AR Sponsor
Keep all ATF Brace rule discussions HERE... UPDATE ON PAGE 26! (Page 18 of 26)
|
All this speculation and the target has been moving since the beginning. By design. I even saw where the ATF walked back the ability to put a stock on your pistol after your Tax Exempt Form1 is approved. "No you have to keep the brace on, you are registering it with a brace". We will be having a completely different conversation in a week. Also if that injunction gets kicked back, you still had it......so....  And for anyone else, here's some non-legal advice, you do you though: Moving forward a brace will attract way more unwanted attention than a stock. 
|
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: All this speculation and the target has been moving since the beginning. By design. I even saw where the ATF walked back the ability to put a stock on your pistol after your Tax Exempt Form1 is approved. "No you have to keep the brace on, you are registering it with a brace". We will be having a completely different conversation in a week. Also if that injunction gets kicked back, you still had it......so.... And for anyone else, here's some non-legal advice, you do you though: Moving forward a brace will attract way more unwanted attention than a stock. Put a brace on your rifle. Keeps them guessing. |
Blowback9.com - 9mm AR info and troubleshooting that actually works. 9mm buffer selector, and 4 steps to get almost any 9mm AR running 100%.
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: All this speculation and the target has been moving since the beginning. By design. I even saw where the ATF walked back the ability to put a stock on your pistol after your Tax Exempt Form1 is approved. "No you have to keep the brace on, you are registering it with a brace". We will be having a completely different conversation in a week. Also if that injunction gets kicked back, you still had it......so.... And for anyone else, here's some non-legal advice, you do you though: Moving forward a brace will attract way more unwanted attention than a stock. It literally says on atf website you can remove brace and install stock in black and white |
|
The "Armed Attorneys" covered Constructive Intent a few days ago. Given the recent discussions, it may be helpful. I learned a bit as well. Understanding Constructive Possession |
|
Originally Posted By Droppoint: Put a brace on your rifle. Keeps them guessing. LOL, yes but staying off the radar is ideal for most. We joked about throwing braces the other day but I dont have the patience to go to a public range. I was referring to those of yall with the non-pinned 13.7-14.7" flash hider mod to 16-inchers. I compete and travel with rifle alot so these 12.5-14.5 configs are very popular and now there are several competitors trying to comply without registering. |
|
Originally Posted By Stiles1410: I'm pretty sure it's tonight at midnight 12:01 AM 5/31 Originally Posted By Stiles1410: Originally Posted By Bullet_: I've seen several different days/times listed for when this goes into effect. What is the exact drop dead EST (DC) time to file? What is the door kicking day/time? I'm pretty sure it's tonight at midnight 12:01 AM 5/31 ETA: from ATF's Facebook page . The option to register the firearm tax-free pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08F will be discontinued in the eForms system effective May 31, 2023, at 11:59 PM (ET). |
DOL
|
I filed two through silencer shop back in April. I just got an email from the atf that my application is “in draft status.” and needs to be submitted. I already went through all that? WTF? ETA: My SS dashboard shows both pending atf approval. |
“It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men”
- Samuel Adams
- Samuel Adams
|
Originally Posted By Mettlepig: Yeah, i got that email also, all my form ones I show submitted, so I am not worried, when I log in, I see a draft form 1, but it won't let me remove it. Anyone else submit a bunch today? nothing like procrastination. I’ve tried to login to eforms a dozen times and keep getting timeout or bad gateway. |
“It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men”
- Samuel Adams
- Samuel Adams
| I had a draft form from January from my first attempt to file. I didn't have all the information I needed and when I logged back in I was unable to get to the draft so I started a new form. That form was approved in April (84 days). I was able to delete the draft. |
DOL
|
From the GD brace thread, since it wasn't posted here: Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Bullet_: From the GD brace thread, since it wasn't posted here: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/55162/20230530_214425_jpg-2835207.JPG Does that say I am breaking the law with a pistol brace on my 16” rifle? The other five braces on the workbench are in case of breakage. 
|
OK, see you later, Redcoat…
|
Originally Posted By triburst1: I filed two through silencer shop back in April. I just got an email from the atf that my application is “in draft status.” and needs to be submitted. I already went through all that? WTF? ETA: My SS dashboard shows both pending atf approval. Just a reminder, SS dashboard is not a good reference for any status. I have 12 cans in my profile that still say In Progress but I have the stamps in my possession. eForms (if used in lieu of paper file) is the most accurate. Also, I put a brace on my 15 year old SBR today and I hate it. |
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: Just a reminder, SS dashboard is not a good reference for any status. I have 12 cans in my profile that still say In Progress but I have the stamps in my possession. eForms (if used in lieu of paper file) is the most accurate. Also, I put a brace on my 15 year old SBR today and I hate it. That’s because a brace isn’t a stock. Truth be told most braces are crappy as braces, crappy as stocks, and are at best a third index point, counter balance, and cosmetic poke in the eye to a vestigial regulation. That last feature will inspire bureaucrats to waste millions of dollars trying to rein them in. For an SBR or any rifle there are plugs that make a few brace designs more stock-like. Someone with a 3D printer could make such a plug easily and cheaply. |
Koalas are fucking horrible animals.
Pitter Patter, let's get atter.
Joined:
Dec 2014
Posts:
56784
EE: 100% (31)
ND, USA
 ATF Admits NFA Act is on THIN ICE?! Good video. Still contains speculation but points out some fuckery. Bears noting that those who filed a form 1 on the amnesty pistol brace rule, if the rule is overturned, you are now in possession of an illegal SBR if you "converted" it to a rifle. It would then need to be claimed common use which would take more time while your name is on a list of illegally registered weapons. Probably why there is discussion in conflict about putting a stock on the firearm. To conclude, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." |
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7-EJgU5rwQGood video. Still contains speculation but points out some fuckery. Bears noting that those who filed a form 1 on the amnesty pistol brace rule, if the rule is overturned, you are now in possession of an illegal SBR if you "converted" it to a rifle. It would then need to be claimed common use which would take more time while your name is on a list of illegally registered weapons. Probably why there is discussion in conflict about putting a stock on the firearm. To conclude, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Sounds like another youtube personality talking out of ass video then. Like most of them. Don't get your info on this topic from these clowns. USAG absolutely has "discretion" to waive registration fee's, etc. That discretion is Congressionally authorized by law. independent of if they make armbraces illegal or not. USAG has published a signed letter stating he is using that discretion. Those who formed 1, will still have SBR's despite all the masterbatory wet dreams to the opposite should this get tossed. And remind me again, what are they going to "toss"? Because unless it's SBR NFA that will be tossed, ATF and DA have always had the discretion to take such to a courthouse and argue it was intended to be a stock. The letter states that as of today, they will. And then points out in about 50 pages, the overwhelming body of evidence to that, from which they will win. The court doesnt actually have authority to toss that, unless they toss NFA as 2nd Amend violation; which hasn't happened. They SHOULD, but haven't. The judges who all said they were going to toss this, have sat down and actually looked at the law, what the letter actually says. And gone: well shit, it's actually pretty clear. So we have a couple temporary stays that are remarkable limited in who they apply to - which tells you all you need to know about how confident the judge is this actually is going to get overturned for America. Those stays will end like most of them do. Possible the judiciary might force some things regarding the fact ATF was failing to enforce the law for 10 years, and so those trapped in that, need more relief. Which the ATF will argue they provided with the forbearance (which was the real point - it was never really a gift, so much as a chess move). Have a plan. One door in your options closed yesterday. And if your plan is to switch to velcro shoes only, great, I actually support you - scrub your social media. |
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer: Sounds like another youtube personality talking out of ass video then. Like most of them. Don't get your info on this topic from these clowns. USAG absolutely has "discretion" to waive registration fee's, etc. That discretion is Congressionally authorized by law. independent of if they make armbraces illegal or not. USAG has published a signed letter stating he is using that discretion. Those who formed 1, will still have SBR's despite all the masterbatory wet dreams to the opposite should this get tossed. And remind me again, what are they going to "toss"? Because unless it's SBR NFA that will be tossed, ATF and DA have always had the discretion to take such to a courthouse and argue it was intended to be a stock. The letter states that as of today, they will. And then points out in about 50 pages, the overwhelming body of evidence to that, from which they will win. The court doesnt actually have authority to toss that, unless they toss NFA as 2nd Amend violation; which hasnt happened. They SHOULD, but haven't. The judges who all said they were going to toss this, have sat down and actually looked at the law, what the letter actually says. And gone: well shit, it's actually pretty clear. So we have a couple temporary stays that are remarkable limited in who they apply to. which will end like most of them do. Have a plan. One door in your options closed yesterday. And if your plan is to switch to velcro shoes only, great, I actually support you - scrub your social media. My question has been why, at the time the law was written 16 inches was defined (as a quantifiable metric) as the barrel length but no defined quantifiable surface area was established for what constituted a shoulder able stock. Toss at least that part for SBRs as unconstitutional until CONGRESS IF they so choose goes back and decides what that should be. I say unconstitutionally vague. I think even DettleB****couldn't answer that in front of Congress. My .02 |
Member
Joined:
Apr 2023
Posts:
1212
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: My question has been why, at the time the law was written 16 inches was defined (as a quantifiable metric) as the barrel length but no defined quantifiable surface area was established for what constituted a shoulder able stock. Toss at least that part for SBRs as unconstitutional until CONGRESS IF they so choose goes back and decides what that should be. I say unconstitutionally vague. I think even DettleB****couldn't answer that in front of Congress. My .02 At the time the law was written, 18" was defined as the bbl length limit ...... it was many years before it was changed to 16". As far as "surface area" being established to determine what is/isn't "shoulder able", you should take a look at rifles like a Winchester Model 58, a Quackenbush .22, or a Luger shoulder stock .....they have the surface area of a tongue depressor ..... it's probably better that it wasn't defined |
|
Originally Posted By lazyengineer: Sounds like another youtube personality talking out of ass video then. Like most of them. Don't get your info on this topic from these clowns. USAG absolutely has "discretion" to waive registration fee's, etc. That discretion is Congressionally authorized by law. independent of if they make armbraces illegal or not. USAG has published a signed letter stating he is using that discretion. Those who formed 1, will still have SBR's despite all the masterbatory wet dreams to the opposite should this get tossed. And remind me again, what are they going to "toss"? Because unless it's SBR NFA that will be tossed, ATF and DA have always had the discretion to take such to a courthouse and argue it was intended to be a stock. The letter states that as of today, they will. And then points out in about 50 pages, the overwhelming body of evidence to that, from which they will win. The court doesnt actually have authority to toss that, unless they toss NFA as 2nd Amend violation; which hasn't happened. They SHOULD, but haven't. The judges who all said they were going to toss this, have sat down and actually looked at the law, what the letter actually says. And gone: well shit, it's actually pretty clear. So we have a couple temporary stays that are remarkable limited in who they apply to - which tells you all you need to know about how confident the judge is this actually is going to get overturned for America. Those stays will end like most of them do. Possible the judiciary might force some things regarding the fact ATF was failing to enforce the law for 10 years, and so those trapped in that, need more relief. Which the ATF will argue they provided with the forbearance (which was the real point - it was never really a gift, so much as a chess move). Have a plan. One door in your options closed yesterday. And if your plan is to switch to velcro shoes only, great, I actually support you - scrub your social media. Several million out there clearly choosing on the velcro shoes only risk. I dont have much concern in this for myself besides the interstate travel issue with early 5320.20 notification, having a brace being the benefit prior. I have several registered lowers and form4 factory rifles because I got into this before braces were legal, therefore the $200 tax and approval was the only legal option at the time buying a factory short barrel firearm off the shelf (my first being a dpms A3 carbine in 2006) aside from having a "novelty" rifle that has a steel tube you press against your face. I remember people actually writing letters to the ATF asking if they could install rubber stoppers and tennis balls on the end of the buffer to protect the rifle and/or keep it from falling over...... Lets be real, braces were a legal loophole to shoulder the weapon, rewind to the 2017ish time where ATF said you cant shoulder it and it was found that they cannot regulate how firearms are used. Lets also be real, its not about the NFA or the braces, the current administration and most likely every single one in greater strength moving forward wants the guns and wants anything they can grasp in the process, especially if it confuses the matter. My stance remains the same. People who legally purchased these pistols should not be held accountable for this rule. Grandfathering them then holding FFLs accountable to not allow the transfer of braced pistols after a certain date would have been more ideal. (still dont agree). The ATF has to take some responsibility versus placing that on the public for allowing braces to be legal in the first place with tricky legal wording. You cannot walk things like this in common use back. This is why you have over 95% non compliance. This is why you have the great memes and this is also why ATF agents wives have boyfriends. Thats also alot of velcro shoes, quick feet and fast fingers. |
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: Several million out there clearly choosing on the velcro shoes only risk. I dont have much concern in this for myself besides the interstate travel issue with early 5320.20 notification, having a brace being the benefit prior. I have several registered lowers and form4 factory rifles because I got into this before braces were legal, therefore the $200 tax and approval was the only legal option at the time buying a factory short barrel firearm off the shelf (my first being a dpms A3 carbine in 2006) aside from having a "novelty" rifle that has a steel tube you press against your face. I remember people actually writing letters to the ATF asking if they could install rubber stoppers and tennis balls on the end of the buffer to protect the rifle and/or keep it from falling over...... Lets be real, braces were a legal loophole to shoulder the weapon, rewind to the 2017ish time where ATF said you cant shoulder it and it was found that they cannot regulate how firearms are used. Lets also be real, its not about the NFA or the braces, the current administration and most likely every single one in greater strength moving forward wants the guns and wants anything they can grasp in the process, especially if it confuses the matter. My stance remains the same. People who legally purchased these pistols should not be held accountable for this rule. Grandfathering them then holding FFLs accountable to not allow the transfer of braced pistols after a certain date would have been more ideal. (still dont agree). The ATF has to take some responsibility versus placing that on the public for allowing braces to be legal in the first place with tricky legal wording. You cannot walk things like this in common use back. This is why you have over 95% non compliance. This is why you have the great memes and this is also why ATF agents wives have boyfriends. Thats also alot of velcro shoes, quick feet and fast fingers. Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: Sounds like another youtube personality talking out of ass video then. Like most of them. Don't get your info on this topic from these clowns. USAG absolutely has "discretion" to waive registration fee's, etc. That discretion is Congressionally authorized by law. independent of if they make armbraces illegal or not. USAG has published a signed letter stating he is using that discretion. Those who formed 1, will still have SBR's despite all the masterbatory wet dreams to the opposite should this get tossed. And remind me again, what are they going to "toss"? Because unless it's SBR NFA that will be tossed, ATF and DA have always had the discretion to take such to a courthouse and argue it was intended to be a stock. The letter states that as of today, they will. And then points out in about 50 pages, the overwhelming body of evidence to that, from which they will win. The court doesnt actually have authority to toss that, unless they toss NFA as 2nd Amend violation; which hasn't happened. They SHOULD, but haven't. The judges who all said they were going to toss this, have sat down and actually looked at the law, what the letter actually says. And gone: well shit, it's actually pretty clear. So we have a couple temporary stays that are remarkable limited in who they apply to - which tells you all you need to know about how confident the judge is this actually is going to get overturned for America. Those stays will end like most of them do. Possible the judiciary might force some things regarding the fact ATF was failing to enforce the law for 10 years, and so those trapped in that, need more relief. Which the ATF will argue they provided with the forbearance (which was the real point - it was never really a gift, so much as a chess move). Have a plan. One door in your options closed yesterday. And if your plan is to switch to velcro shoes only, great, I actually support you - scrub your social media. Several million out there clearly choosing on the velcro shoes only risk. I dont have much concern in this for myself besides the interstate travel issue with early 5320.20 notification, having a brace being the benefit prior. I have several registered lowers and form4 factory rifles because I got into this before braces were legal, therefore the $200 tax and approval was the only legal option at the time buying a factory short barrel firearm off the shelf (my first being a dpms A3 carbine in 2006) aside from having a "novelty" rifle that has a steel tube you press against your face. I remember people actually writing letters to the ATF asking if they could install rubber stoppers and tennis balls on the end of the buffer to protect the rifle and/or keep it from falling over...... Lets be real, braces were a legal loophole to shoulder the weapon, rewind to the 2017ish time where ATF said you cant shoulder it and it was found that they cannot regulate how firearms are used. Lets also be real, its not about the NFA or the braces, the current administration and most likely every single one in greater strength moving forward wants the guns and wants anything they can grasp in the process, especially if it confuses the matter. My stance remains the same. People who legally purchased these pistols should not be held accountable for this rule. Grandfathering them then holding FFLs accountable to not allow the transfer of braced pistols after a certain date would have been more ideal. (still dont agree). The ATF has to take some responsibility versus placing that on the public for allowing braces to be legal in the first place with tricky legal wording. You cannot walk things like this in common use back. This is why you have over 95% non compliance. This is why you have the great memes and this is also why ATF agents wives have boyfriends. Thats also alot of velcro shoes, quick feet and fast fingers. That's a fair reply. And yes, everyone who bought one to date, should be defacto grandfathered. To which the ATF will then ask, how do we know which units are grandfathered and which aren't? Wait - ATF has the answer, they will generate some sort of voluntary listing system, so folks can document that; and make it free and easy. Aannnddd here we are. Anyway, one thing that if you have time to read the ATF letter in full (not a reasonable ask, TBH), and listen to what they were actually saying at SHOT show; and read between the lines - they use language which suggests they are far more interested in new activity as of today, then they are in units already in possession. They wont' say anyone with a 2020 arm-braced gun is super free and clear, but basically they know it's going to a non-ideal day in the courtroom having that conversation. And they're right, that's a dangerous case that has risk of screwing up their plan if they get the RIGHT judge. As to where we go from here. Compliance via FORM 1 or modifications, will likely be closer to 50%, rather than 5% [edit June 2: er.. apparently it actually IS closer to 5%] - but the point remains, many millions of people either way will remain affected. The number of people who continue to build arm-brace pistols anew, going forward from today, will be very low. Of the millions of legacy arm-braced firearms, my own expectation is that criminal prosecution will be almost non-existent; except for the rare pile-on charge of low hanging fruit (don't be low hanging fruit). There will be a sizeable amount of encounter-initiated asset-seizures - that will be the bulk of it; but even so, measurable in the thousands, out of millions still out there. The other annoyance is the Range Busy Bodies and the like, are going to be a harassing PITA. Match directors, range officers, hunting groups, game wardens, are all at risk of being a PITA. This is for normal states at least. NJ et al are fucked; not from ATF, but from their own state level shit. Sorry man. |
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: My question has been why, at the time the law was written 16 inches was defined (as a quantifiable metric) as the barrel length ... As Villafuego said, at the time of enacting the 1934 NFA, CENTER fire barrel length was 18", but RIM fire was 16" (because most of the rimfire guns being manufactured at the time were 16", and the manufacturers successfully lobbied to have that included). So, when did it change to 16" for all? Can't remember exactly when, but some time early '60s I believe, the gubmint decided to surplus out a large quantity of M1 carbines (hundreds of thousands iirc), and disbursed them into the civilian market. After the fact, someone reminded them that the carbine barrels were only 17.75" long, and thus illegal SBRs. gubmint f'ed up big time. Rather than ADMIT to their F-up and buy them all back, they simply CHANGED THE RULE to 16" across the board (and they're still pulling the same S__T)! The 16" change was incorporated in 1968 GCA. I'm not fully up to speed on all this yet, still trying to find relevant historical law and regulation on the web, and ain't easy. |
|
Speaking of injunctions... I own several weapons that were formerly known as "pistols." A few, but not all of them, are equipped with Maxim CQB Braces. According to the "injunction" I am covered. But does that only matter for those specific weapons that have Maxim Braces, or does being a "Maxim customer" cover ME as a person for all "pistols"? |
"... I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Speaking of injunctions... I own several weapons that were formerly known as "pistols." A few, but not all of them, are equipped with Maxim CQB Braces. According to the "injunction" I am covered. But does that only matter for those specific weapons that have Maxim Braces, or does being a "Maxim customer" cover ME as a person for all "pistols"? If you really want to split hairs it would be only the pistols equipped with the Maxim braces. I too have the Maxim CQB setup because it WAS a nice truck gun option for interstate travel. Funny thing about injunctions though. Remember when people in Illinois had that injunction where they could buy "assault weapons" legally again? Remember after that injunction was overturned the State said anyone who purchased (FFL transfer) an "assault weapon" during that time period is in possession of an illegal firearm and will be prosecuted? What I am getting at is so-long-as you dont sell narcotics or participate in human trafficking, you are probably just fine during this injunction but its still only temporary. I see alot of opportunity for someone to get made example of but I also see alot of boogeyman fear mongering. Be patient, dont be impulsive and buy or sell things. Separate the receivers if you are worried or plan to store the firearms for a long period without ease of access. Toss the braces in a box and throw it in the garage or take it to another address. |
|
Originally Posted By Arnery: As Villafuego said, at the time of enacting the 1934 NFA, CENTER fire barrel length was 18", but RIM fire was 16" (because most of the rimfire guns being manufactured at the time were 16", and the manufacturers successfully lobbied to have that included). So, when did it change to 16" for all? Can't remember exactly when, but some time early '60s I believe, the gubmint decided to surplus out a large quantity of M1 carbines (hundreds of thousands iirc), and disbursed them into the civilian market. After the fact, someone reminded them that the carbine barrels were only 17.75" long, and thus illegal SBRs. gubmint f'ed up big time. Rather than ADMIT to their F-up and buy them all back, they simply CHANGED THE RULE to 16" across the board (and they're still pulling the same S__T)! The 16" change was incorporated in 1968 GCA. I'm not fully up to speed on all this yet, still trying to find relevant historical law and regulation on the web, and ain't easy. Funny how ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're the government. I think it's safe to say most at the time saw this as a law to keep someone from literally taking a rifle and sawing off the barrel and/or the stock as opposed to adding a stock to a pistol or replacing a 16inch upper with a 10 inch one. Or unless you're talking the Mauser Broomhandle. I would like to see any "vagueness" be used to get this tossed and force Congress to have to do their job with COPIUS input from the 2A crowd. |
|
Originally Posted By Hojo15: If I am a member of GOA, am I covered under the injunction and not required at this time to comply with the ATF ruling? That is correct, same for FPC members and owners of braces made by man'f who are included in the partucular suits. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Speaking of injunctions... I own several weapons that were formerly known as "pistols." A few, but not all of them, are equipped with Maxim CQB Braces. According to the "injunction" I am covered. But does that only matter for those specific weapons that have Maxim Braces, or does being a "Maxim customer" cover ME as a person for all "pistols"? I have a similar question. I have an SB PDW brace on my "pistol". I believe the SB PDW is made by Maxim. I wonder if that would be covered? I'm not worried about it too much because I have filed a Form 1 under "amnesty" so I'm good for now, but this gets to be some murky water... |
|
Originally Posted By bballman25: I have a similar question. I have an SB PDW brace on my "pistol". I believe the SB PDW is made by Maxim. I wonder if that would be covered? I'm not worried about it too much because I have filed a Form 1 under "amnesty" so I'm good for now, but this gets to be some murky water... Originally Posted By bballman25: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Speaking of injunctions... I own several weapons that were formerly known as "pistols." A few, but not all of them, are equipped with Maxim CQB Braces. According to the "injunction" I am covered. But does that only matter for those specific weapons that have Maxim Braces, or does being a "Maxim customer" cover ME as a person for all "pistols"? I have a similar question. I have an SB PDW brace on my "pistol". I believe the SB PDW is made by Maxim. I wonder if that would be covered? I'm not worried about it too much because I have filed a Form 1 under "amnesty" so I'm good for now, but this gets to be some murky water... This is why I had been pushing the same COA for the past year: Buy more baces, make more braced pistols. Flood the market, make more of us. |
"... I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences..."
|
Originally Posted By bballman25: I have a similar question. I have an SB PDW brace on my "pistol". I believe the SB PDW is made by Maxim. I wonder if that would be covered? I'm not worried about it too much because I have filed a Form 1 under "amnesty" so I'm good for now, but this gets to be some murky water... |
DOL
|
Originally Posted By USMA-1982: Is SB Tactical owned by Maxim? If so I have an SBA3 brace, but I thought they were still separate companies. I was mistaken. However, it seems that Maxim uses the SB Tactical brace on their PDW. So, the Maxim buffer tube is Maxim and the extending brace is made by SB Tactical. Here's from an article from "The GunZone" on the Maxim PDW. "The SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace is included…. During the design and production of their PDW brace, Maxim Defense has partnered with SB Tactical. This is the company responsible for designing the first-ever pistol braces. And since inception SB Tactical have continued to improve and expand their range of stabilizing braces and are seen as a leading force in this sector. The partnership has led to the inclusion of SB’s Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace in this Maxim Defense Industries model. It offers ease of install on Mil-Spec AR-15 lowers and is interchangeable with other Maxim buttstock assemblies. This partnership and quality combination really does offer shooters the best of the best!" So, SB is not owned by Maxim. But this actually muddies the waters even further... |
|
Originally Posted By bballman25: I was mistaken. However, it seems that Maxim uses the SB Tactical brace on their PDW. So, the Maxim buffer tube is Maxim and the extending brace is made by SB Tactical. Here's from an article from "The GunZone" on the Maxim PDW. "The SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace is included…. During the design and production of their PDW brace, Maxim Defense has partnered with SB Tactical. This is the company responsible for designing the first-ever pistol braces. And since inception SB Tactical have continued to improve and expand their range of stabilizing braces and are seen as a leading force in this sector. The partnership has led to the inclusion of SB’s Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace in this Maxim Defense Industries model. It offers ease of install on Mil-Spec AR-15 lowers and is interchangeable with other Maxim buttstock assemblies. This partnership and quality combination really does offer shooters the best of the best!" So, SB is not owned by Maxim. But this actually muddies the waters even further... LOL...good luck with that. Man, this whole thing is a massive clusterfuck of epic proportions. They will write books, tell stories, and sing songs about this for ages. |
Keep all ATF Brace rule discussions HERE... UPDATE ON PAGE 26! (Page 18 of 26)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter