hypothetical presumption that an actual threat may come.

Why don't we just go ahead and write the anti's draft proposal for them?



They have pushed this hypothetical presumed threat decision off until after the election. What does that tell you?


.

 

[Destro]

Anyone who wants to fight the good fight regarding what's _actually_ being shadow-banned - viz. "stabilizer braces" - now that's a real fight that's happening right now.

I thought banning gimmick accessories was how we Keep America Great?