Advertise on Northwest Firearms
J&B Firearm Sales
Simply Triggers
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Sporting Systems
Gun Deals
Low Price Guns
Defensive Arts
Southwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
HighLine Firearms
Messages
423
Reactions
1,453
I don't even shoulder my true RIFLES... with my misshaped pecs I have to chicken-wing and elbow everything. Or let the stock hang free-floating out in space under my armpit...
Worked for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris doesn't shoulder weapons...weapons shoulder Chuck Norris.

I don't think any 80's action heroes even knew what a stock was. If the pistol brace popularity had developed a couple decades earlier they probably would have been called hip braces.
 
Messages
10,193
Reactions
23,123
It helps to consider that I hold an AR kinda like a Tommy gun, hands doing all the work and the rear-end item is mainly there for ballast and balance. :)

Ironically, an 07/SOT near PDX's 1928A1 was the most accurate "rifle" shooting I've ever done... in semi, with a well fitted and well maintained iron the Chicago Typewriter can do things that'd surprise you.
 
Messages
4,649
Reactions
12,162
None of this would have happened when Ed Owens was in charge of the tech branch. This whole debacle classifying braces as something other than what they are, buttstocks, was just stupid and shows a lock of consistency and leadership at the tech branch.
That’s just silly. You can’t say a arm brace is a buttstock anymore than you can say a spoon is a knife. You could stab someone with a spoon, but it’s definitely not designed for it. A brace is designed to be a brace, using it at the shoulder doesn’t make it a stock. And if we really want to get into the thick of it of how this should have never have happened. The NFA is clearly infringing upon the American people’s right/ability to bear arms. All gun laws are unconstitutional.
 
Messages
6,594
Reactions
10,730
That’s just silly. You can’t say a arm brace is a buttstock anymore than you can say a spoon is a knife. You could stab someone with a spoon, but it’s definitely not designed for it. A brace is designed to be a brace, using it at the shoulder doesn’t make it a stock. And if we really want to get into the thick of it of how this should have never have happened. The NFA is clearly infringing upon the American people’s right/ability to bear arms. All gun laws are unconstitutional.
Nah, Its a buttstock. Calling it something else to get around the NFA doesnt make it something else. Like it or not the US Supreme Court ruled the NFA is constitutional and has backed that up multiple times. Its the law of the land. The pistol brace thing was never anything but a cutesy way to circumvent the NFA. The ATF fell for it for a while because of poor leadership and malfeasance but a blind man could have seen this coming a mile away.
 

Jonnyuma

Messages
3,472
Reactions
9,160
The pistol brace thing was never anything but a cutesy way to circumvent the NFA.
AKA; following the law.

Do you have similar opinions on "featureless" ARs?
Magazine plugs?
Open carrying long guns?
Bullet buttons?
That an "assault rifle" is radically different and/or more deadly than other semiauto rifles w wood stocks?
 
Messages
4,649
Reactions
12,162
Nah, Its a buttstock. Calling it something else to get around the NFA doesnt make it something else. Like it or not the US Supreme Court ruled the NFA is constitutional and has backed that up multiple times. Its the law of the land. The pistol brace thing was never anything but a cutesy way to circumvent the NFA. The ATF fell for it for a while because of poor leadership and malfeasance but a blind man could have seen this coming a mile away.
I don’t give a bubblegum that a bunch of lawyers can’t understand the very simple statement “shall not be infringed.”

However, I imagined if I infringed on their ability to breathe they would figure it out really quickly what that means.
 
Messages
6,594
Reactions
10,730
I don’t give a bubblegum that a bunch of lawyers can’t understand the very simple statement “shall not be infringed.”

However, I imagined if I infringed on their ability to breathe they would figure it out really quickly what that means.
You dont have to give a bubblegum. I have tremendous respect for people who go to jail over their beliefs. Ive personally known at least 6 folks who have done the same thing over NFA charges. Free food, a place to sleep every day and a chance to meet your soulmate. What more could you want?

Seriously though, I always get a kick out of it when the Constitutional Scholars come out saying "The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what's Constitutional or not" when its literally in the Constitution that that is their job.
 
Last Edited:
You dont have to give a bubblegum. I have tremendous respect for people who go to jail over their beliefs. Ive personally known at least 6 folks who have done the same thing over NFA charges. Free food, a place to sleep every day and a chance to meet your soulmate. What more could you want?

Seriously though, I always get a kick out of it when the Constitutional Scholars come out saying "The Supreme Court doesn't tell me what's Constitutional or not" when its literally in the Constitution that that is their job.
And that is what we get when we appoint kings and judges to rule over us.
 
Messages
10,193
Reactions
23,123
Every time the NFA comes before the SCOTUS, it's when there is a Liberal bench who will always uphold what their masters (Politicians) tell them! I would bet you many dollars that a conservative court would look upon the NFA differently!
IF we had a conservative court, and IF you could get it to take the case.
 
Messages
7,912
Reactions
15,740
Miller vs USA. Decision said basically sawed off shotguns weren't in common use by the military at the time, so they were not protected by 2A... interpretation is that by virtue of "suitability and common use by military", 2A only protected military arms, and thus NFA 1934 was upheld as legal.. nevermind that machine guns were in common use, albeit crew served and rather large at that time :rolleyes: the reasoning was that military arms in common use referred to what the infantry were issued... fast forward 20 or so years to the introduction of the M16 :rolleyes: never since then have there been a case brought up to challenge the Miller case and the NFA law to determine if the 2A actually protected military arms or not.
 
Messages
6,594
Reactions
10,730
Miller vs USA. Decision said basically sawed off shotguns weren't in common use by the military at the time, so they were not protected by 2A... interpretation is that by virtue of "suitability and common use by military", 2A only protected military arms, and thus NFA 1934 was upheld as legal.. nevermind that machine guns were in common use, albeit crew served and rather large at that time :rolleyes: the reasoning was that military arms in common use referred to what the infantry were issued... fast forward 20 or so years to the introduction of the M16 :rolleyes: never since then have there been a case brought up to challenge the Miller case and the NFA law to determine if the 2A actually protected military arms or not.
There were plenty of small arm machineguns at the time in use by the infantry. Thompsons, BAR's etc. . Miller was a setup. It was a case the government knew it would win. Miller was on the lamb and didnt even have legal counsel. He was dead by the time the case was decided. . Miller has never been revisited because the government does not want it revisited.
 
Messages
7,912
Reactions
15,740
A potential challenge to NFA1934, Hughes Amendment, and possibly GCA1968 could be brought up using Miller and Heller.

1. Miller states "arms suitable for militia and in military service are protected by 2a"

2. Heller states "arms in common use at the time are protected by 2a" using the Miller decision as precedent.

Using these two together; it infers that the NFA and Hughes Amendment ought to be nullified and repealed... on the following basis.

The US Army issue carbine is a 14.5" barreled "SBR" which is also a select-fire/automatic (NFA term is machine gun).
The previous issue rifle was a 20" M16 rifle but that is considered a MG under NFA due to having been issued with either full auto or 3 round burst.

These two arms are in common use by the US military, at the current time. The AR15s are a semiautomatic derivative of these two arms, but due to millions being sold in the last 30odd years, in a variety of setups...

It follows then, that the SBR M4 and MG M16 types of rifles, and the semiautomatic derivative AR15s, all pass the "test" of "arms suitable for militia and military use" as well as being "in common use"... and thus... the NFA should be repealed or amended or nullified.
 
Let Freedom Ring
Southwest Firearms
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Cerberus Training Group

Upcoming Events

Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show 2021
Albany, OR
Rimfire Challenge Oct 9th @ DRRC
Eagle Creek, OR
Nrl22 at DRRC
Eagle Creek, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top