I still find zero logic in either method. Where are the PF lawyers? I don’t see how they can single out one maker and turn a blind eye to the hundreds of others.Originally Posted by HCM
I still find zero logic in either method. Where are the PF lawyers? I don’t see how they can single out one maker and turn a blind eye to the hundreds of others.
I actually pulled the early-version SB Tactical brace from my LAW-foldered DDM4 V7P some time ago, for cleaning, but kept it separated, pending the earlier question about whether a 13.5” LOP is sufficient to constitute a “stock.” A LAW folder adds more than an inch to the LOP, and the SBT braces add yet more to the LOP.
A lack of enough 300 AAC/BLK meant that I did not have enough of any one load to truly vet a sufficient number of carry mags, so I was not shooting the weapon, anyway. (I did, however, just take delivery of 300 rounds of Barnes 110-grain supersonic, so can, finally, vet a meaningful number of mags.)
So, I am curious what the BATFE is thinking, in going after the Honey Badger. Should I continue to keep the brace absolutely separate from my DDM4 V7P weapon, or, is something totally different in question?
Notably, my DDM4 V7P’s RE is too large, in diameter, to accept mil-spec or commercial stocks.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
Damn. And I searched ATF and Honey Badger with no results.
Test case from an “unfriendly” field office against a smaller manufacturer who probably has less money to fight it in the courts vs a larger company? Dipping their toes in the water so to speak.
im strong, i can run faster than train
You bring up a good point. I thought it was odd the letter came from the Boston office instead of the NFA Branch or whatever it’s called. Wonder if one was used in a crime against someone “important?”
Disclaimer: As per previous ATF discussion thread, I could be wrong. I’m not an expert.
That being said, I thought how you title the Form 4473 determined how the firearm was transferred and titled. Take an AR-15 lower for example. Transfer it as a rifle, and it is a rifle. Do not put a pistol arm brace on it, for it is not a pistol. Same for a pistol lower. Transfer it as a pistol, and it is a pistol. Put a pistol brace on it, put an upper with a barrel shorter than 16” on it, for it is a pistol. Do not put a rifle stock on it and a short barrel, for then it becomes an SBR (silly, I know).
I agree. Let’s do away with this rifle/pistol/shotgun nonsense. Length, rifling, etc... Founders intent, common usage. Does not matter a whit to sporting purposes or reducing crime. I shoot for sport, hunting, defense and all lawful purposes. I am the gun culture. Read Unintended Consequences again.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master"
Thanks. Interesting. It's noted here and elsewhere that they went after Q and nobody else but specifically mentioned the SB brace. But they haven't gone after SB at all. Despite (and I've said this myself) that they have to know nobody is using SBA3/4's as an "arm brace". (Clarification: the Honey Badger uses neither)
Based on not much more than a very quick google search, there's been about 55,000 SBR's registered per year in the last five years or so. Or roughly $11,000,000 a year. Don't bullshit us and call it "public safety". If it's a money issue, spread the pain and charge a $30 tax on every barrel under 16" and deregulate SBR's. You and I both know a pistol with a brace is the same damn thing.
Last edited by Darth_Uno; 10-06-2020 at 06:14 PM.
I know they were states were you can own brace pistols but not NFA items but honestly if I could get a factory SBR via an E file form 4 in 30 days instead of a year I would probably have a lot more SBRs.
If they want more tax revenue Put form threes and form fours on e-file.
I am thinking this is ultimately going to come down to the 'type' of brace and whether or not it can really fit over the forearm and be used as originally intended.
To me the Honey Badger brace always seems right on the cusp (it wouldn't really fit over my forearm) to be used as designed.
I think I things like the Tailhook brace, where it works, pretty much regardless of arm size/shape/fit, for the intended purpose. I see them having a harder time going after the Tailhook-type braces in the long term, versus the split ones with a strap.
Reply With Quote