AR15 Pistols - ATF has common sense!

[SCARed]

Hard to imagine the the ATF actually has some common sense.
If you haven't already, get your Sig AR pistol arm brace.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...atf-confirms-firing-ar-15-pistol-shoulder-ok/

Read More

 

[Nwcid]

Really? How is this new? They have been saying it for years.

It is just another guy asking the same question that has been answered many times. One problem with doing such things is occasionally these things make the ATF look into them further and possibly change rulings.

Along with that technically the letter is ONLY good for the person it was sent to. Even then if the ATF changes it mind the letter isn't even worth the paper it is written on. Has happened many times.

 

[Stomper]

That's why they're now attempting to ban 5.45x39 importation because of AK pistols in that calibre... ATF and "common sense", yeah... right.

 

[SCARed]

I didn't say the ATF always had common sense, but on this issue they seem to.

And on that, from what I've seen, the ATF has seemingly avoided answering the question of using the arm brace as a stock, if it constitutes a SBR. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but that's what I've found.

 

[Stomper]

A broken clock is right twice a day... I guess the ATF can be too, on occasion.

 

[deen_ad]

<Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel! Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

That's why they're now attempting to ban 5.45x39 importation because of AK pistols in that caliber... ATF and "common sense", yeah... right.

Actually it's only the steel core ones they want to ban, not the lead core. But, just in case, I ordered another 1,000 rds of lead core last night, shipped a few hours ago.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[Nwcid]

The ATF has VERY clear definitions of what each type of firearm/item is. Often we can disagree if the law/definition is correct. One thing the ATF does very consistently, even if it sounds dumb (shoestring MG) is follow those definitions VERY tightly.

Here are all of those definitions, http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

It is VERY clear why the Sig Brace is NOT an NFA item and has been clearly stated since LONG before the Sig brace came out why it is not illegal to shoulder a pistol. If you wanted to, not that it would be practical, you could shoot a revolver from your shoulder and it would be no different.

In the case of AR pistols with shouldering buffer tubes there is one area where you may run into trouble. There are some AR pistols, the OA-93 for example, that do NOT require a buffer tube to function. In that case it could easily be stated the only reason to add a buffer tube was to use it as a stock, in which case it would become an SBR. .

 

[jg rider]

Deleted

 

[Kruel J]

Very strange. I lived in Greenwood Village for about 4 years.

 

[boarder4life81]

It has to deal with the Sig pistol stabilization brace for AR-15 pistols.

There was concern that the ATF might try and classify AR pistols outfitted with these as SBR's. The letter simply states the mere presence of the brace does not re-classify the firearm

 

[fd15k]

Reminds me of this...

 

[The Heretic]

The problem as I see it is that although the ATF has stated that use of the brace with an AR or AK pistol is legal, that is what they are saying *TODAY*

The ATF is *infamous* for changing their minds; with a stroke of the pen and *not* a vote of Congress or the people, they have made what was once legal, now illegal.

<broken link removed>

------

Beyond that, I am not convinced of the utility of AR/AK pistols. Those with a barrel length shorter than 10" are not that much shorter than a bullpup, those with a barrel length longer than 10" are approx. matched by a bullpup - the bullpups having a much more effective (IMO) barrel length of 16" or longer, and a better balance - combined with the much lessened chance of becoming illegal by bureaucratic fiat.

 

[Nwcid]

The ATF does not have to say it is ok though. Today or any other day. By their (Federal) very own definitions it is not illegal. Laws are written to say what is illegal or to define things, not to say they are "ok" or legal.

It is very clear both in Federal definition and in the ruling letter sent with these stocks that quotes those laws that it is not illegal. So unless they change the laws that won't change.

Handguns are not "designed" to be fired "gangster" style (sideways) but that does not magically make them "not-handguns".........

 

[The Heretic]

I don't have as much faith in the process as you do.

We have seen the examples of the ATF declaring a class of firearms "illegal" by changing their interpretation of the law, without any change in the law itself - so if it happened once, it can most certainly happen again.

 

[telero]

At least this opinion letter makes sense. There is one asking about pistol grip only firearms that use shotgun shells, and whether they are AOWs if the OAL is 26"+ even if the barrel is not 18". The letter.

Basically they say:

1) By definition, an AOW has to be "capable of being concealed on a person"
2) A firearm is capable of being concealed on a person when it measures less than 26 inches in overall length
3) A firearm measuring greater than 26 inches in length may be classified as an AOW if it's actually concealed on a person

So it would have to be less than 26 inches to be capable of being concealed (and therefore if it's over 26 inches it's not capable of being concealed), unless it's longer than 26 inches and is concealed.

 

[Stomper]

Handguns are not "designed" to be fired "gangster" style (sideways) but that does not magically make them "not-handguns".........

Ahem....