AR Pistol braces, let ATF know you opinion

[wired]

Is that unreasonable? The ATF defines a pistol as a firearm designed and intended to shoot with one hand. The web is full of video's of folks shooting pistols two handed.

Instead of define pistols and rifles based on length/length of pull which at least is a logical distinction, they went with a crazy definition of one hand versus two hands. Have crazy rules, get crazy outcomes.

They know from experience that as soon as they define a characteristic , logically or not, that definition will be exploited and someone will make a workaround that satisfies the letter of the law. Just like changing a few insignificant features and adding a few US made parts got around large parts of the '89 import ban and the '94 gave us rifles that shot just the same as any other semiautomatic rifle minus a bayonet lug. It is not in the ATF's interest to define anything exactly.
Lets be real. Pistol braces satisfy almost zero useful purpose except to act as buttstocks. They are a way of circumventing the NFA. The ATF stepped on it big time allowing them in the first place but now theres a crapload of them out there and its politically difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.

 

[Devneck]

I know I don't have to tell anybody here, but I'll say it anyways.

All rules should be evidence based and purpose written.

Isn't the intention of having certain firearms registered as NFA to (allegedly) ultimately lower crime? Everybody cannot just have a SBR because then there would be a surge in crime using SBRs that would not have occurred without.

Since the claim is that people were intentionally using pistol braces to get around the SBR registration... then it should be pretty easy to point to all the crimes committed with a pistol brace.

If there is not enough fact based evidence to support the position that pistol braces have caused an increase in crimes then they should not be registered. Additionally, since they are a work around to get an SBR, then if there was no surge of pistol brace crimes then the argument that registering SBRs prevents crime also does not pass the test of evidence based and purpose written.

That position should easily also be extended to SBS.

Of course, this is just me thinking. I'm clearly not as intelligent and logical as politicians and atf agents.

 

[wired]

I know I don't have to tell anybody here, but I'll say it anyways.

All rules should be evidence based and purpose written.

Isn't the intention of having certain firearms registered as NFA to (allegedly) ultimately lower crime? Everybody cannot just have a SBR because then there would be a surge in crime using SBRs that would not have occurred without.

Since the claim is that people were intentionally using pistol braces to get around the SBR registration... then it should be pretty easy to point to all the crimes committed with a pistol brace.

If there is not enough fact based evidence to support the position that pistol braces have caused an increase in crimes then they should not be registered. Additionally, since they are a work around to get an SBR, then if there was no surge of pistol brace crimes then the argument that registering SBRs prevents crime also does not pass the test of evidence based and purpose written.

That position should easily also be extended to SBS.

Of course, this is just me thinking. I'm clearly not as intelligent and logical as politicians and atf agents.

The Entire NFA was enacted largely because of ONE major mass murder event, The St Valentines Day Massacre.

It took one high profile mass shooting multiple homicide even for Trump to ban bumpstocks. Not his ATF but Trump himself against the objections of his ATF.

At least one braced pistol has been used in a major mass shooting multiple homicide event. To be honest they put those of us who own a lot of SBR's in a bad light.

 

[Sundance]

I know I don't have to tell anybody here, but I'll say it anyways.

All rules should be evidence based and purpose written.

Isn't the intention of having certain firearms registered as NFA to (allegedly) ultimately lower crime? Everybody cannot just have a SBR because then there would be a surge in crime using SBRs that would not have occurred without.

Since the claim is that people were intentionally using pistol braces to get around the SBR registration... then it should be pretty easy to point to all the crimes committed with a pistol brace.

If there is not enough fact based evidence to support the position that pistol braces have caused an increase in crimes then they should not be registered. Additionally, since they are a work around to get an SBR, then if there was no surge of pistol brace crimes then the argument that registering SBRs prevents crime also does not pass the test of evidence based and purpose written.

That position should easily also be extended to SBS.

Of course, this is just me thinking. I'm clearly not as intelligent and logical as politicians and atf agents.

There you go @Devneck using logic and reason with politicians... They thrive on emotion, sensationalism, lies, etc. Logic has no place in their make believe words.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Logic dictates that since most crimes are done with handguns perhaps instead of focusing on "scary looking, kinda sorta military looking black firearms", the ATF should be looking at the Glocks, small handguns? But nope. Its never been about reducing crime. Its always been about increasing the number of citizens who are considered outlaws and potential criminals for the merest offense of owning the means to effectively resist tyranny.

 

[Oleman]

Is that unreasonable? The ATF defines a pistol as a firearm designed and intended to shoot with one hand. The web is full of video's of folks shooting pistols two handed.

Instead of define pistols and rifles based on length/length of pull which at least is a logical distinction, they went with a crazy definition of one hand versus two hands. Have crazy rules, get crazy outcomes.

Once again what is it about shall not infringe the turd government agency is having a problem with?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Once again what is it about shall not infringe the turd government agency is having a problem with?

Its only trying to create ""guidelines"" that essentially puts a significant number of legal firearms into the purviews of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA laws

 

[CountryGent]

Logic dictates that since most crimes are done with handguns perhaps instead of focusing on "scary looking, kinda sorta military looking black firearms", the ATF should be looking at the Glocks, small handguns?

Don't give them any ideas. For a long time there was a bunch of crying about "Saturday Night Specials" by political types and small autos are not allowed for import based upon that "logic". Richard Nixon, a Republican, even advocated banning all handguns privately and stated publicly he would have signed into law a ban on the aforementioned small automatics.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Don't give them any ideas. For a long time there was a bunch of crying about "Saturday Night Specials" by political types and small autos are not allowed for import based upon that "logic". Richard Nixon, a Republican, even advocated banning all handguns privately and stated publicly he would have signed into law a ban on the aforementioned small automatics.

Its an old idea; and the entire reason the Brady Campaign group started out as Handgun Control Inc edit. Oh yes. The anti-handgun lobby is also the reason we had a slew of "no-issue"/"may-issue"/"no permit allowed" CCW/CHL laws in the United States until fairly recently

 

[Oleman]

Its only trying to create ""guidelines"" that essentially puts a significant number of legal firearms into the purviews of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA laws

Sorry they are trying to legislate.

 

[Rkangel]

I know I don't have to tell anybody here, but I'll say it anyways.

All rules should be evidence based and purpose written.

Isn't the intention of having certain firearms registered as NFA to (allegedly) ultimately lower crime? Everybody cannot just have a SBR because then there would be a surge in crime using SBRs that would not have occurred without.

Since the claim is that people were intentionally using pistol braces to get around the SBR registration... then it should be pretty easy to point to all the crimes committed with a pistol brace.

If there is not enough fact based evidence to support the position that pistol braces have caused an increase in crimes then they should not be registered. Additionally, since they are a work around to get an SBR, then if there was no surge of pistol brace crimes then the argument that registering SBRs prevents crime also does not pass the test of evidence based and purpose written.

That position should easily also be extended to SBS.

Of course, this is just me thinking. I'm clearly not as intelligent and logical as politicians and atf agents.

Logic never enters their minds. Fear, chaos, emotion, and autocracy leave no room for it.
It doesn't matter if braces or 80%ers have never or rarely been used in a crime. Braces and 80%ers are "bad" because they are freedom. And freedom cannot be tolerated by the "tolerant".

 

[wired]

Logic never enters their minds. Fear, chaos, emotion, and autocracy leave no room for it.
It doesn't matter if braces or 80%ers have never or rarely been used in a crime. Braces and 80%ers are "bad" because they are freedom. And freedom cannot be tolerated by the "tolerant".

What makes you think that braced, 80% or really any home made guns are never or rarely used in crimes ? They are guns like any other guns and get used in the commission of crimes. To assert otherwise is intellectually dishonest. While you may want to legally build a gun from an 80% or from a block of wood that doesnt mean someone else isnt building one because they arent legally allowed to buy one from a dealer because of their criminal status. Last I heard in California they are finding 30% of their seizures from guns used in crimes are from 80% receivers As far as braced guns go yeah, of course they get used in crimes. I havent seen any good stats compiled because they get piled in with handgun crimes but I could rattle off one mass shooting and a few lesser shootings off the top of my head.

 

[CountryGent]

As far as braced guns go yeah, of course they get used in crimes.

The nutbag in the 2019 Dayton, Ohio shooting used a brace-equipped AR pistol. I vaguely recall some noises being made about braces back then.

 

[Rkangel]

What makes you think that braced, 80% or really any home made guns are never or rarely used in crimes ? They are guns like any other guns and get used in the commission of crimes. To assert otherwise is intellectually dishonest. While you may want to legally build a gun from an 80% or from a block of wood that doesnt mean someone else isnt building one because they arent legally allowed to buy one from a dealer because of their criminal status. Last I heard in California they are finding 30% of their seizures from guns used in crimes are from 80% receivers As far as braced guns go yeah, of course they get used in crimes. I havent seen any good stats compiled because they get piled in with handgun crimes but I could rattle off one mass shooting and a few lesser shootings off the top of my head.

I did not assert they weren't used in crimes. So are hammers, bats, and fists... My assertation was that IF their goal was actually public safety based on facts and not political theater, and IF there was a crimewave involving braces and 80% and they had the numbers to support their argument, they would not need to resort to the fear tactics, hide in ambiguity, or cheat the processes. If they were concerned about violent crime they would look at hammers, bats and fists, which are many times more likely to be used than firearms. But then we would be bowing to the BHBF begging for freedom not to register our our hands as deadly weapons.

 

[Oleman]

LOL cars get used in crimes why hasn't the DOV outlawed them yet. Shhh that's next isn't it.

 

[Devneck]

LOL cars get used in crimes why hasn't the DOV outlawed them yet. Shhh that's next isn't it.

Sounds like we need some common sense uhaul control.

 

[BrentN]

Last I heard in California they are finding 30% of their seizures from guns used in crimes are from 80% receivers

So almost a third, huh? That is a shocking stat. So shocking it sounds like a Feinstein quote.

 

[wired]

So almost a third, huh? That is a shocking stat. So shocking it sounds like a Feinstein quote.

Quote from the ATF. They put a lockdown on legal gun transfers . What is the next logical step?

 

[Rkangel]

Remove the rights of the law-abiding because criminals commit crimes? True communism. Guilty one, guilty all.

 

[Will_White]

What makes you think that braced, 80% or really any home made guns are never or rarely used in crimes ? They are guns like any other guns and get used in the commission of crimes. To assert otherwise is intellectually dishonest. While you may want to legally build a gun from an 80% or from a block of wood that doesnt mean someone else isnt building one because they arent legally allowed to buy one from a dealer because of their criminal status. Last I heard in California they are finding 30% of their seizures from guns used in crimes are from 80% receivers As far as braced guns go yeah, of course they get used in crimes. I havent seen any good stats compiled because they get piled in with handgun crimes but I could rattle off one mass shooting and a few lesser shootings off the top of my head.

While it may be true that 80% receivers are being used for crime (I suspect probably glocks not ARs) they should be making the penalties harsher for using a ghost gun for criminal purposes or possessing one as a prohibited person not banning their sale to law abiding citizens, especially when they don't even meet their own definition of a firearm even after you complete them.