GlockTalk Forum banner

21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
USMC (MOS 0369) (RVN 69-70)
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
I own one SBR lower and many uppers for it so I won't be effected by a ban. That said I hope they leave the braces alone and they should have left bump stocks alone. They should leave everything alone AND undue some restrictions on already in place.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
I own one SBR lower and many uppers for it so I won't be effected by a ban. That said I hope they leave the braces alone and they should have left bump stocks alone. They should leave everything alone AND undue some restrictions on already in place.

Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEC-Memphis

·
USMC (MOS 0369) (RVN 69-70)
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
I know this but I want the government to leave things alone or improve on 2nd Amendment issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
Yes, because one ambiguously written letter about a determination they refuse to define is really something to just gloss over.

When do we act and try to bring some sense to this? 2 manufacturers, 3 what is the magical number at which point we decide, **** we should have called our reps.

These whole determinations are BS. If they would publish a set of standards and enforce then it would be one thing. Folks could obey the law. But no. It’s send us a sample and we will decide if it’s good or not. Won’t tell you why either way, but do trust us. HTF is that even legal?
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
Yes, because one ambiguously written letter about a determination they refuse to define is really something to just gloss over.

When do we act and try to bring some sense to this? 2 manufacturers, 3 what is the magical number at which point we decide, **** we should have called our reps.

These whole determinations are BS. If they would publish a set of standards and enforce then it would be one thing. Folks could obey the law. But no. It’s send us a sample and we will decide if it’s good or not. Won’t tell you why either way, but do trust us. HTF is that even legal?
That's why the DoJ stepped in I imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
SB tactical has letters from the ATF attesting to the legality of their products. If the ATF summarily revoked that, I think that SB Tactical, and anyone who owned one of their products, would have a good legal case against the ATF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Well, not really. As long as the brace is in your possession with the same weapon, you are in functional possession of a SBR, I believe that is the correct facts.

Here’s a question. Can you own an AR-15 pistol AND rifle? Wouldn’t that also be functional possession of an SBR as well?
I don't see how it could be. It it was anyone that owned both a shotgun and a hacksaw would be in possession of sawed off shotgun. The law can only apply to what you have done, not what you might do.

If braces are now stocks it would be perfectly legal to own a spare stock for your rifle. The ATF cannot say it is a stock on a pistol and not a stock on a rifle. They have to pick one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
The law can only apply to what you have done, not what you might do.
Not true. I'm sure there are many more examples but two immediately come to mind.

1. You're sitting in your car in a parking lot and you're drunk. Key is in the ignition so you can listen to the radio, but the car is not running. You can be charged with DUI even though you're not driving and the car isn't even running.

2. There's an attachment for the G17 that when you insert the psitol into it it turns it into either a SBR or AOW, can't remember which. Not assembled, just possessing both the accessory and the G17 is a crime in some places.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
Not true. I'm sure there are many more examples but two immediately come to mind.

1. You're sitting in your car in a parking lot and you're drunk. Key is in the ignition so you can listen to the radio, but the car is not running. You can be charged with DUI even though you're not driving and the car isn't even running.

2. There's an attachment for the G17 that when you insert the psitol into it it turns it into either a SBR or AOW, can't remember which. Not assembled, just possessing both the accessory and the G17 is a crime in some places.

Constructive possession to build an NFA device requires intent and has never been used to prosecute someone in that manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Lively

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
Constructive possession to build an NFA device requires intent and has never been used to prosecute someone in that manner.
Maybe hasn't ever been prosecuted but do you want to be the test case ?

My point was that there are many things that one can be persecuted for where they never actually DID anything.
 

·
USMC (MOS 0369) (RVN 69-70)
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
"Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime"
(Lavrentiy Beria)
 

·
1911 lover
Joined
·
10,133 Posts
Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
The weasel that Q sells uses one of the most common braces and the atf says that is also a SBR. So tens of thousands of those could be suddenly illegal.
 

·
1911 lover
Joined
·
10,133 Posts
Atf needs to set technical standards that our legislature votes on. The atf should not be making up laws on a daily basis and then changing there mind.
Yes, because one ambiguously written letter about a determination they refuse to define is really something to just gloss over.

When do we act and try to bring some sense to this? 2 manufacturers, 3 what is the magical number at which point we decide, **** we should have called our reps.

These whole determinations are BS. If they would publish a set of standards and enforce then it would be one thing. Folks could obey the law. But no. It’s send us a sample and we will decide if it’s good or not. Won’t tell you why either way, but do trust us. HTF is that even legal?
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
I thought Q was not the only one:

They were the only ones mentioned eleven days ago when this article came out...

And it still looks like they are going after adjustable braces that may exceed 13.5" LOP
 
  • Like
Reactions: IOmm

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,867 Posts
I kind of think that AR15 pistols are stupid, but yes, the ATF needs to be put in its place big time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Exactly. It
Yeah, one more nibbling away at our rights. The sky isn't falling.......YET. Who cares, right ?
Exactly, it really looks like Glock Talk doesn’t have very many 2A supporters. This is a very serious issue. We should not give an inch when it comes to any infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. Remember when a very short time ago people were pretty much saying “who cares” to the bump stock ban? Cmon people, we have to fight tooth and nail to stop any new gun laws and push for more gun rights and freedoms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
I wonder if this will affect the braced Non NFA "Others"? They seem to be harping on OAL less than 26". All "Others" are greater than 26", but are not pistols, rifles. or AoW's.
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Top