I haven’t been keeping up with the ATF decisions on pistol braces, but to avoid any issues, could you just simply remove the brace to stay legal?
I haven’t been keeping up with the ATF decisions on pistol braces, but to avoid any issues, could you just simply remove the brace to stay legal?
That’s my understanding. In the case of ARs, a featureless receiver extension should be ok. But who knows how this will pan out…
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.”
Thoughts on constructive intent / possession or however the ATF defines it? Or will this continue to be a massive cluster, with widespread confusion and misunderstanding?
And yes I have seen the worksheet...
Taking a break from social media.
So long as they don’t require a 1:1 relationship, I’m good.
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.”
My Daniel Defense DDM4 V7P has a “feature-less” RE/buffer tube, but there is, also, a LAW folder, both installed at the factory, as original equipment. I remain hopeful that the lack of any hint of a brace keeps this pistol a pistol. The LAW product is, of course, a concern, due to the language of the proposed “work sheet,” so, I will keep following this matter.
Notably, however, I do not find a folded LAW-foldered 10.3”-barreled DDM4 V7P to be realistically much more convenient, to tote, or to store inside a small space, than a collapsed-stock 16” M4, so, I have no plans to go the Form 1 route, in order to remain compliant. I will probably either make it more pistol-like, to preserve its legal handgun status, or make it a 16” rifle, which would be as simple as installing one of my several complete uppers. (I see SBR-ing as more of a hobby, than practical, which is fine, but not my cup of Darjeeling…)
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
Sorry for the rant, but…
These rules are so RIDICULOUS! You’d think if THEY would allow you to own a gun, they’d want you to be able to shoot it as accurately as possible!?! Having an AR pistol without a brace, foreword grip, etc. is just promoting hip firing or spray-n-pray. Even adding a bipod adds points according to the ATF worksheet.
Someone told me these RULES are to help determine if the gun can be shot one handed. The ONE HANDED idea helps define it as a PISTOL. But who shoots ANY pistol one handed unless they have to?!?!
Okay, I’ll step off the soap box now.
I'm very wary of constructive possession/intent issues related to the NFA, having consulted on a Phoenix PD/Maricopa Superior Court case where an individual was charged with felony misconduct involving weapons for being in "constructive possession" of an unregistered SBR. Since I wasn't primary on the case I don't know how PD got into his house or what his history was (although I suspect they were "Al Caponing" someone they thought was a bad dude so they could get him for something), but they found 2 AR rifles in one room, an AR pistol with a naked carbine buffer tube that could accept a stock or brace in another room, and a standard M4 buttstock in the garage. The argument was that the buttstock in the garage + the pistol = constructive possession of an SBR. My thought was that the buttstock was a takeoff from one of the 16" guns, because everyone swaps out the M4 buttstock for their own separate flavor. I believe he accepted a misdemeanor plea of some sort, which, while it would have been a fun trial for someone not involved, I definitely understand the mitigation of risk.Originally Posted by CCT125US
Yeah, I don’t know if I would risk a standard RE in that circumstance.
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.”
I hope that the recent Supreme Court decision will be a check against this, and other, forms of regulatory overreach by ATF.
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
" The argument was that the buttstock in the garage + the pistol = constructive possession of an SBR."
I thought the ATF's position for some time has been that you weren't in danger of constructive possession as long as everything you had could be assembled into some legal configuration, i.e. rifle+spare buttstock+pistol was OK, whereas spare buttstock+pistol (but no rifle for the stock to go on) wasn't??
(of course, assuming I am remembering correctly, the local DA doesn't have to share the ATF's view, but I would think prosecuting someone who was OK in the eyes of the ATF would be a bit awkward)
I agree with the risk mitigation angle. Although if I pull carbine extensions off current pistols and replace with featureless extensions, I suppose a sufficiently motivated DA could claim the old extensions in my box-o-random AR parts could be installed on a pistol. But you'd hope there is some limit to how far they can stretch it; after all, I could always remove the extension and stock from a rifle and put them on a pistol lower. At some point you're in trouble for possessing a shotgun and a hacksaw.
Reply With Quote