Poll: Braced Firearm Interest Poll

[CamoDeafie]

The only real reason they (braces) exist..is because of laws saying a firearm with a rifled barrel under 16", if it has a stock, is a Short Barreled Rifle, or if it's got a smoothbore/shotgun barrel under 18" and a stock, it's a SBS. (NFA) Or if either have legal length and stock but are under 26" OAL (GCA).

Interestingly, under GCA, there's no definition for a firearm that's not concealable (under 26" ), but has under 16 or 18" barrel, and not equipped with a shoulder stock...because it is neither a rifle/shotgun nor a pistol/handgun.

 

[Stomper]

I have as much interest in a brace as I do in wearing a fedora, playing Dungeons and Dragons, and/or putting a giant aftermarket spoiler on the back of my car.

Lies…. caught you on my security cam!

 

[Member 53328]

I think braces are pointless / trash / goofy / gimmicks. But if you like them more power to you. They are simply a work around to avoid a NFA item.

If you're scared to be on a list then this whole "owning guns" and being on open forums thing isn't for you.

And if your argument is you shouldn't have to pay to possess something (which I agree) then you shouldn't be paying for transfers / BCGs / or a CHL. So I don't care. Lol. People pick and choose their arguments and where they stand. But it all boils down to the same principle/over reach in regards to the 2A.

I'll continue buying tax stamps cause I like SBRs and Suppressors.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Any of those cheap red dots from Japan?

I do have an old pro point somewhere. Not sure if Chinese made.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I do have an old pro point somewhere. Not sure if Chinese made.
View attachment 1760299

Should be a sticker or a decal somewhere underneath the body. Does look a little newer than the one I have on my SBR.

 

[CamoDeafie]

They are simply a work around to avoid a NFA item.

People just don't want to go back to this kind of silliness.

 

[Member 53328]

People just don't want to go back to this kind of silliness. View attachment 1760307View attachment 1760306View attachment 1760305View attachment 1760304View attachment 1760303View attachment 1760302

Let's just be honest and say the AR was designed to be a rifle. Whether it be a 10" up to a 20" barrel. At the end of the day it's a rifle.

Calling it a "pistol" when you remove the stock is stupid. It's a rifle. So making a rifle into a "pistol" is the REAL "silliness." There's a reason it looks goofy as hell when it's not in its intended configuration.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Let's just be honest and say the AR was designed to be a rifle. Whether it be a 10" up to a 20" barrel. At the end of the day it's a rifle.

Yes, but blame companies and the people getting around NFA and GCA

Calling it a "pistol" when you remove the stock is stupid. It's a rifle. So making a rifle into a "pistol" is the REAL "silliness." There's a reason it looks goofy as hell when it's not in its intended configuration.

So.. the same as these older and newer examples ?

That last one is particularly interesting because it was the subject of a SCOTUS case back in the 1990s where SCOTUS smacked the ATF down and said that it's not a violation/"constructive intent" to have a rifle barrel and stock kit for the Contender pistol and that pistol to rifle is legal as long as it's not in a NFA configuration.. but NFA explicitly states that if you shortened a rifle barrel, it's a SBR, and if you made a handgun out of a rifle receiver it's a SBR even without the stock because "Once a Rifle, always a rifle" (once manufactured/"registered"/transferred as a Rifle)



Edit.
For crayon eaters and other people.. simplified.

Add a stock to a pistol =SBR

Add a stock and 16"+ barrel= legal rifle

Cut a rifle barrel down under 16" =SBR

Cut a rifle barrel and remove stock from a rifle =SBR

 

[ma96782]

BUT, But, but...........

The US Constitution still says........

"..........shall not be infringed."

So, I'll stick with and go with that.

Aloha, Mark

 

[CamoDeafie]

BUT, But, but...........

The US Constitution still says........

"..........shall not be infringed."

So, I'll stick with and go with that.

Aloha, Mark

In an ideal US, yes.

In the real world of the US, unfortunately lawyers in black robes have said "some infringements OK", and Government doesn't care about actual Constitution when it comes to enforcing their will unto the subjects who consented to them by electing them

 

[ma96782]

In an ideal US, yes.

If the LIBERALS can dream. Then, so can I. LOL.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Member 53328]

Yes, but blame companies and the people getting around NFA and GCA



So.. the same as these older and newer examples ? View attachment 1760324View attachment 1760323View attachment 1760322View attachment 1760321

That last one is particularly interesting because it was the subject of a SCOTUS case back in the 1990s where SCOTUS smacked the ATF down and said that it's not a violation/"constructive intent" to have a rifle barrel and stock kit for the Contender pistol and that pistol to rifle is legal as long as it's not in a NFA configuration.. but NFA explicitly states that if you shortened a rifle barrel, it's a SBR, and if you made a handgun out of a rifle receiver it's a SBR even without the stock because "Once a Rifle, always a rifle" (once manufactured/"registered"/transferred as a Rifle)
View attachment 1760327


Edit.
For crayon eaters and other people.. simplified.

Add a stock to a pistol =SBR

Add a stock and 16"+ barrel= legal rifle

Cut a rifle barrel down under 16" =SBR

Cut a rifle barrel and remove stock from a rifle =SBR

I have tax stamps. I know how it works. Even being a Marine I could figure out.

It should be flip flopped and you should have to pay to create the above abominations. But if that's your style run with it. Just don't be surprised when people point and laugh. Lol.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I have tax stamps. I know how it works. Even being a Marine I could figure out.

It should be flip flopped and you should have to pay to create the above abominations. But if that's your style run with it. Just don't be surprised when people point and laugh. Lol.

I have 1 *coughs free * tax stamp because I always planned to SBR one build of mine because it needed the right look.. though I still have the 3d printed CAR style blade "brace" that said, I do also have the money saved away should SCOTUS/DOJ decide that everyone who's got a free stamp need to pay for them

 

[Member 53328]

I have 1 *coughs free * tax stamp because I always planned to SBR one build of mine because it needed the right look.. though I still have the 3d printed CAR style blade "brace" that said, I do also have the money saved away should SCOTUS/DOJ decide that everyone who's got a free stamp need to pay for them

Don't ever trust the government.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Don't ever trust the government.

We'll see, is why I put money away for in case.

 

[Certaindeaf]

First the frankenrifle and now the wankenrifle.

 

[bradsteen]

Your poll is missing an option:

"My like/dislike and/or usage/non-usage of braces was unaffected by the unconstitutional executive overreach that was the ATF's rule on pistol stabilizing braces."

The benefit of a brace in my opinion is that it does not change the classification of the firearm from pistol to rifle. Many states have laws regulating how a rifle can be transported (must be unloaded, in a locked container, etc), but don't have the same rules for pistols.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No option on the poll for me....

Don't like 'em or see the need for 'em....
However....Also don't care if some folks do like 'em and want 'em.

I think that pistol braces are a "work around" a dumb law against short barreled firearms....
I also think that laws against pistol braces are dumb...
Andy

 

[Oro]

You need another category:

- Never complied.

I just left it on and went about my business.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You need another category:

- Never complied.

I just left it on and went about my business.