I’m glad I kept my Thordsen cheekrests - I think they will pass muster, because I want to keep one or two lowers in pistol configuration.
I’m glad I kept my Thordsen cheekrests - I think they will pass muster, because I want to keep one or two lowers in pistol configuration.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
More confusing and complicated rules allowing them to make anyone a criminal based upon their discretion.
My “like” is simply agreement with the apparent reality that you have mapped-out, not because any of this is like-able.
I do, truly and deeply, feel for the handicapped/disabled folks. I am simply a bit gimpy, and not on the side that really matters for actual hand-gunning. My comment, that I post on the guv’mnt site, will largely address the value of braces for handicapped/disabled/injured folks.
I bought my DDM4 V7P mostly to be a “rule book” handgun, that can act like a long gun, for traveling where one cannot transport loaded long guns inside a moving vehicle, but where one can have a loaded handgun on or about one’s person, inside (or outside) a moving vehicle. In actual practice, in my case, nothing has yet displaced a longer-barreled revolver, (four to six inches) in that role.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
Wouldn't a bonafide brace for handicapped persons, not designed to get around the law be more like this?
http://adaptivefishing.weebly.com/up...06042_orig.jpg
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Why if a product "get[s] around the law" is it the fault of the manufacturers and consumers? The answer is to change the statute. Things that are "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" have stocks. If you were designing a gun to be fired from the shoulder, why would you ever put something on it that looks like any of the common brace designs. For the last 500 years, English and American courts have construed ambiguity in criminal statutes strictly against the government and in favor of the accused. Why should guns be different?
That's almost always the argument when challenging a regulation. The government argues that it has the authority to make the change, while those challenging the regulation attempt to show that the regulation is beyond the agency's legal authority (ultra vires if you like Latin).
With the arrival of the Biden regime and the dem takeover of congress it was certain ATF was going to "find a way" and the only thing that could possibly impede them is a successful challenge in the courts.
I am sure they have done their best to plan this approach to the subject with the certainty of the court challenge coming. Anticipate the attack and put the defense in place?
The section 3 peripheral accessories really drives the stake in the most useful things in terms of having a "pistol" AR suitable for two handed firing, not just shouldering.
I’ll give them this: compared to the ‘94 awb this was an extremely thorough and researched piece of writing that shows a far better understanding of firearms technicalities than when they basically just flipped through an issue of shotgun news pointing at the pictures going “and this one and that one”.
Damn you internets and your widely available informations.
im strong, i can run faster than train
They have a problem if they don't get Chevron deference when interpreting criminal statutes. As long as the Sixth Circuit decision in GOA's bump stock case remains good law, the government is going to have a problem defending expansive regulations that have criminal consequences.