Thumbs up.

I have SBRs, but they aren't legal in all states, and you need permission to take them across state lines. So, I'll own BOTH.

Has anyone who wasn't arrested for a weapon related crime been charged with intent to manufacture or posess an SBR for having a brace on a pistol?  I did a quick google, only thing i found was a home invasion case in CA, charges levied against one of the invaders.

Not that we know of, but that would be a federal case and neither party is obligated to run to the media about it.

I just want to throw this on the pile for consideration.

First consider this post.  I've changed the bolded parts somewhat, but I agree with the post and it's conclusions:


Then consider the image below with a shooter using a Sig Brace on what I assume is an AR pistol, rather than a registered SBR.  Note in particular that the brace does not come all the way up to the rear of the receiver - and if you don't have one, be aware the Sig Brace has a stud that is intended to fit into the recess on the rear of the receiver end plate:  

Now...it's impossible to tell from the picture whether the buffer tube is just overly long and the end of the brace is flush with the end of the buffer tube, or whether the brace extends well past the end of the buffer tube.  But it doesn't matter.

Either way, it could be construed that the brace is intentionally placed farther aft on the buffer tube as an affirmative step to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock, which would then make it illegal to shoulder the brace and then fire the weapon, as it then effectively a "stock",  not a "brace".

----

I'm sensitized to this issue as I noted a similar configuration on a RRA 10.5" pistol I bought new from a local gun shop with a Sig Brace already installed.   Given that the RRA pistol buffer tube is 1.25" in diameter and then increases to 1.28" in diameter in the knurled section extending for a couple inches just behind the receiver, it won't slide all the way onto the buffer tube.  You have to tap it the rest of the way with a rubber mallet.  

Below is a RRA pistol with a Sig Brace where it tends to come to a stop if you are just pressing it on the RRA buffer tube.  Note the knurled section of buffer tube and the gap between the brace and the receiver end plate.  I would not advise shouldering and shooting one in this configuration:



This is a potential issue as the stud on the brace that fits into the receiver end plate strongly suggests the brace is designed to butt up against the back of the receiver.  If it does not, it now has a longer....ahhh...."length of pull"...than would otherwise be the case.    

Since it is a "wrist brace", not a stock, having an extended buffer tube extend past the end of the brace would not interfere with its function as a brace.  If however you "need" the end of the buffer tube to be flush with the end of the brace, then you are probably intending to use it as a stock, and are thus reconfiguring it for use as a stock.

A violation of this nature and/or loss of my security clearance would not be career enhancing for me.  Consequently, I tapped my Sig Brace on all the way so that is was both flush with the end of the buffer tube AND MORE IMORTANTLY butted up against the receiver end plate.  

Similarly, in the midst of all the uncertainty over "incidental" shouldering of a brace, I opted to replace it entirely with a buffer tube and check rest kit from Thordsen Customs.  However now that we have the most recent ATF letter containing the above excerpts, I'll probably re-install the RRA buffer tube and the Sig Brace - but once again I will take care to ensure that the front of the brace is butted up against the end plate of the receiver to avoid any potential accusation or interpretation that I have taken an affirmative step to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock, which would then make it illegal to shoulder the brace, as it then effectively a stock.

----

With regard to the meme above, it's a non issue for the "shooter" because the flowers in the muzzle make it clear he is not actually shouldering and firing the weapon, despite it's potential to be interpreted as being configured for use as a shoulder stock.

Yeah, because fuck more freedom, right?

And I do not want a frigging stupid SBR NFA item for a whole plethora of reasons.  My lord these braces tickle the statist in some of the NFA crowd.  I don't get what it is about it, but holy hell.

ARF is continually railing against over regulation, too many laws, yada yada yada.......but as soon as someone mentions a pistol brace.........."stop being a cheap ass and deal with a NFA item"........

(I have no AR pistols of any kind, and all mine are 16" barreled rifles.....)

With all this talk about the ATF’s pistol brace opinion reversal, I got to thinking, has the arm brace become the gun equivalent of the vape?

Yes. It has.

Follow the The Firearm Blog Handguns Channel
Sure, pistol braces have a place in the world, I am not gonna dispute that at all. Some people don’t want the hassle of sending a notification to ATF about taking an SBR into another state when traveling and those who legitimately need the brace to be able to shoot an AR pistol, there is nothing wrong with that at all. Do I care if you are cheeking, shouldering, or keestering your brace? Nope. Enjoy your brace as you see fit, just don’t break the law and don’t be a jerk about it.

Where my and many others get a bit annoyed when it comes to the topic is the jack wagons that feel the need to scream from the mountain tops that the brace is a way around NFA laws. There is no reason to use a good thing to thumb your nose at the ATF. None.

The small percentage of what I like to call ‘bro shooters’ are the group of people that have turned any conversation about the brace into an annoyance on par with those bros that vape in a hospital, and when confronted reply with “Relax bro, it’s just vapor.”

With many of the shooters that I know and others that I have talked to, feelings about stabilizer enthusiasts seem to be shared by most. Heck, even recent comments on Nick C.’s article where he gathered several determination letters from the ATF in regards to braces echo this sentiment. You can read that post here, but the comments really echoed the same message, to stop talking about the legalities of the brace and quit poking the bear.

Can we all just agree to leave the legalities to those with the background to properly interpret them and use some common sense? Not only would it be for the good of the industry, but it also annoys people a whole lot less.

Also, if the words “Relax bro, it’s just a brace” come out of your mouth, you might be the problem.

You signed up here just to copy and paste an article from another website? GTFO

Relax Major Collins just getting my foot in the door and if i trip over my dick doing so then its on me not here to piss anyone off sorry

No worries.  Welcome to ARFCOM.  Got any Legos?

If you're going to quote another website, have the courtesy to post the URL, even if you don't know how to make it hot.

Quarterbore, for those just jumping into the NFA game, the 1st stamp is a real hassle.  $100+ to form a trust, fingerprints, signatures, notarization, all prior to a $200 stamp.  I probably would never have jumped had it not been for 41f.

The brace is a much cheaper if you don't already have a trust set up.

I think this is worth repeating - as often as needed to get people to shop submitting useless questions to ATF.

I don't think the average person realizes the cumulative effect of a large number of shooters with pistol braces who all want their own personal letter - when the company making it has already covered that base. All those responses take up almost as much time as the original response.  And a large number of letters starts to draw very unwanted attention.  

It's made far worse when a significant number of idiots start asking stupid questions in their letters such as "can I build my SBR using a pistol brace as a stock and then not have to register it?"  Those people are a waste of space and oxygen and we ought to open a season with a 3 per day bag limit.

----

There is a time and place for public comment.  For example, when the ATF wanted to change the interpretation of "armor piercing" to specifically ban M855 ammunition and M855/SS109 projectiles ATF received over 90,000 public comments indicating ATF was out to lunch on the issue, with the result that ATF backed off.

Those kinds of situations are the time and place for average shooters to contact ATF.

VLTOR A5 tube and LAW Tactical folding adapter with the Sig brace fully installed onto the tube. All purpose no 'filler' for length. 

It has a about perfect 12.5" LOP

Attached File

Did anyone else see MAC's video comparing an SBR to a braced pistol? Tell me that's not asking for trouble, and that's coming from the fucking guy preaching to everyone "leave well enough alone" and he's basically poking the ATF like "look guys my pistol is almost just as good as an SBR and it doesn't require a tax stamp!!!!"

I give this 2 months tops before this all collapses. And I'll have my popcorn ready for the shitstorm that ensues when all those bozos bought that POS $300 SB tactical PDW brace with the intent to shoulder it only to find out they can't anymore.

Forgot this wasn't GD. 

Teehee.

I love my POS SB Tactical PDW brace....

<--------- Bozo

Except I don't shoulder it...so maybe I am a semi-bozo.

You sound like you're looking forward to it.  

There could also be some underlying jealousy that I don't have $300 to spend on a brace...

My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) is that the way us use something doesn't change what it is.
So, putting it on your shoulder doesn't change the what it is.
Unless you modify it from its original form it should be legal no matter how you shoot it.
You should be able to put it on your shoulder, fore head, or anywhere else on your body and that wont change what it is.

Am I wrong?

The triple reversal is a bold strategy.

Where are you getting $300 for a brace? The PDW version?

My SBM4 was $113 shipped and slid right on my Spike's pistol buffer tube.

Granted, it's more than a stock but in my state you can't have a loaded long gun in your vehicle. I have my CPL so my 300 blk pistol allows me to have access to carbine capability while on the road. A SBR wouldn't solve this issue.

No.  That's (finally) the reasoning underlying the most recent (April 25, 2017) letter.  

As an aside, I recall the day I was introduced to the M16A1.  A DI placed the stock against his balls and sent a full auto burst downrange. He would not have done that with an M14.

I saw the video and had the same reaction.  What an idiot.


He's missing the point entirely that the ATF is just making interpretations of existing gun laws.

Historically, Republican administrations combined with Republican majorities in house and senate are inevitably followed by about 20 years of Democratic dominance in the house and senate.   It's just the way the political pendulum swings in this country.   If the 2018 mid terms favor the Democrats (and that may hinge on how successful Trump is in keeping his base happy), then we could in fact see a change in actual statute that would/could result in a ban on AR-15 pistols and similar weapons that function effectively as SBRs.  In effect, it would be the  argument that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, but applied to AR pistols and put into statute.  That would be really bad news.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by making comparisons between SBRs and pistols with braces.  In effect it points out the absurdity of current laws when it comes to SBRs and pistol braces.  MAC's point may be that current SBR laws are stupid - and while most shooters would agree with this, most non shooters would not see it that way.  They'd be inclined to see it as absurd that the current pistol definitions allow braced pistols to emulate SBRs in overall effectiveness and see this as a sound reason to make them illegal - even if they know absolutely nothing about SBRs.

Yes, I'd love to see the 16" barrel requirement for rifles just go away as it serves no useful purpose - however that's not likely to happen even in the current political climate.  

For example, the Hearing Protection Act (the bill that would remove suppressors from the registry) was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on February 6th and three and a half months later it is still stalled in committee.   It'll take a lot more commitment from Republicans and some support from the Democrats to get it out on the floor for a vote, and if/when it makes it to the Senate, it'll need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster as the senate rules on filibusters effectively require 60 votes not 51 to pass a contentious bill.

The point being that the HPA is a lot less controversial than removing SBRs from the registry and a bill to do that has not even been sponsored yet, and is not likely to be sponsored any time soon.  Maybe after the HPA passes - if it passes.

$300?

You can get a Sig Brace for around $90.

I recently purchased a Thordsen Custom buffer tube, buffer tube cover and CAA saddle along with a QD swivel for $120, direct from Thordsen - and I probably could have gotten for $90-$100 from some other sources, if I was willing to wait for it to be in stock.

The Shockwave Blade can be had for around $50.

What the hell makes you think SBR's are controversial? Non shooters don't know what an SBR is and probably don't care. And if you tried to explain it to them 99% of them would rightly ask what the SBR regulations are supposed to accomplish. (Apparently the SBR section of the NFA has something to do with trench coats hiding "dangerous", "high powered" rifles, but you can have a rifle without a stock, which is easier to conceal, and that's fine...they just don't want you to be as accurate when firing,  which is...really dumb).

The only people who care are the ATF because that is there job. The more people that buy braces and shoulder them, the more we win by overwhelming their ability to control us, and virtually nullify SBR rules. The more people like MAC who stand up--and even to an extent the more letters to the ATF that were wrote--the more power we have in numbers.

Everyone should buy a brace. Buy two or three. Use them on every AR you own. Shoulder them. It's called freedom, and if people like you would stop begging for a boot on your kneck then we'd all be better off.

This isn't stuff I'd recommend sharing outside an AR focused forum, as making it well known to the anti-gun public isn't really beneficial, however there are several reasons why a shooter might choose the braced pistol route to the SBR route:

1) As someone noted above the cost of going the SBR route is higher than $200 once finger print and notary fees are considered.  Setting up a trust will involve some legal fees that can push this cost significantly higher.

2) It also involves a visit to the local sheriff's office, and they vary quite a bit in how easy they make the process, even within the same state.  For example, I've seen counties where they only accommodate fingerprinting for this purpose between 9am and 10am on Wednesdays and it's first come first serve.

3) Then once you've gotten fingerprinted and had the paperwork properly notarized (and established a trust, engraved a receiver, etc if you want to go that route) you get to send $200 to the ATF who will cash the check and then forward the paperwork to an office in DC where it will languish in an inbox for about 8 months before being processed. The actual processing only takes about a week, but ATF makes no effort to increase staff to reduce the backlog and wait time.   It's more or less back door gun control.  

4) Once you have the tax stamp in hand and can assemble your SBR, you've still got to deal with any state requirements.  For example, if you've got a concealed carry permit, some states narrowly define that to a "handgun", so carrying a loaded SBR in your truck is now off the table, while it would be a legal option in that same state with a braced pistol.  

5) In addition, there are restrictions to taking an SBR out of state.   For example, if you wanted to take your SBR to a 3 gun match in another state, a) it would have to be legal there, and b) even if it is legal you need to get permission from the state in advance.  That varies from a serious annoyance to a major PITA.

6) If you ever decide to sell an SBR, your market is limited and the new buyer will need to go through the process outlined above.


In contrast, there are fewer bureaucratic hurdles with a braced pistol.

For example, in NC, SBRs are legal but a braced AR-15 still involves a lot less bureaucracy.   If you want to buy one and you have a concealed carry permit you can walk into a local gun shop, buy one and be back out the door with the pistol in hand in about 15 minutes. This is possible because NC, like many states, allows for the use of a concealed carry permit as a pistol purchase permit, and it is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Brady Bill, which eliminates the need for a NICS check.  Once it is yours, you can then carry it in your car under your concealed handgun permit.  Even better, if you travel to a match out of state, it gets treated like any other handgun and concealed carry reciprocity even applies just like it would for a conventional handgun.

There's just not much downside to a braced pistol, particularly under the current ATF ruling on shooting them.

So, let's make sure the usual crop of idiots doesn't start writing to the ATF asking for their very own letter of clarification for what ever brace they happen to own, or worse start asking the ATF is a particular modification to the brace would be legal.  

A) You can shoot it off the shoulder
B) You can't modify it in any way.
C) It's good news, so just leave the ATF alone.

-----

I also enjoy shooting my braced AR-15 pistol off a bipod or rest at longer ranges - just like my T/C Contender.  

(As an aside, I have a T/C Contender with a Super 14 barrel in .223 that is the most accurate firearm I've ever owned.  With a tailored hand load it will produce 5 shot 1/4 MOA groups, and when I lived out west it was my favorite varmint weapon out to about 300 yards.

Well - BATFE has for years now held that if you conceal a 26" "firearm" like the Mossberg Shockwave it magically becomes an unregistered AOW.

I still find it utterly amazing that ATF approved the Sig Brace and especially the Shockwave Blade as legal for use on an AR pistol and that it does not make the pistol an SBR.  It shows that the ATF is not always anti-gun and in some cases does sympathize with what we really like and want in a weapon.

I fear that after Trump is gone from the White House we may see a very leftist President and Congress who will get very busy banning every type of gun they hate.  AR pistols will no doubt be right up there with "assault weapons" in the general ban.  Its a shame but it may be inevitable.

I think you might be giving ATF too much credit.

My read one this, based on my experience dealing with federal attorneys writing regulations, is that the ATF attorney(s) involved with the original response letter simply made a very narrow legal interpretation looking at the federal definition of "pistol" and deciding that a Sig Brace that totally looks like - and could certainly function as a short stock - was not in fact a "stock" because it's designed purpose was as a "brace" to be used to shoot a pistol with one hand (consistent with the ATF's definition of "pistol"), while totally ignoring the fact that shooting an AR-15 pistol with one hand isn't practical, particularly when it has 10+ inch barrel.  

You are, like I was, utterly amazed at the initial determination as if some one had asked the average shooter to comment when seeing a Sig brace on an AR-15 for the first time, the vast majority would have said something along the lines of "what kind of stock is that?"  

"If it looks like a stock and can be used like a stock, then it's probably a stock" is something most shooters would find logical.  But that's not what matters to an attorney.   If you look at this shit show of ATF letters that first allowed shouldering an brace equipped pistol, then disallowed shouldering of a brace equipped pistol, and now once again allows shouldering the pistol, provided the brace is in no way altered or modified.

Each of these seemingly "conflicting" rules makes sense from the persecutive of the ATF attorneys who have been attempting to work around the fact that their initial narrow legal determination pretty much flew in the face of common sense.  Once that was out of the bag, the effort to stuff it back in the bag resulted in the reasoning that "use" of the brace as a stock was sufficient to say the firearm had been "re-designed" as an SBR.    That also flew in the face of common sense. Sig used the example of using a can or corn as hammer, means the can of corn is now a hammer.  

A better example of the illogic of the ATF's reversal can be found by looking at the definition of "pistol" where they reference a single small stock extending below the weapon intended to be fired with one hand.  That same page shows a 1911 as an example of a "pistol".  However  and most people who shoot a 1911 in any thing other than a Bullseye match, shoot it with a two hand grip. per the ATF definition that "mis use" of the stock intended for a single hand grip would make it something other than a pistol.  

That could not stand any level of scrutiny, thus ATF now has a ruling that requires both modification of the stock in addition to shouldering the stock before it is considered to be illegal.

----

I will give ATF some credit however.  The alternative would have been for ATF to say "we made an error in our initial approval of the Sig Brace (and others like it)" and then ban their use on any pistol.  That would have resulted in a large number of gun owners being out of compliance, and would have also meant a material loss for those owners as their braces would have then been basically worthless.

Consequently, I'm not inclined to fault the ATF as they have finally worked back around to a position that works, and does not fly in the face of common sense - other than of course the original fact that the practical difference between an SBR a a brace equipped pistol is pretty thin, and would probably be indistinguishable to the average non gun owner.

I was referring to the SB PDW, I own a blade already yeah. I'm just saying if you have $300 laying around to get a SB PDW you must have some fuck-you money or something...

The letter is pretty clear that if you have modified it in any way then it is illegal just to have on your pistol, disregarding how you use it.

Does anyone sell longer pistol buffer tubes that are made longer for added "recoil reduction"? ATF hasn't said anything about shouldering a buffer tube IIRC....

Take a heart pill.   And then take what I wrote in it's proper context.

It's a controversial topic in congress. Yes, most people have no idea what an SBR is, but their little ears perk up and they get all nervous when they hear some type of firearm is being considered for removal from the NFA requirements - particularly one put there in 1934 as part of a fight against "gansters" and organized crime.  When their constituents get nervous, congressmen and senators get nervous.  Yes, conservative politicians want to be pro gun, but they also don't want to be seen as being soft on crime, or creating a threat to 'security', so it becomes a bit of a balancing act. Talk is cheap, action is something entirely different. Thus the HPA is still stuck join committee with no signs of moving any time soon.  

Shooters often get confused about how far politicians are willing to go on some issues. Reagan for example, is remembered today as the perfect conservative president, but that's because people have short memories. He wasn't all that pro gun, he was very much pro law enforcement and when he saw guns as a threat to law enforcement, he was quite anti-gun.   He's the guy who signed the FOPA - which banned the manufacture of machine guns for sale to civilians, and he backed other anti-gun legislation and lobbied for the AWB in 1994.

He was also the reason folks could no longer carry a loaded heater around in Kali, beginning the long slide into all the anti-gun legislation. And all because of a few Black Panthers.

- OS

lol..

Edit: Wrong thread.

Actually your quite wrong. Use most anything in the commission or intent of a crime and it changes what it is. Carry a crowbar around on a dark night in most any neighborhood and you'll likely get picked up for caring a burglary tool unless you have a damn good reason for having it. Beat some one with a baseball bat and that bat becomes a deadly weapon. Same thing if you stab someone with a screwdriver. Most states outlaw carrying a firearm (without a permit) but only "for the purpose of going armed", so this is a change based solely on intent. There are countless more examples, but you get the picture.

Would keep in mind that you have to prove intent... circumstantial evidence is all a prosecutor can use. I would still say, if you're shooting from the cheek and it accidentally touches your shoulder, not a big deal. Shoot from the shoulder to start out with, probably enough circumstantial evidence.

In this case, the only intent that now matters, in the wake of the ATF letter to SB Tactical dated March 10, 2017, is whether or not you intended to build an SBR when installed a brace on a pistol.  

Conversely, your intent in modifying a brace doesn't matter - it results in the redesign of the pistol into an unregistered SBR.

Your intent (accidental, incidental or otherwise) in shouldering a brace equipped pistol that was properly and intentionally built as a pistol and with an approved and unmodified brace also doesn't matter - as the ATF now says shouldering such a weapon is allowable and not a violation of the NFA.

The example the ATF used in it's January 2015 discussion of use as a means of "redesigning" a pistol into an SBR was the use of a nail gun as a weapon, which the ATF had previously interpreted as placing a nail gun into an "all other weapons" category.   The March 10, 2017 letter clearly states that any interpretation that mere misuse of a pistol equipped with an approved brace by shouldering it does not necessarily make it an SBR - the brace must also be modified or reconfigured.  

I have no idea where this leaves nail guns, but I don't see any need to ask the ATF about it.

It's time for a bump-fire arm brace.

I have thought about that too, but with the Binary and Echo triggers, for me...bump fire became somewhat obsolete. I have a Fostech Bumpski AR defender sitting in a bin

I dont even know how you would begin to create a bump fire brace without having it originally set to shoot from your shoulder. All these brace companies had to come up with some other bullshit "method" of using their brace legally, so not sure how that would fly with ATF.

Handicapped folks should be able to bumpfire too.  All it needs is the PG attached to the brace, and the ability to slide on the buffer tube.

A perfect example of why we need to DISBAND the BATFE!    These clowns couldn't find a turn in a corn hole, and if they did, it would take years of wordy missives to determine that it stunk!      My God, I wish President Trump would just fire the whole lot of them and use the constitution as a guide!  AAHHRRGG!!!!

And replace them with what?

ATF didn't write the laws in question and they don't just go away if ATF goes away.  

Look at it another way - the law (not the ATF) requires the paperwork for suppressors and SBRs, but it's the ATF that processes it. Get rid of the ATF and someone still has to process the paperwork for your suppressor.  It only takes about a week for the actual processing of the paperwork and issuance of the tax stamp, but they are under staffed and about 9 months behind (and ATF as a whole gets farther behind when forced to answer stupid questions).    

The president HAS to follow the Constitution as a guide, which means that while he could disband the ATF, it is after all an executive branch office, congress still must approve the budget under which that disbanding of the ATF would take place, and it's congress that would have to repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986, etc.   Disbanding the ATF without repealing all the legislation that it is tasks with implementing just brings everything to a screeching halt.  That's the facts as they are, not just as you want them to be.

The real world options are to:

1) Contact your representatives and senators and ask them to repeal what ever gun laws you want to get rid of; and/or
2) Contact your representatives and senators and ask them to increase ATFs funding to enable them to address the 9 month backlog in NFA registration paperwork, so that the "delay" in getting an SBR or a suppressor is a much more reasonable 2 weeks (including time in the mail).

----

Personally, over my career I've seen stupid people do some pretty stupid shit with guns, and if they were not already a prohibited person, they were on their way to being one.  I'm totally ok with individuals who have clearly demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to engage in their right to bear arms firearm without posing a threat to innocent bystanders losing their right to bear arm, or having those rights restricted.  

It's a basic premise of western civilization that rights must go hand in hand with responsibility.  Whenever you have one without the other in equal measure, you have a problem.  Rights without responsibility leads to abuse, and responsibility without right leads to tyranny.

Most of your cost analysis is just wrong. You can get the fingerprint cards in the mail free from the ATF, I ask for a dozen at a time. You can do your own fingerprints and sign the card yourself, there is nothing against doing it and I have done it many times.
You certainly don't need a trust, I don't have one.
You don't need to get the other states permission to bring a sbr across state lines, if a SBR is legal the 5320 is all you need, and it is good for a year. I don't know anyone that uses a sbr in 3gun, I guess you could but I, like most people, use a 18".
Selling it is no different than selling any lower, without a short barrel is sells as a regular title 1. No other requirement to sell.
If selling as a sbr it transfers on a form 4, but few people will be interested in someone's home built sbr anyway so its a moot point.
Some states do not allow a firearm purchase without a nics regardless of carry permit and some states allow loaded rifles and handguns in a car even without a permit so both those arguments are pointless. Also some states do not allow AR pistols at all or because of state law do not consider them a handgun.
Bottom line is the total cost for any of my sbrs have been $235. $35 for engraving and the $200 tax. I also have 3 AR pistols just 'cause, but I don't feel any need to justify them for any reason.

"Can't anymore" how?   Who is going to enforce that?

And when they do, they're going to have to stand up and tell the public that some firearm is legal to buy, own, and use... but if you touch part of it to part of your body, they are going to lock you in a cage, and are willing to kill you if you don't go along with it.

If that's not stupid .gov behavior that needs standing up to, then I don't know what is.


I have no horse in this race personally, I have a pile of stamps.

FWIW the most moaning about this i've seen is from people who actually went through the trouble to get a SBR. A guy at my range actually wrote ATF a letter because of that, he's probably spent 2k+ in the past 5 years on SBR stamps alone and he's pissed.

Sadly I'm in agreement with this.  There's a great deal of snob appeal to be had in an SBR, what with the $200 tax stamp, the paperwork and the weight - and the pride in owning an NFA weapon.  

I suspect some folks see their accomplishment being diminished somewhat when an AR pistol that you can buy and take out the door in 15 minutes and then take to the range accomplishes about 95% of what an SBR can do, now that shouldering braces is again legal.  

---

It's a similar story with the Hearing Protection Act, where much of the current suppressor industry doesn't seem to all that excited about it - in part because it will move it from a more or less small cottage industry to a mass market with much greater competition and lower prices and profit margins.

And again, the suppressor owners who went the $200 tax stamp route, spent 6-9 months waiting and paid $600-$1500 for a suppressor will again see that "accomplishment" somewhat diminished.    

Life is hard, an overly large or overly fragile ego makes it a lot harder.

That's one the smallest actions from a grown man I've heard of in a while. To write a letter when it's common info that doing so could result in a restriction of the rights of others which we've fought so hard to protect all in the name of keeping your own gear as iconic as possible is just low....sometimes I'm ashamed to be a part of a gun culture which acts this way, if a friend of mine did that they wouldn't be a friend any longer.