Joined
·
5,443 Posts
Yes, I feel that way too. That is why I have not yet bought a pistol with a brace. I think the rules will soon change... Just a matter of "when."It really was just a matter of time anyways.
Yes, I feel that way too. That is why I have not yet bought a pistol with a brace. I think the rules will soon change... Just a matter of "when."It really was just a matter of time anyways.
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.
I know this but I want the government to leave things alone or improve on 2nd Amendment issues.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.Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
That's why the DoJ stepped in I imagine.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?
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.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?
Not true. I'm sure there are many more examples but two immediately come to mind.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.
Maybe hasn't ever been prosecuted but do you want to be the test case ?Constructive possession to build an NFA device requires intent and has never been used to prosecute someone in that manner.
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.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?
I thought Q was not the only one:Despite the alarmist headlines the ATF letter only pertained to the named Q produced weapons and not all braced firearms.
I thought Q was not the only one:
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.Yeah, one more nibbling away at our rights. The sky isn't falling.......YET. Who cares, right ?