Any reason not to just SBR all my pistols?

[Jcon268]

I used to go from Oregon to ranges in Washington to shoot pretty often. Then the laws in Washington changed which make it pretty dicey to bring anything "assault-like" over there. Since I'm not traveling between states with my firearms anymore, is there any reason not to just Form 1 all my pistols into my trust at this point? I know there is a nationwide injunction on the pistol brace ban but I feel like they've already got us dancing us around with the pistol rules and shouldering implications. Shouldering a SBR for $200, while expensive short term, might be a better long term solution....or am I missing anything here?

Read More

 

[pizzamike]

Not unless your some hard charger who carries an AR-15 "pistol" under a trench coat or loaded in your vehicle concealed.

Personally I think AR pistols are dumb and SBRs are awesome. I see their point though…. I guess.

 

[Camelfilter]

Legalities. In the event you wish to ever carry/conceal your braced pistols + easier re-sale/trade.

SBR is a no with CHL. However, in most instances a brace isn't near on as nice to run as a stock ergonomically.

Sale/trade of NFA items seems a hassle. Is done, just not seemingly easily by most folks. Most folks seem to return the item to pistol forms (SBR > pistol as ex's) & sale/trade that way.

I did SBR the ones we previously owned under the "free" tax stamp scheme. Because, "free". ...& ergonomics.

Have since purchased a braced 9mm (Extar EP9), which I'll keep as a pistol. Unless I have to stamp it. Runs pretty decent braced. Probably because of its lightweight.

Unlikely I would buy other braced items. Preference.

 

[Nosferatu]

You'd be the most beautiful belle at the ball.

 

[Jcon268]

Not unless your some hard charger who carries an AR-15 "pistol" under a trench coat or loaded in your vehicle concealed.

Personally I think AR pistols are dumb and SBRs are awesome. I see their point though…. I guess.

Only thing I carry concealed is an actual pistol as in handgun. I guess there are guys who expect to need more firepower, I just don't see the value if the firearm is neutered by not being able to use it correctly, ie. Shoulder it. I guess there was a heyday for pistols when the ATF essentially looked the other way on them. I don't see pistol braces going anywhere good in the future unfortunately. I don't plan to sell any of my SBRs I even have them in a trust..I'm building them as nice as I can, hopefully to be able to hand down to future generations through my trust.

 

[pizzamike]

Only thing I carry concealed is an actual pistol as in handgun. I guess there are guys who expect to need more firepower, I just don't see the value if the firearm is neutered by not being able to use it correctly, ie. Shoulder it. I guess there was a heyday for pistols when the ATF essentially looked the other way on them. I don't see pistol braces going anywhere good in the future unfortunately. I don't plan to sell any of my SBRs I even have them in a trust..I'm building them as nice as I can, hopefully to be able to hand down to future generations through my trust.

Right there with you. SBR them all.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I used to go from Oregon to ranges in Washington to shoot pretty often. Then the laws in Washington changed which make it pretty dicey to bring anything "assault-like" over there. Since I'm not traveling between states with my firearms anymore, is there any reason not to just Form 1 all my pistols into my trust at this point? I know there is a nationwide injunction on the pistol brace ban but I feel like they've already got us dancing us around with the pistol rules and shouldering implications. Shouldering a SBR for $200, while expensive short term, might be a better long term solution....or am I missing anything here?

Pros and cons were all discussed at length in the brace rule threads before the brace rule came out. Some obvious cons are being on a federal registry, cost, paperwork hassle. Some obvious pros are ability to do most anything you want with them including adding a vertical foregrip. Easy to unmake and sell as a regular pistol also. I wish I could point you to the exact thread but there is tons of great discussion on this there if you want to search it down (just fyi).

We don't know what future regs will be so you could make an argument that sbr will be more protected (ie the last ones gov would go after cuz they are already know where they are, like registered machine guns f.e. etc). You could likewise make an argument they woudl be more at risk if a full ban comes about - again cuz they know where they are.

Some people split the difference and don't sbr stuff they can't afford to lose someday. My argument on those threads was often "if you had only 1 gun" it's a crucial decision in terms of protection of the gun from those who would take it. But if you had two AR lowers for example, one could be sbr'd and one not, which keeps your options open. That was in the context of the looming brace rule of the time but it still stands I think. What if you had 2 mp5s for example, one an sbr, one a pistol. You have tons of options as rules/laws change. Just my way of thinking fwiw.

 

[Nwcid]

As others have said, for me it would depend on use. Pistol follows pistol rules and SBR follow rifle rules.

In my case my AR pistol that was braced stayed a pistol even with the "free stamp". I can travel between states with no paperwork (we travel a lot) and keep it loaded in a vehicle which is important as it a "truck" run and rides in the UTV. In WA, even having a magazine in a rifle is considered loaded.

In your case, it may make sense.

 

[solv3nt]

SBR is a no with CHL. However, in most instances a brace isn't near on as nice to run as a stock ergonomically.

Which state? You talking Oregon? Cite your source please.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Fwiw here is the old discussion on "can an sbr be concealed carried in OR". It got shut down for some unknown reason (I really do mean that, it didn't violate any rules that I can see).

Oregon - Can you conceal carry a SBR in OR with a CHL?

It’s been said already, but Oregon statute does not prohibit concealed long guns. I remember a now-retired LE friend of mine pulling a guy over who he knew was a dirtbag (but not a convicted felon, yet…), and they found a concealed and loaded shotgun behind the seat of his standard-cab pickup...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[Caveman Jim]

Your choice, I've made mine.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Your choice, I've made mine.

View attachment 1857306

That's pretty damn well done!

 

[solv3nt]

Fwiw here is the old discussion on "can an sbr be concealed carried in OR". It got shut down for some unknown reason (I really do mean that, it didn't violate any rules that I can see).

Oregon - Can you conceal carry a SBR in OR with a CHL?

It’s been said already, but Oregon statute does not prohibit concealed long guns. I remember a now-retired LE friend of mine pulling a guy over who he knew was a dirtbag (but not a convicted felon, yet…), and they found a concealed and loaded shotgun behind the seat of his standard-cab pickup...

www.northwestfirearms.com

It was motormount.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It was motormount.

Oh man, if that is not a typo that's bubbleguming hilarious.

 

[solv3nt]

Oh man, if that is not a typo that's bubbleguming hilarious.

 

[lucusloc]

Not unless your some hard charger who carries an AR-15 "pistol" under a trench coat or loaded in your vehicle concealed.

Personally I think AR pistols are dumb and SBRs are awesome. I see their point though…. I guess.

I actually like a short pull on a short rifle. Really lets you tuck things in. If they are not gong to charge me for a short pull I am not going to pay or a short pull.

If you like a longer pull then of course you have to pay for it (or, you know, whatever), so if that is your thing sucks to be you*.

*yeah I am paying for an SBR, but that is for options. Most of my other stuff is all just braces and I am happy with that.

 

[pizzamike]

I actually like a short pull on a short rifle. Really lets you tuck things in. If they are not gong to charge me for a short pull I am not going to pay or a short pull.

If you like a longer pull then of course you have to pay for it (or, you know, whatever), so if that is your thing sucks to be you*.

*yeah I am paying for an SBR, but that is for options. Most of my other stuff is all just braces and I am happy with that.

Cool…..

 

[Yarome]

All good points raised.

All I'll say in addition for consideration is to remember that the left moves incrementally against the lowest hanging fruit. As infringements and bans move forward... after so called "assault weapons"/"weapons of war"... I can easily see NFA's being next in line. They are by definition, "dangerous and unusual" so using the same arguments of "no one needs weapons of war for personal self defense" the next logical extension may well be, "no one needs uniquely dangerous and unusual weapons for personal self defense".

Most likely that wouldn't first manifest as a full on ban and confiscation, but say... "Firstly" outlawing the legal transfer of said weapon types. "Banning" them generationally. "Secondly", once accomplished, that lowers the fruit a little more and brings an outright NFA item ban within reach.

Just sayin... read the tea leaves and think ahead. What many thought would be utterly ridiculous for them to do even 25 years ago is todays reality.

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 1857310

View attachment 1857309

Did eye 'tuddah?

 

[lucusloc]

All good points raised.

All I'll say in addition for consideration is to remember that the left moves incrementally against the lowest hanging fruit. As infringements and bans move forward... after so called "assault weapons"/"weapons of war"... I can easily see NFA's being next in line. They are by definition, "dangerous and unusual" so using the same arguments of "no one needs weapons of war for personal self defense" the next logical extension may well be, "no one needs uniquely dangerous and unusual weapons for personal self defense".

Most likely that wouldn't first manifest as a full on ban and confiscation, but say... "Firstly" outlawing the legal transfer of said weapon types. "Banning" them generationally. "Secondly", once accomplished, that lowers the fruit a little more and brings an outright NFA item ban within reach.

Just sayin... read the tea leaves and think ahead. What many thought would be utterly ridiculous for them to do even 25 years ago is todays reality.

Yeah but we move incrementally as well. The NFA was supposed to be the beginning of an outright ban 90 years ago, that is why it is so illogical. The idea was they pass it in this rather butchered form and then fix it in short order, banning pistols (which were supposed to be part of the original NFA tax) and incrementally moving up the list of "scarier" guns like semi-auto rifles and repeaters. They tried with "assault weapons" but only succeeded in making them more popular. Now NFA item sales are going through the roof, and SCOTUS is having to answer tough questions about "common use" that are going more and more our way. The left is finding that if they push too hard and too fast on gun control it backfires and we get less restrictions after the fights all settle out. We are seeing a flurry of this with state level cases, as many ban laws are poised to fall as we speak.