Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

61 - 80 of 164 Posts

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
20,034 Posts
SB will beat Biden to the first buy-back program :supergrin:
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,801 Posts
By contrast, a bump-stock-type
device utilizes the recoil energy of the
firearm itself to create an automatic
firing sequence with a single pull of the
trigger. The Department notes that ATF
has already described a ‘‘single pull of
the trigger’’ as a ‘‘single function of the
trigger.’’ See ATF Ruling 2006–2.
Of course the bump stock does not "utilize the recoil energy to create an automatic firing sequence", the ATF Firarm Technical Branch statement is technically incorrect. The pressure to pull/manipulate the trigger (ETA: for each shot) is supplied by the shooter, just like every other (ETA: non-machine) gun



Binary triggers are NOT A WORK AROUND.

The ATF has found them to comply with the laws as not being machine guns.
Just like the ATF determined bump stocks not to be machine guns, bump stocks were not a "work around", they complied with the law and the original ATF interpretation/ruling. Then Trump told them to find a way to determine that they were machine guns, and the ATF did, despite not having a valid technical basis.

From a ATF perspective, binary triggers aren't a work around until they determine that they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syntaxerrorsix

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
20,034 Posts
Of course the bump stock does not "utilize the recoil energy to create an automatic firing sequence", the ATF Firarm Technical Branch statement is technically incorrect. The pressure to pull the trigger is supplied by the shooter, just like every other gun.





Just like the ATF determined bump stocks to not be machine guns, bump stocks were not a "work around", they complied with the law and the original ATF interpretation/ruling. Then Trump told them to find a way to determine that they were machine guns, and the ATF did, despite have no valid technical basis.

From a ATF perspective, binary triggers aren't a work around until they determine that they are.

...and yet no one credits Trump for any wrongdoing.

Florida independently made binary triggers illegal. Easier to accept at the state level if you grasp the original intent of the BoR's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syclone0538

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Could this all be a semantic issue?

Each time I go back to the Ammoland article, the content has changed. What I see, as of this posting is:
2017-08-21: Examination, Test, and Classification of a Micro Draco pistol, that apparently has an "SOB" (not SOB47) brace attached, ruling it a firearm, not an SBR. The brace is never referred to an an SOB in this letter.
2018-07-18: ATF letters claiming that SB Tactical had never submitted the "SOB" brace for approval.

Could the problem be that SB Tactical hadn't officially named the SOB brace when they submitted it? Or is a "determination" something entirely different than an "approval"?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
It's not advice. An M4 has a 14.5" barrel so you are going to have to SBR with a stamp or put an APPROVED pistol brace on it.


...and no. Many pistol buffer tubes have notches. The Kak Shockwave for one.
Again. Be careful.

It is not legal to make a pistol from a rifle.

Per ATF

"A weapon made from a rifle is also a firearm subject to the NFA if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length."

So the pistol needs to be made from a receiver that was never a rifle or it needs to be a pistol.

But if the 4473 has "rifle" on it, dont make it into a pistol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10or45

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
I understand that. I also look at privateers, who were running ships with cannons. Maybe that's the equivalent of someone buying a Forrest Sherman destroyer. While there's still the possibility of malacious intent or a ND, I'm less worried about improper maintenance of a diesel electric and cannons vs a nuclear power plant or mssile in something else.
Except a cannon is the same weapon as the Royal Navy used. Privateers could have the same weapons as the best navy in the world. They were not limited to size of cannons.

If you use the privateer argument, SSBN with Nuclear tridents is the ultimate navy weapon and is what a privateer group should have,
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35,021 Posts
I own one of the SB tactical braces mentioned in that letter and I'm pissed at SB Tactical and not the ATF. SB Tactical said the brace had been classified as a brace by the ATF when in fact, it had not been. As a manufacturer, they knowingly lied to me.
SBT could be liable in civil suits.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
4,933 Posts
Ok....take the brace off

When then? Use the buffer tube as a cheek rest which you can do and still not shoulder it..

Does that fall within compliance?

Who knows?
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,801 Posts
Again. Be careful.

It is not legal to make a pistol from a rifle.

Per ATF

"A weapon made from a rifle is also a firearm subject to the NFA if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length."

So the pistol needs to be made from a receiver that was never a rifle or it needs to be a pistol.

But if the 4473 has "rifle" on it, dont make it into a pistol.
It is legal to make a pistol from a registered SBR; or more correctly, have a registered SBR in a pistol configuration. Technically, it is still an SBR. The example is the wide variety of pistols with attachable shoulder stocks, the stock does not have to remain attached.
 

·
Scottish Member
Joined
·
11,801 Posts
Ok....take the brace off

When then? Use the buffer tube as a cheek rest which you can do and still not shoulder it..

Does that fall within compliance?

Who knows?
As far as I know, "cheeking" a buffer tube of a pistol has never legally been in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pag23

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,828 Posts
Much like bump stocks, I think these 'workaround' products (like, as mentioned above, bump stocks, binary triggers and AR pistols) do essentially attempt to thwart the intent of a specific law. While I disagree (strongly) with those laws, it doesn't seem like the time to fight is when they ban pistol 'braces', but when they ban short barreled rifles.

All these loophole-exploiting products have, to me, a short life expectancy. Not how it should be, but controverting the will of the law with a gimmick isn't the ultimate solution.

Larry
A Glock 19 is a workaround for a sharp stick. Better give up all your kitchen knives too while you're at it, just like in the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
ScottMn At lease add a up to date link !

The ammoland info is using info from 2018 .
Lets see a november 2020 dated AFT info .

To date I can't find were the oringinal SB15 is illegal be it a SB tactical brand or sig sb15

That's what I was thinking when I first saw the guns and gadgets video.

2018, this battle is already underway and the braces are still on the market, so, status quo until new information surfaces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hardluk1

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
Except a cannon is the same weapon as the Royal Navy used. Privateers could have the same weapons as the best navy in the world. They were not limited to size of cannons.

If you use the privateer argument, SSBN with Nuclear tridents is the ultimate navy weapon and is what a privateer group should have,
Yeah and I find myself with going against the second amendment when it comes to things like nukes and biological weapons.
 
61 - 80 of 164 Posts
Top