Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 145

Thread: Proposed Criteria for Braces

  1. #41
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Zincwarrior View Post
    Or could they just define anything as a stock, which is where this is headed?
    No. ATF is bound by precedent and the administrative procedures act like any other government agency and they have previously issued guidance that braces are “accessories.” By legal definition stocks are an integral part of the firearm, while accessories are not an integral part of the gun. This guidance was part of the guidance which clarified how OAL is measured when “other” firearms became popular.

  2. #42
    I’m still trying to figure out what kind of iron sights a pistol is allowed to have if “rifle style sights” are bad, flip up sights are bad, and no sights are bad.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by WobblyPossum View Post
    I’m still trying to figure out what kind of iron sights a pistol is allowed to have if “rifle style sights” are bad, flip up sights are bad, and no sights are bad.
    https://www.hightowerarmory.com/HTA-...Base_p_53.html paired with your favorite Glock sights.

  4. #44
    happy sharps enabler Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by mrozowjj View Post
    I remember a long time ago the standard for a pistol build was a receiver extension with a foam covering, something like this
    https://phase5wsi.com/ar-15-pistol-b...pad-cover.html

    Stevie Wonder could see all this coming, as did all of us here. We will see how this goes in the short term; in the meantime, I have that exact foam piece in a little baggy next to the DDPDW, because, reasons.
    ”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

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by texasaggie2005 View Post
    So if the prerequisites are 64+ ounces and maximum length of 26" inches, wouldn't that make a 12.5" AR completely ineligible for "braced handgun" status?
    Over 26" with a barrel of less than 16" and it is classified as a firearm, not a pistol or rifle.

  6. #46
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Southwest Pennsylvania
    Quote Originally Posted by WobblyPossum View Post
    I’m still trying to figure out what kind of iron sights a pistol is allowed to have if “rifle style sights” are bad, flip up sights are bad, and no sights are bad.
    An unmagnified red dot should be fine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #47
    I haven't seen this much ambiguity since the last two times Foley fiddled with the Carry Optics rules.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by eb07 View Post
    More confusing and complicated rules allowing them to make anyone a criminal based upon their discretion.
    This is the real reason for their new "rules"...

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Friday View Post
    Over 26" with a barrel of less than 16" and it is classified as a firearm, not a pistol or rifle.
    So I guess the natural question is how does firearm+brace fit into the equation.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by littlejerry View Post
    So I guess the natural question is how does firearm+brace fit into the equation.
    That depends on if the brace can pass the 72 pt ATF worksheet. If it doesn't, it's an unregistered SBR.

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
  •