National "All pistol braces to be banned, and SB Tactical knew about it..."

[Unka-Boo]

I thought people only got banned on arf dot com.

I may have had that happen.....

 

[wired]

What matters is not how it is designed but how it is used or intended to be used.

Yes. Mine are designed for assault if that need becomes apparent. I have no qualms about calling them assault weapons or even assault style weapons. They are built as and intended to be used in an assault capacity. They are not ideal for home defense, my Benelli M2 fills that role. Nor are they ideal for carry. I have pistols for that. I couldnt care less about competition. Most of my guns are designed for CQ battle. They may never be used in that role. Or they may.

 

[2A2Dend]

I stopped supporting this place, because it is a place of limited (or the topic gets hidden from "others") subject matter pertaining to the 2A. Whether it be political or legal.

 

[GrayGoose]

Yes. Mine are designed for assault if that need becomes apparent. I have no qualms about calling them assault weapons or even assault style weapons. They are built as and intended to be used in an assault capacity. They are not ideal for home defense, my Benelli M2 fills that role. Nor are they ideal for carry. I have pistols for that. I couldnt care less about competition. Most of my guns are designed for CQ battle. They may never be used in that role. Or they may.

I understand and don't mean to argue but still will argue against the label "assault weapon". When the need comes, and I do believe it will with the escalating division that the deep state is inciting, rising up to fight against tyranny is still not assault, it is defense of the Constitution. Defense does not only mean in the home, it also means taking a stand against all enemies, foreign and domestic, wherever the need may be. Given that, I am glad you seem to be prepared to join the pending defense.

 

[Certaindeaf]

What matters is not how it is designed but how it is used or intended to be used.

I thought in the old days they used a measuring stick.. oal and barrel length. Just seems odd.

 

[OldTengu]

Wrong. Very wrong. None of mine are assault weapons. They are for defense and competitive sports, not for assault.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in that part of the post. Or maybe I am assuming that the post was sarcastic.

 

[rurallife]

Mine are mostly designed for assault.

If they take one gun they're going to want all of them. You need to stand with us brother, not step to the sideline and say "ya'll shouldn't have bought those pistol doodads. I didn't, too bad for you pistol brace guys".

 

[rurallife]

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in that part of the post. Or maybe I am assuming that the post was sarcastic.

Yeppers, should have used purple type I guess. Lol

Noticed lately a lot of people have lost the ability to detect sarcasm.

 

[Letsgohawks12]

Then what the bubblegum do I use for my sbr

 

[AllDayRay]

FYI..

This was sent to me by the BATFE regarding Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces"
There is a comment period open til January 4, 2021. All comments must reference this document's docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2020R-10, by any of the following methods:
1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov
2) Mail: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, at 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R-10
3) Fax: (202) 648-9741

 

[rurallife]

FYI..

This was sent to me by the BATFE regarding Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces"
There is a comment period open til January 4, 2021. All comments must reference this document's docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2020R-10, by any of the following methods:
1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov
2) Mail: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, at 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R-10
3) Fax: (202) 648-9741

Why did a t f send it to you?

 

[Lasers]

AI will make that an easy job one of these days.

As someone who has recently done work in the field, "one of these days" was roughly 15 years ago, with the more advanced versions used today initially developed around 2015

 

[Maximum1]

Reno is pretty legit.

I had watched his video when he first posted it and soon realized it was nothing but sensationalism with ZERO FACTS to back up his assertions. In fact, I call BS.

SA Tactical has not only posted countless documents related to their meetings with the ATF over the years the ATF approved the SB Tactical SOB and SBM4 in 2017. This lead to an industry wide believe that brace were NOT stocks and if attached to a firearm did not constitute a Short Barrel Rifle.

Additionally ATF's letter to another brace manufacture, Trinity Force, dated 7-24-18, Clearly states braces are allowable.

• Reference: length of pull that's greater than the 13.5-inch limit the BATFE says is the maximum for any similar AR pistol accessory. In BATFE letter to Trinity Force dated 7-24-18, regarding allowable braces they stated, "a stabilizing brace installed on an AR-15 type pistol so that the device is not considered a shoulder stock (pull length not greater than 13.5") and therefore may be attached to a handgun/pistol without making it a NFA firearm.
• In addition to length of pull, overall length (OAL) should be measured. OAL is considered the muzzle — minus removable muzzle devices — to the rear of the brace (either collapsed or folded to be in its shortest form). "An OAL greater than 26 inches [has the potential to change] the classification of pistol to firearm. Firearms in excess of 26 inches OAL may have vertical grips installed and remain non-NFA. Pistols with vertical grips installed sub-26 inches OAL [can be] considered AOW and are subject to the NFA,"
  • https://trinityforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ATF_Letter_Breach_Brace_Trinity_Force.pdf

So I say again he video is nothing but sensational BS with zero facts or any evidence to back up his flapping mouth.

 

[Maximum1]

A brief overview of part of the comments I submitted to BATF in reference to Docket No. 2020R-10. The balance of the comments, not listed below, are an extensive list of the contradiction ATF themselves issued about the SBs along with key legal points covered in the Ohio ruling against the ATF when they went to trial against Mr. Miller for having an SB which the ATF unsuccessful charged him with having an illegal SBR.


Are firearms with stabilizing braces legal? Yes....Well, sort of. It depends on how you hold it. But that's subject to change at any given time so says this document released by the BATFE. It's a "we'll know it when we see it" but passed the expected grace period we at the BATFE threaten to arrest millions of American and turn them into felons. In fact all of the factors laid out in Docket No. 2020R-10 are ambiguous leaving gun owners completely confused. When BATFE intends to prosecute Americans for an NFA violation clarity is PARAMOUNT something the document lacks. In fact the vagueness of this document is very troubling.

Law abiding gun owners believe any firearm affixed with a "Stabilizing Brace" as mentioned in the published BATFE letter (Docket No. 2020R-10) should not be regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the BATFE now wants to regulate them after all these years of permitting the gun industry to sell and/or affix stabilizing braces to firearms and given the fact millions of Americans, in good faith, legally purchased firearms with stabilizing braces affixed to them and given the fact they are now in "Common Use" demands no further regulatory action(s) on the part of BATFE.

The fact is the firearm industry has for many years been submitting firearms with stabilizing braces affixed to them and in all those 100+ submissions never has the BATFE warned or put a manufacturer or vendor on notice for violation of the National Firearms Act.

Now after millions of firearms along with stabilizing braces have been purchased Americans strongly refute BATFE's effort to put millions of Americans in a position of having to jump through regulatory hoops, which is not only going togreatly inconvenience those who now own such firearms, to fill out a form, with the help of an approved dealer, that is then sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). As an individual, they will need to get a signature from their local law enforcement official and include a set of fingerprints.....fingerprints! Then to require millions of Americans to fill out forms in order to get permission from the government every time they take private property across state lines, in addition to opening up their private residences and storage areas to possible inspection from the BATFE when they never have been subjected to that before is completely inappropriate.

One of the arguments used in favor of adjustable stabilizing braces for AR calibers firearms applies to the SBR debate itself. As we know, adjustable stocks don't make a firearm more dangerous-er. They simply allow easy and proper fit of the firearm to the shooter, regardless of size and what they're wearing at the time. A person with a shorter forearm brings in the stabilizing brace. A person with a longer forearm, extends the brace. So when it comes to stabilizing braces one size does not work for all. It's simply a feature that helps the shooter use and control the firearm properly. Again, it does not make it more dangerous unlike a fully automatic weapon that is clearly within the scope of the NFA. Stop your pursue to restrict the features that facilitate safety and accuracy. It's not like reclassification will prevent criminal use.

 

[Diamondback]

Just received by email from Aero Precision:

If you are receiving this email, you are part of Team Aero and our industry desperately needs your help.

The BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) recently released information on how they will be determining the legality of Pistol Stabilizing Braces and whether they should fall within the National Firearms Act. There are countless concerning angles to this topic, but we will try to get straight to the point.

The most recent notice outlines criteria that are judged purely on subjective determinations as opposed to definitive statements that clearly identify what does or does not constitute a legal configuration of a braced firearm. This leaves both firearms manufacturers and owners at the mercy of ad hoc judgement of the BATFE. It allows for case by case determinations by individual agents in which no manufacturer or gun owner, let alone the agent themselves, can reasonably know what is legal or illegal.

Aero Precision does not agree or support this type of re-interpretation in which millions of law-abiding gun owners can be affected, and worst case, turned in to criminals at no action of their own. This could also have a lasting and catastrophic impact on the firearms industry and American businesses like Aero Precision. Thousands of jobs will be lost and the estimated economic impact to our industry eclipses 1 billion dollars over the next year alone. We urge you to review the BATFE's most recent proposal, get informed, and take immediate action.

WHAT CAN I DO?

• First and foremost, visit the link below and comment by January 4, 2021. This topic is currently open for comment on the Federal Register. It has been conveniently opened for comment over the holiday season and is a very short 14 day window. Keep comments professional and double check all information as improper comments will be discarded. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
• SHARE this information with everyone you know. This determination has an impact well outside Pistol Stabilizing Braces. It affects us all.
• Write your local and state representatives and tell them you do not support this type of action.
• Support the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) www.fracaction.org

We appreciate your support of our company, our industry and most of all our rights as Americans. We will continue to stand against the constant unjust actions against the 2nd Amendment and hope you will do the same.

Team Aero

 

[GrayGoose]

If Hillary Clinton happened to have a Pistol Stabilizing Brace on her AR, would she comply with this new rule any more than she complied with the laws around having an insecured email server with highly classified emails, or any more than she complied with the subpoenas for those emails when she got caught breaking those laws, and did she ever even get charged for all the felonies she committed? Just wondering.

Oh, and I won't even mention how well Eric Holder complied with BATF rules and laws and never got charged for his felonies either. Ooops, I did just mention that, darn...

 

[Maximum1]

If Hillary Clinton happened to have a Pistol Stabilizing Brace on her AR, would she comply with this new rule any more than she complied with the laws around having an insecured email server with highly classified emails, or any more than she complied with the subpoenas for those emails when she got caught breaking those laws, and did she ever even get charged for all the felonies she committed? Just wondering.

Oh, and I won't even mention how well Eric Holder complied with BATF rules and laws and never got charged for his felonies either. Ooops, I did just mention that, darn...

So how does your odd thoughts help move our ball forward. How about doing something productive by calling a few pro gun Senators then contribute a few bucks to organizations planning to drag the BATFE to court and that cost money. Again, MAKE A DIFFERENCE LIKE THE ANTI-GUNNERS DO EVERY DAY AGAINST US FOR THEY ARE COMMITTED TO GET THE CHANGE THEY DEMAND.

 

[American123]

If Hillary Clinton happened to have a Pistol Stabilizing Brace on her AR, would she comply with this new rule any more than she complied with the laws around having an insecured email server with highly classified emails, or any more than she complied with the subpoenas for those emails when she got caught breaking those laws, and did she ever even get charged for all the felonies she committed? Just wondering.

Oh, and I won't even mention how well Eric Holder complied with BATF rules and laws and never got charged for his felonies either. Ooops, I did just mention that, darn...

They subcontract hits, doubt they personally involve themselves in guns at all.

 

[aljames]

So how does your odd thoughts help move our ball forward. How about doing something productive by calling a few pro gun Senators then contribute a few bucks to organizations planning to drag the BATFE to court and that cost money. Again, MAKE A DIFFERENCE LIKE THE ANTI-GUNNERS DO EVERY DAY AGAINST US FOR THEY ARE COMMITTED TO GET THE CHANGE THEY DEMAND.

His "odd thoughts" help by pointing out the simple fact that many in our ruling class operate above the law. Here we are running around trying to figure out how we are going to comply with the next law (1 of thousands which are passed each year) while our masters subvert the law on the daily. These type of double standards for the people and their rulers has been the downfall of governments gone by. Rules for me but not for thee never ends well. We are supposed to be their masters NOT the other way around!

 

[GrayGoose]

His "odd thoughts" help by pointing out the simple fact that many in our ruling class operate above the law. Here we are running around trying to figure out how we are going to comply with the next law (1 of thousands which are passed each year) while our masters subvert the law on the daily. These type of double standards for the people and their rulers has been the downfall of governments gone by. Rules for me but not for thee never ends well. We are supposed to be their masters NOT the other way around!

Exactly!!! Thank you.