AR Sponsor
|
Even though there is much hatred toward BATFE and it is automatically assumed they hate guns and gun owners, I find it amazing they approved the SIG brace and the Shockwave brace for pistols without needing reclassified as NFA weapons. That is a huge deal in my opinion. Apparently BATFE either does not hate guns and owners as much as was thought and/or they actually follow the law as written.
Hopefully people will stop "poking the bear" so much with these constant inquiries to ATF regarding pistol stocks and such, unless submitting a new design for testing, evaluation and classification. Eventually ATF will tire of the thousand questions and will just come out and say any stock sticking off the back of the "pistol" behind the firing hand makes it an NFA item. They already reversed themselves on shouldering the SIG brace because of so many idio....... I mean people writing in and asking if its OK to shoulder the brace. Hopefully they don't reverse themselves on the approval of the braces as shooting aids. |
Trust me, I'm with the Government
|
Originally Posted By PiccoloPlayer:
http://i.imgur.com/qRBYISW.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Cs1mi2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8BO93MA.png If this is for real (I have my doubts as to the authenticity) then this clearly is an example of "poking the bear" which will eventually lead us to losing the "brace" classification. People should shut the hell up and be thankful and just shoot these damn pistols. |
Trust me, I'm with the Government
|
Originally Posted By Guntoter:
If this is for real (I have my doubts as to the authenticity) then this clearly is an example of "poking the bear" which will eventually lead us to losing the "brace" classification. People should shut the hell up and be thankful and just shoot these damn pistols. Supposedly from one of our own. 
|
Enjoy using your Crisco highspeed. I'll pour science on my guns.
|
Originally Posted By PineappleDevil:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2cht9he.jpg http://i62.tinypic.com/10z76uq.jpg Download link: Here Rock6... I carry a copy of this letter with my "pistol" as I shoot it from the shoulder... I have a clarification question to BATFE at this time (4 months) in an allied concern...the pistol was just a trial platform for the LAW folding stock adapter, as the KAK tube put me nose to charging handle by itself.... hopefully with the adults in charge, thing may change |
| The ATF has it WRONG in this letter. They are jumbling up policy/procedure. If you had a 6" barrel but a 15" hand guard, by this letter, they would be measuring to the end of the barrel and not the 9+ inches of protruding hand guard (think suppressor under hand guard. |
|
Originally Posted By cationgun:
https://i.imgur.com/bj8tP2k.png saw that over on mdshooters board no official verification yet, they said they got it from reddit and the threads i found showed that it was leaked(?) from a letter pertaining to something else which explains why it was cropped we'll see what happens.  However, I do find interesting the mention of devices submitted and approved the the ATF, which may leave “braces” that haven’t been submitted and approved at risk. |
|
Originally Posted By cationgun:
https://i.imgur.com/bj8tP2k.png saw that over on mdshooters board no official verification yet, they said they got it from reddit and the threads i found showed that it was leaked(?) from a letter pertaining to something else which explains why it was cropped we'll see what happens. |
|
Originally Posted By cationgun:
saw that over on mdshooters board no official verification yet, they said they got it from reddit and the threads i found showed that it was leaked(?) from a letter pertaining to something else which explains why it was cropped we'll see what happens. Purported separate letter to Heston Kent with identical language The other Reddit thread started by "leakingftw" |
|
Originally Posted By majorcollins: The actual letter: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MBSB-1.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MBSB-2.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MBSB-3.jpg |
|
Originally Posted By cationgun:
Edit: Removing this until we see some sort of official verification somewhere. Skepticism all over the place. Letter to Heston Kent I did not notice that you edited your post until now. Good find, BTW, and thanks for posting it. 
|
|
Originally Posted By Guntoter: If this is for real (I have my doubts as to the authenticity) then this clearly is an example of "poking the bear" which will eventually lead us to losing the "brace" classification. People should shut the hell up and be thankful and just shoot these damn pistols. |
Pat
|
Only one person in this thread has mentioned the second to last paragraph in the "reversal" letter that says the following:
"...Similarly, an item that functions as a stock if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the objective purpose of allowing the firearm to be fired from the shoulder may result in "making" a short-barreled rifle, even if the attachment is not permanent. See, Revenue Ruling 61-45. The fact that the item may allow, or even be intended by its manufacturer for other lawful purposes, does not affect the NFA analysis." And then the comment that adds more sinister confusion to this paragraphs TOTAL contradiction to the so-called 'reversal' part of the letter, they say, "Again, to the extent the Open Letter was confusing, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position. Thank you..." Marvin Richardson, "Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services" is not the chief of the technology branch, where the letters usually come from. TO me (put your tinfoil hats on), this seems like a rouse. It appears that this enforcement programs and services guy is answering a question that's meant for the chief technology branch. So is his letter as authoritative as the others we use and carry with our 'questionable' firearms? Perhaps that second to last paragraph is making a distinction between "making" a short-barreled rifle because someone altered a brace or other 'accessory' regardless of if its temporary or permanent - and the "redisigning" language used earlier in that same letter as they clarified that shouldering is not the same as "making" or otherwise changing the intended design. We know that you can't mess with the brace in any way. But what if you extended it to its maximum length and in doing so, the adjustment lever pin breaks or something else happens to it that allows it to slide further out on the buffer tube (exceeding 13.5 LOP) and it now looks like it's been 'redesigned' as a shoulder stock and therefore, you have "made" an SBR? Crazy, anyway, could that paragraph be a trap or is it more easily interpreted than I and the other dude in this thread have noticed??? |
|
You're talking to idiots. I can run down to the local shop by my house and purchases stripped, unmarked receivers with no issue. Just purchase online and be done with it. You can get a great Anderson Manufacturing stripped lower for around $34.00 on primaryarms.com
**EDIT** - Oops, didn't think about state laws. My bad. |
|
I don't think it's an attempt to entrap anyone. I think it's a bunch of bureaucrats trying hard to stick to some poorly defined laws while also trying not to stomp on your freedoms.
Based on the letters I've seen, Congress owns most of the blame for agreeing to modify our inalienable rights while failing to carefully define all the terms of the discussion. Notice the ATF constantly states that Congress has not defined "concealable". That's freaking huge. That means it has to be fought out in court cases at the expense, life, and time of individuals who get hassled by the cops who became cops so they could enact their fantasies of domination and control in the real world. |
|
Originally Posted By JaycenR:
I'm firing off a letter to Area ATF office for my state (MO). I'll post a scan of the response should I receive one. |
I tried to consolidate the letters in this thread if anyone wants a somewhat "organized" grouping.  Dropbox link for ATF letters regarding AR pistols |
compulynx
She is retiring next year. (referring to Danica Patrick)
aquaman67:
Don’t let the wall hit you on the way out.
She is retiring next year. (referring to Danica Patrick)
aquaman67:
Don’t let the wall hit you on the way out.
|
LINK to latest ATF rulemaking proposal. Not sure who in this thread I'd send it to, so just providing the link. The perfidy in this proposal is stunning, as anyone who's familiar with their previous ping-pong guidance (and seen the letter evidence from them) knows. Give it a read - really. |
|
Originally Posted By MikeMSD: I'm not sure relying on 14 year old letter gets you anywhere. Unfortunately, the ATF writes letters that supercede previous letters all the time. Well the post is 2-1/2 years old so hopefully he got it figured out  But, yes, the AFG is still okay if anyone still wonders. And yes, AFT seems to do WTF they want to. |
AR Sponsor