Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 192

Thread: ATF issues cease and desist on Q LLC Honey Badger Pistol

  1. #181
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    That has not been my experience with CID and AFOSI personnel in such situations.

    The fact that there is no publicly available refence is and agency / HQ / policy level issue - it has nothing to do with field level personnel.

    There is no such thing as an "Inspecting Agent" there are inspectors and there are agents. Inspectors are not LE. They are admin auditors.

    Either way, if there is no written / publicly policy on something "No comment / I don't know" IS the good faith answer.

    Giving an FFL hearsay, rumor or personal opinion is setting them up for problems.
    Good to know, the ATF inspectors I've met never made any differentiation between inspector and agent.

    Admittedly, I've had very few dealings with CID. What experience I do have on that side is from assisting a few IO's on 15-6 investigations, which roped in some higher OSJA elements and IG people, and in that context there was always a way to get an immediate answer on Army regs.

    But once it's a matter of building a criminal case, that's when the 'no comment' comes out, and that's why it ruffles my feathers to see 'no comment' answers from a professional who frankly ought to be an authority on such things, or at least have a 'heres the current understanding' answer available.
    I know my opinion doesn't count for a goddamn thing in the grand scheme of things, but considering the ATF's mission and lane they really ought to be the exception and have answers on such things.

  2. #182
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    Good to know, the ATF inspectors I've met never made any differentiation between inspector and agent.

    Admittedly, I've had very few dealings with CID. What experience I do have on that side is from assisting a few IO's on 15-6 investigations, which roped in some higher OSJA elements and IG people, and in that context there was always a way to get an immediate answer on Army regs.

    But once it's a matter of building a criminal case, that's when the 'no comment' comes out, and that's why it ruffles my feathers to see 'no comment' answers from a professional who frankly ought to be an authority on such things, or at least have a 'heres the current understanding' answer available.
    I know my opinion doesn't count for a goddamn thing in the grand scheme of things, but considering the ATF's mission and lane they really ought to be the exception and have answers on such things.
    The issue is there is no current understanding an ATF employee can give with 100% assurance.

    The latest stuff in writing from the tech branch and general counsel is that braces are accessories and as such is doesn't matter how you hold them.

    AFAIK the 13.5' LOP thing derived from the failed prosecution of a dude who modified a brace with a rubber cane tip. So we'll call that "case law" even though it is clearly not legal precedent.

    What you have is people at the upper / political levels of ATF who disagree about braces. Some issues the pro brace Accessory/ hold it any way you want written guidance and some want to see braces considered SBRs.

    Basically a field level employee commenting on that has a 50/50 chance of being wrong and pissing off a higher up of the opposite opinion. Like Sgt. officially addressing troops without waiting for the official word on a about a matter generals are still arguing about.

    This sort of thing is why the changes proposed by Trump in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ms-from-the-WH

    have the potential to go so wrong. While Obama era hold out are the problem of the moment, I would rather deal with them and have the option for pro-gun people to hunker down and do some good in a Biden/Harris administration ATF.

  3. #183
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    The issue is there is no current understanding an ATF employee can give with 100% assurance.

    The latest stuff in writing from the tech branch and general counsel is that braces are accessories and as such is doesn't matter how you hold them.

    AFAIK the 13.5' LOP thing derived from the failed prosecution of a dude who modified a brace with a rubber cane tip. So we'll call that "case law" even though it is clearly not legal precedent.

    What you have is people at the upper / political levels of ATF who disagree about braces. Some issues the pro brace Accessory/ hold it any way you want written guidance and some want to see braces considered SBRs.

    Basically a field level employee commenting on that has a 50/50 chance of being wrong and pissing off a higher up of the opposite opinion. Like Sgt. officially addressing troops without waiting for the official word on a about a matter generals are still arguing about.

    This sort of thing is why the changes proposed by Trump in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ms-from-the-WH

    have the potential to go so wrong. While Obama era hold out are the problem of the moment, I would rather deal with them and have the option for pro-gun people to hunker down and do some good in a Biden/Harris administration ATF.
    That makes the current situation make a lot more sense... Not a good situation, but best to understand it accurately. Thank you for taking the time to make that clear for dense folks such as myself!

  4. #184
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Irving TX
    I don't know if this is a "sky is falling" video or not, it sounds serious.


  5. #185
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Vandal320 View Post
    I don't know if this is a "sky is falling" video or not, it sounds serious.

    That video is fake news.

    The link posted in this thread talks about what is actually going on: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....essing-Imports

    Link: https://comms.wiley.law/8/3583/octob...tration(2).asp

    TLDR version:

    ATF is re-evaluating the definition of "handgun" for the purposes of import determinations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 . This has nothing to do with domestically produced pistols or pistols which have already been imported.

  6. #186
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Frankly, more LE agencies should instruct their field personnel not to offer advice or interpretations.

    Working in a police-supply/gun shop for several years in the late 90s I got tons of bogus advice and interpretation of the law from cops. Some of which I didn’t learn or discover was bogus for many years. Some of it has still proven valuable since so many in LE seem to think they are correct that it might as well be law. (E.g. the “three step rule” for securing firearms in vehicles).

    Same really should go for firearms and shooting advice. Nobody asks a cabbie what car to buy or for driving lessons. But that’s probably another thread.
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  7. #187
    Anyone seeing this as a rush on all things AR pistol? Or think it will hold until after the election?

    I’ve been considering a classic AR pistol build, mimicking Val Kilmer’s gun from Heat. Have an Echo trigger to toss in, and looking at a lower that is marked like an M4 Carbine (Safe, Semi, Burst).

    Legality wise, I really can’t care what will happen in regards to current purchases. Might become “illegal,” but eventually all guns will be. Rather live in the day than worrying about X years down the line turning into the future from Demolition Man. Figuring ordering it now will be better than not... election goes into the Twilight Zone, and I won’t be able to get the stuff.

    Don’t need it... but when has that stopped a purchase?

  8. #188
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania

    ATF issues cease and desist on Q LLC Honey Badger Pistol

    If I wanted an AR pistol today, I would buy one that is already completed and sold as a handgun, and which has nothing extending out the rear of the gun more than 13.5 inches from the trigger whether measured parallel to the barrel or otherwise. I would then leave anything associated with the buffer tube or any brace that may be present completely unmodified.

    While there is no guarantee about what ATF might do, or what Congress will do if the election goes badly, at least the worst issue then becomes what do you need to do to stay compliant rather than whether a rogue agency can or would try to make a case that you are already not compliant.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.

  9. #189
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ca...E1vdJIFXTZADkE

    Calm Down, the ATF Has Not Ruled That Your AR or AK Pistol is an NFA Regulated Item
    ATF


    If you spend time watching YouTube videos and trolling the gunosphere, you may have run across some videos and other posts announcing that the ATF has now considers any braced AR or AK pistol to be “any other weapon” and is therefore regulated under the National Firearms Act, with all of the paperwork and taxes that goes along with it.

    Here’s what you need to know about these claims: THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

    No such ruling or communication from the ATF has been issued.

    The current hysteria apparently stems from two thing; the ATF’s recent cease and desist letter sent to Q regarding the Honey Badger pistol and an email blast sent by a lawfirm regarding AR and AK pistol imports.

    There are two things to keep in mind here. First, the letter regarding the Honey Badger applies only to that one firearm. Yes, it’s possible that the ATF could expand that ruling to other similar firearms, but they have made no such move to do so…and they won’t, at least the 60-day suspension period on their letter expires in December.

    Second, the communication from the Wiley law firm is speculation directed to their clients about what could happen regarding imported braced pistols. Read the full letter here.

    In company-specific letters, ATF takes the position that if a submitted firearm is too long or too heavy, it fails to meet the definition of “handgun” under the Gun Control Act, as it is not “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of ATF—which conducts importability evaluations—says that it is taking a subjective approach to the statute by allowing individual examiners to determine if he or she can fire the weapon with one hand without difficulty.

    This approach is resulting in inconsistent determinations, of which the regulated community should take note. Within the past few months, at least one HK91 pistol-style submission as light as 8 pounds, with a barrel length of 8-3/4 inches and an overall length of 21-3/4 inches, has been determined to fall outside the definition of “handgun.” This is a change from previous determinations where firearms weighing over 8 pounds, with 20-inch barrels, and an overall length of approximately 31-1/2 inches were held by FATD to be “handguns.” Since the letters are not publicly available, it is impossible for regulated companies to know the full range of FATD’s determinations. This has serious implications for regulated businesses.

    The question here deals with whether any specific firearm can meet the ATF’s “sporting purposes” test and therefore is importable.

    In some of the new letters, ATF has begun listing the following “objective design features” when making its evaluations:

    Incorporation of rifle sights;
    Utilization of “rifle caliber ammunition” (both 5.56mm and 7.62mm have been considered as such);
    Incorporation of “rifle-length barrel;”1
    The “weapon’s heavy weight;”
    Ability to accept magazines that range in capacity from 20 rounds to 100 rounds, “which will contribute to the overall weight of the firearm”; and
    Overall length of the weapon which “creates a front-heavy imbalance when held in one hand.”
    However, ATF also noted in the most recent private ruling that the above design features are “neither binding on future classifications nor is any factor individually determinative[.]” ATF explained without elaboration that “the statutory and regulatory definitions provide the appropriate standard in classifying the firearm.” ATF concluded that “a firearm that is too large, too heavy or . . . otherwise not designed to be held and fired in one hand (as demonstrated by the objective features) cannot be a handgun under the statutory definition and cannot be subject to importation criteria governing handguns.”

    Again, these “standards,” such as they are, have only been communicated to individual companies regarding specific firearms. The ATF is notoriously opaque about their testing and standards for all things ballistic, sporting purposes qualifications included. As Wiley concludes,

    In light of ATF’s subjective and inconsistent analysis of size and weight, it is difficult to predict how the agency will classify any given firearm under this standard.

    Wiley goes on to note that the ATF says, “consideration of the objective design features of a firearm to determine the designed and/or intended use is clearly not a change in policy.”

    Could this all be bad news? Yes, it could. The Honey Badger affair is not a good sign. The ATF issued their 60-day stay, but that was probably just a way to push the issue past the election to see which way the political winds are blowing in December. A Biden win will be bad news for all kinds of firearms, braced pistols included.

    As for the Wiley email, again, it is all pure (though well-informed) speculation regarding what the ATF might do. They conclude this way:

    Under ATF’s new interpretation of the handgun definition, millions of AR-15 style pistols could be considered “too large, or too heavy” to fall within ATF’s new interpretation, thereby making them unregistered NFA weapons, and subjecting manufacturers and gun owners to criminal prosecution. Given the private nature of ATF’s classification rulings, and the subjective nature of the analysis, it is extremely difficult to know for sure whether specific firearms fall within the new interpretation.

    Given that uncertainty, Wiley suggests that manufacturers and importers proceed with caution regarding large outlays of cash for inventory and equipment. That’s probably reasonable advice in an uncertain regulatory climate.

    The problem here, as always, is the ATF and their arbitrary, “fluid” definitions of what is and is not an NFA-regulated firearm…and what does and doesn’t fall under the nebulous “sporting purposes” definition.

    The guns in question here are small enough to be concealed, but aren’t designed — according to the ATF — to be fired with one hand. Thus the ATF is apparently considering some of these firearms as non-importable AOWs.

    Will this have an application for domestically produced firearms? Is the ATF getting ready for a post-election assault on braced pistols? No one knows. It’s all speculation now and Wiley is alerting its clients to the possibility of further regulatory changes…because that’s what the ATF does. It waves its regulatory wand and issues edicts — frequently conflicting with earlier rulings on the same items — whipsawing the firearms industry and gun owners.

    But nothing has happened yet. Your AR or AK pistol is still legal, no matter what you’ve been reading. Will they stay that way? No one knows for sure and probably won’t until long after next Tuesday.

  10. #190
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Some problems with the "fired with one hand" part of the "standard:"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCra4qOrjFw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ulWGiJb1uI

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •