Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: ATF's Big Moves in the AR/AK Pistol Arena

  1. #21
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Totem Polar View Post
    Or ditch the brace, and still be able to bag, drive, and cross state lines with the gear. JMO. Much like yourself, if I wanted another rifle in my life, I would have found a rifle.

    16” vs 10” is just not a factor. I’m not willing to beg for 6 inches. Unlike @LittleLebowski ‘s mom...*



    * (I kid, I kid... please don’t have a drunken P-F’er kill me.)
    Well, ditching the brace was my first reaction, but, the opportunity for a “free” SBR is something that should not be missed. It is not that much trouble to acquire another AR pistol, or another AR lower upon which to mount the 10.3” upper, as needed.

    A backpack or bag large enough to contain a folded LAW-folder-equipped AR15 is one place where six inches does make quite a bit of difference. Moreover, if I were to find myself in legal possession of an amnesty-legal SBR, it should not be all that much extra trouble to have it re-barreled to an even handier length. Notifying BATFE of the change in configuration would be necessary, but that is not like starting a Form 1 from scratch.

    Edited to add: Of course, I will have to educate myself on what it entails to own/keep an NFA item. There may be things that I do not yet know that I do not know.
    Last edited by Rex G; 12-19-2020 at 03:35 PM.
    Retar’d LE

    Don’t tread on volcanos!

  2. #22
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Central Front Range, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Totem Polar View Post
    Or ditch the brace, and still be able to bag, drive, and cross state lines with the gear. JMO. Much like yourself, if I wanted another rifle in my life, I would have found a rifle.

    16” vs 10” is just not a factor. I’m not willing to beg for 6 inches. Unlike @LittleLebowski ‘s mom...*



    * (I kid, I kid... please don’t have a drunken P-F’er kill me.)

    Or, fight back and demand ACTUAL criteria for what constitutes an acceptable brace for an AR pistol.

    Not meaning to slam you, @Totem Polar, as I think you want the same.
    I just don’t want to be too quick to accept this kind of BS, arbitrary rule-making.
    We shouldn’t need to depend on a government official’s assessment of whether something is legal.

    The ATF needs to act as the referee, applying written, predictable rules like a football game, not acting as a judge awarding style points like ice dancing.

  3. #23
    happy sharps enabler Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by GyroF-16 View Post
    Or, fight back and demand ACTUAL criteria for what constitutes an acceptable brace for an AR pistol.

    Not meaning to slam you, @Totem Polar, as I think you want the same.
    I just don’t want to be too quick to accept this kind of BS, arbitrary rule-making.
    We shouldn’t need to depend on a government official’s assessment of whether something is legal.

    The ATF needs to act as the referee, applying written, predictable rules like a football game, not acting as a judge awarding style points like ice dancing.
    No slam perceived, and I concur. It’s ideally “letter of the law” and not “daily feelz of the law,” no argument from me.
    ”It's important to remember that ALL news media is a consumer product. Just like soda and fast food, they don't have any incentive to make it good for you, just addictive enough for you to keep coming back for more.”
    -Nephrology

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Treasure Valley, ID
    I don't have any pistols, just SBR for home defense and competition, but pistols are obviously very popular for PDW roles and converting to SBR will make travel to multiple states inconvenient. Having an item become NFA I'm sure will further limit the number of states to which you can travel even assuming you do the paperwork (Form 20?). Of course states like CA will forever be off limits.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    WV USA
    From what I saw the new rules basically say “don’t outfit your AR pistol as an SBR or we’ll make it an SBR”. If the brace doesn’t help support the pistol, it’s not a “brace”. If it’s configured with sights, bipod, geegaws and doodads that prevent you from firing it at arms length with one hand, it’s not a “pistol”.

    Everyone who posted a sneaky little video online shouldering a braced pistol or shooting with a 4-12x scope, or wrote an inane “clarity” letter to BATFE or added 16# of gear to an AR pistol is partially to blame. How long did everyone think they could rub ATF’s nose in poop and not get a reaction?

  6. #26
    Old man yelling at cloud OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Yesterday was when the proposed rule was released for public comment.

    My understanding is "the date of this notice" is not effective until the actual rule is "published" in the federal register.

    @joshs would know for sure.
    I'm reading "publication of this notice" as if "this notice" refers to the thing I'm reading, which was published yesterday.

    The summary distinguishes clearly between "this notice" and "final document."

    https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-27857/p-3

    ATF publishes this notice to inform and invite comment from the industry and public on the proposed guidance, Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces,” prior to issuing a final document.
    https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-27857/p-49

    Consequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith. This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16” or greater for a rifle, or 18” or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm.

    Until that process is separately implemented, and absent a substantial public safety concern, ATF will exercise its enforcement discretion not to enforce the registration provisions of the NFA against any person who, before publication of this notice, in good faith acquired, transferred, made, manufactured, or possessed an affected stabilizer-equipped firearms.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Looks like the ATF has backed down from this again.

    I was looking forward to three "free" tax stamps, because I'm sure the brace will be Executive Ordered out of legality under the new administration, but it is what it is...

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
  •