Lol! ATF Approves SB Tactical Collapsing Brace

[Ura-Ki]

Confused? I'm getting there. Ugg...........My brain (small as it is) is starting to hurt! I finally submitted my form 1 and form 4 so hurry up and wait just as fast as I can!

 

[IronMonster]

I understand what you are saying and of course I am just attempting to be funny, obviously you don't find it funny.

But I still think you are barking up the wrong tree.


The law about carrying a pistol in vehicle is a state law. If by the state definition what you had was a pistol it is irrelevant what the federal classification is you have broken no state law. If it is a SBR with a sig brace that meets the definition of a pistol it is legal to carry as a pistol according to state law right? What the ATF considers it to be is inconsequential as far as the state prosecuting you. Just as under state law a suppressor is not a firearm, but under federal law it is. The state of Washington can't charge you with selling a suppressor without a background check, because by Washington law it's not a firearm. However the ATF surely will. But as far as transport of a firearm in state there are no Federal laws that pertain to concealment that I am aware of. Carrying a concealed SBR is just as peachy as a pistol from the FED standpoint

I have no interest in being a test case, its all hypothetical. But I suspect I jury would agree with me. If I SBR'd a pistol it does not magically transmogrify it in the real world, it just adds a chunk of paper as to what the fed's consider it. If the vehicle law was a federal law, I would agree you would be screwed as they get to decide what it is.

But from a state standpoint if I get pulled over and have what looks like a pistol, fits the definition of a pistol and I say is a pistol there is no reason for it to go any further than that. (and no there are no markings on my SBR as it is a Rainier Arms lower that was SBR'd by Rainier Arms, No engraving required.

So I still think its doable and legal and I don't think any rational pro firearms cop or prosecutor would disagree.

That does not mean I intend to do it.

Now if you had a anti gun cop and prosecutor it really doesn't matter what is rational

 

[Boboclown]

Rationality in court would depend on perspective. An anti-gun prosecutor could easily argue that once you converted it into a SBR, the sig brace is redesigned to be a stock. As mentioned before, you'd be playing word games with the people who have a higher chance of winning if you get caught.

 

[The Heretic]

I have to agree with Bobo. By getting the SBR stamp, you have declared it a rifle. Now you want to argue in court that it is a pistol?

It sucks, but there it is.

 

[IronMonster]

We will have to just agree to disagree as I have no intention of being a test case.

 

[Flopsweat]

I understand what you are saying and of course I am just attempting to be funny, obviously you don't find it funny.

But I still think you are barking up the wrong tree.


The law about carrying a pistol in vehicle is a state law. If by the state definition what you had was a pistol it is irrelevant what the federal classification is you have broken no state law. If it is a SBR with a sig brace that meets the definition of a pistol it is legal to carry as a pistol according to state law right? What the ATF considers it to be is inconsequential as far as the state prosecuting you. Just as under state law a suppressor is not a firearm, but under federal law it is. The state of Washington can't charge you with selling a suppressor without a background check, because by Washington law it's not a firearm. However the ATF surely will. But as far as transport of a firearm in state there are no Federal laws that pertain to concealment that I am aware of. Carrying a concealed SBR is just as peachy as a pistol from the FED standpoint

I have no interest in being a test case, its all hypothetical. But I suspect I jury would agree with me. If I SBR'd a pistol it does not magically transmogrify it in the real world, it just adds a chunk of paper as to what the fed's consider it. If the vehicle law was a federal law, I would agree you would be screwed as they get to decide what it is.

But from a state standpoint if I get pulled over and have what looks like a pistol, fits the definition of a pistol and I say is a pistol there is no reason for it to go any further than that. (and no there are no markings on my SBR as it is a Rainier Arms lower that was SBR'd by Rainier Arms, No engraving required.

So I still think its doable and legal and I don't think any rational pro firearms cop or prosecutor would disagree.

That does not mean I intend to do it.

Now if you had a anti gun cop and prosecutor it really doesn't matter what is rational

If the law does not fit, you must acquit!

 

[Flopsweat]

I have to agree with Bobo. By getting the SBR stamp, you have declared it a rifle. Now you want to argue in court that it is a pistol?

It sucks, but there it is.

The thing is, Washington State law has a specific definition of a handgun. Or maybe they call it a pistol, I'm not going to look it up. The ATF has a different definition. What Washington State considers a pistol is not the same as what the feds do. So I don't think you can toss his argument based on the stamp.

 

[The Heretic]

The thing is, Washington State law has a specific definition of a handgun. Or maybe they call it a pistol, I'm not going to look it up. The ATF has a different definition. What Washington State considers a pistol is not the same as what the feds do. So I don't think you can toss his argument based on the stamp.

What the law says and what happens in court are sometimes, sadly, two different things.

Just saying.

 

[therealhitman]

 

[Brutus57]

It's just like golf, when you get in an ATF sand trap, use the KAK Shockwave wedge!

Brutus Out

 

[Brutus57]

Who are you, Johnnie Cochran? "Now I'm a pistol, now I'm an SBR"

If the collapsible stock fits....you MUST acquit!

Brutus Out