Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Make your voice heard and comment on how you feel about these new proposals.

 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The ATF has already decided what they're going to do. This is just a way of letting people think they have a say in the matter.
Then you haven't paid attention to other recent victories in that regard. 2015 we shut down the ATF M855 green tip ban and in 2020 we shut down the last pistol brace ban.

Sure hope you commented on the ATF link I provided and not just GT because that's how those victories were achieved.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
....of course it's easier to just roll over than take action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fflincher

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
SBT's take on the matter.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,267 Posts
The ATF doesn't care about the comments from people against anything they do. They never did.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
it’s a way for them to quickly get the e mail addresses of people who say “from my cold dead hands” in advance…
How retarded does one need to be to actually believe that, or make up another?

Be specific,.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I'm not personally attached to a 'stabilizing brace' to such an extent that I would pay a $200 tax to keep it or turn it in if these boneheads do manage to pass this so I ask for an AR-15 pistol can't you remove the stabilizing brace from the receiver extension tube until we get some sanity back in our government? Wouldn't that make it legal ?
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I'm not personally attached to a 'stabalizing brace' to such an extent that I would pay a $200 tax to keep it or turn it in if these boneheads do manage to pass this so I ask for an AR-15 pistol can't you remove the stabilizing brace from the receiver extension tube until we get some sanity back in our government? Wouldn't that make it legal ?
Essentially, yes.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
It's retarded to think the government is fishing for your email address.

They have it already if they want it.

Either contribute to the cause or walk on by like most "patriots".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macc283

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
I'm not personally attached to a 'stabilizing brace' to such an extent that I would pay a $200 tax to keep it or turn it in if these boneheads do manage to pass this so I ask for an AR-15 pistol can't you remove the stabilizing brace from the receiver extension tube until we get some sanity back in our government? Wouldn't that make it legal ?
Not really. The weapon could still fail the points system with just the buffer tube. Also if you still possess the brace, whether It's assembled or not is a gray area or worse.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
21,422 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Not really. The weapon could still fail the points system with just the buffer tube. Also if you still possess the brace, whether It's assembled or not is a gray area or worse.
Have you read the brief yet? I'll attach it for you.


"A. Current Unlicensed Possessors
In order to comply with the provisions of the NFA, current unlicensed possessors
of a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” and a barrel length of less than 16 inches
that would qualify as a “short-barreled rifle” as indicated on the ATF Worksheet 4999
contained in this proposed rule would need to take one of the following actions before the
effective date of a final rule.
1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be
reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as
long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby
removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option
would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace
within the meaning of the proposed rule."
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top