Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: WLJ on October 06, 2020, 04:47:12 PM
-
The letter
https://mcusercontent.com/557cc802f23161a8ffe100a66/files/dd6aa903-36c2-4d14-9de5-91aa62215cd2/Q_LLC_6_02_02814_Cease_Desist_Letter.pdf
Reading it most pistol braces may be going the way of the bump stock
ATF Rules Q’s Honey Badger Pistol is a Short Barrel Rifle, Issues Cease and Desist Letter
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-rules-qs-honey-badge-is-a-short-barrel-rifle-issues-cease-and-desist-letter/
-
Interesting. I wonder what about the "proprietary brace" triggered this.
It's only a matter of time till the whole NFA is dragged into court.
-
Hopefully some good firearms lawyers will step up for the pro bono work when the first individual that owns one of these but doesn't know about the new rules gets popped. Not everybody sends in their registration info or stays on top of what's happening with guns.
-
Probably because the arm brace/buttstock thing telescopes. Most of the AR pistol arm braces don't telescope.
-
Probably because the arm brace/buttstock thing telescopes. Most of the AR pistol arm braces don't telescope.
The last 2 AR pistols I shot had telescopic braces from factory. It was just like shooting a 9" AR rifle.
One was a Springfield and I think the other was a Ruger.
-
The last 2 AR pistols I shot had telescopic braces from factory. It was just like shooting a 9" AR rifle.
One was a Springfield and I think the other was a Ruger.
I don't go around looking for ATF tech dept letters for AR pistols, but the ones I have come across in the past were all for simple arm braces that had no telescope feature.
-
Yeah, I've looked at the whole "brace" thing with a lot of askance...
What has really shocked me about the whole issue is that ATF didn't come down on them from the get go. I seem to recall that ATF did issue an order banning them, but then reversed that some time later.
But yeah, I'm not going to spend my money on a "pistol" with a "brace."
-
I have a tech later for a telescoping SPA3 and a telescoping SB PDW somewhere in my gunsafe. The ATF issued them before SigBrace started selling them.
This could get interesting. There are a LOT of praced pistols out there now, if the ATF wants to arbitrarily start outlawing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of personal property, I could seee a lawsuit.
-
This could get interesting. There are a LOT of praced pistols out there now, if the ATF wants to arbitrarily start outlawing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of personal property, I could seee a lawsuit.
My Sig Canebrake is braced. I'm not crazy about the brace and was looking at paying the *expletive deleted*ing $200 to swap the brace for a very slightly differently shaped piece of plastic, but maybe I'll wait for the lawsuit. =D
-
I just bought a Springfield Saint Victor AR Pistol that has a telescoping SB Tactical Brave from factory and transferred as a pistol. It is not the same exact brace as on those Q Firearms though.
Unfortunately it was also just lost in a tragic canoe accident. =D
-
Yeah, I had some telescoping braces. I had them in the back of my truck. I had to swerve to avoid a dog while crossing a bridge and they were lost over the side. :-X
-
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand
-
Military Arms Channel posted today that this is definitely anti-gun lawyers in the ATF trying to throw out an October surprise to undermine Trump. We will see what the aftermath is.
https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms/
-
Military Arms Channel posted today that this is definitely anti-gun lawyers in the ATF trying to throw out an October surprise to undermine Trump. We will see what the aftermath is.
https://www.facebook.com/militaryarms/
It DID come from the Boston field office.
-
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has issued a 60-day stay of their cease and desist order against Q, LLC regarding production of the Honey Badger pistol with SB Tactical stabilizing brace.
The letter says the 60-day stay is to allow the Department of Justice to assess the applicability of National Firearms Act regulations to the Q’s Honey Badger pistol. Some will see this as a positive development. Maybe the regulatory giant is having second thoughts and the suspension gives them time to reassess.
A more cynical view would be the ATF has chosen to punt the decision until after the election to see which way the political winds are blowing when the 60 days are up in December.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-issues-60-day-suspension-of-honey-badger-cease-and-desist-order/
-
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-issues-60-day-suspension-of-honey-badger-cease-and-desist-order/
So they want to wait until after the election ...
-
So they want to wait until after the election ...
yep
-
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-issues-60-day-suspension-of-honey-badger-cease-and-desist-order/
The cynical expectation is probably correct.
-
The cynical expectation is probably correct.
Maybe so, but it was also probably the easiest bureaucratic way to halt the the original order. Not near enough though.
-
Did you see the way the BATFEio measured the length of pull? Looks like they tried to measure it in the longest way possible.
If Q wanted, they could make a slight change to the length of pull of the brace and then the BATFEio would leave them alone.
-
Did you see the way the BATFEio measured the length of pull? Looks like they tried to measure it in the longest way possible.
If Q wanted, they could make a slight change to the length of pull of the brace and then the BATFEio would leave them alone.
The eternal optimist.
-
Q, LLC is the only company to go public that the ATF sent it a cease and desist letter over a firearm with a pistol brace. Multiple sources have confirmed that the ATF has served additional companies with similar cease and desist letters. The ATF believes that certain manufactures have pushed past the legal boundaries of what is considered a pistol brace.
Leaks Show Multiple Companies Targeted Over Pistol Braces & History of ATF Hostility
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/leaks-show-multiple-companies-targeted-over-pistol-braces-history-of-atf-hostility/#axzz6bQw7NGG4
ATF Still Coming For Pistol Braces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKl3FdlGHjs
-
Well past time to start deleting alphabet agencies.
-
Kind of "shoulder-of-the-road," but when I had my M1917 Colt with a lanyard loop, I found a properly adjusted lanyard, with the gun pulled tight while aiming, was a distinct aid to accuracy... or at least steadiness.
Over the years I've several times wanted to mount some kind of lanyard loop to some of my handguns.
I wonder if the ATF would consider the lanyard as "collapsable" if it is just hanging off your gun.
I'm a little more than half serious about that last remark.
-
Kind of "shoulder-of-the-road," but when I had my M1917 Colt with a lanyard loop, I found a properly adjusted lanyard, with the gun pulled tight while aiming, was a distinct aid to accuracy... or at least steadiness.
Over the years I've several times wanted to mount some kind of lanyard loop to some of my handguns.
I wonder if the ATF would consider the lanyard as "collapsable" if it is just hanging off your gun.
I'm a little more than half serious about that last remark.
A sling has the same effect as a lanyard and the BATFEio dosn't classify those as stocks, yet.
-
I wonder if the ATF would consider the lanyard as "collapsable" if it is just hanging off your gun.
I'm a little more than half serious about that last remark.
They once classified shoelaces as machineguns.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
-
Well, in any case, my previous comments on the "shoelace affair" might well be appropriate here in terms of how any law writ today can be re-writ or re-interpreted tomorrow:
Oh, the BATF backtracked on that interpretation of a shoelace being a machine gun, didn't they? I recall seeing a letter to that effect.
I was amused because a strict reading of the actual law actually did make the shoelace a "machinegun," but after warding off a crapload of protests (and laughter), they found a way to regulatorily weasel out of it. I believe that's the present status of the "shoelace machinegun" thing.
What was so amusing (and frightening) to me was how words could be so manipulated to switch something from "A" to "B," the complete opposite of the original meaning.
Hence my concern about any legal tinkering with any "bump firing" stocks or techniques. What they define today can be modified tomorrow, either by direct amendment in the legislative process, or as in the shoelace case, by regulatory word games.
Terry
And this is just as true for legal tinkering with educational requirements.
Terry, 230RN
-
I had an AR pistol once before braces were a thing. Got tired of explaining to range lawyers that no it wasn't an SBR, yes it was legal, etc. Useless gun too, unless you like noise. I hate to whip out my FUD card but I don't care for them. All the cool tacticool stuff should be legal, but that doesn't mean we have to buy it. The AR pistols, binary triggers, whatever othe tacticool crap someone dreams up appeal most to the gun owners most likely to give the rest of us a bad name. Let's face it, the gun culture is a Walter Mitty buglight.
-
I had an AR pistol once before braces were a thing. Got tired of explaining to range lawyers that no it wasn't an SBR, yes it was legal, etc. Useless gun too, unless you like noise. I hate to whip out my FUD card but I don't care for them. All the cool tacticool stuff should be legal, but that doesn't mean we have to buy it. The AR pistols, binary triggers, whatever othe tacticool crap someone dreams up appeal most to the gun owners most likely to give the rest of us a bad name. Let's face it, the gun culture is a Walter Mitty buglight.
I have shot AR pistols at the range. I have never had anyone comment other than to ask what it was. It is a private gun club though.
That is mainly why I sold my AR pistol in 5.56. Lots of noise and less terminal performance. I figured if I go the pistol route again, I would go with 300 blackout or 7.62x39.
-
A 10.5" AR pistol with a brace, red dot, and quality ammo is in the top 10 home defense/CQB weapons of all time. There's a reason pretty much every force in the world that does room clearing does it with an intermediate cartridge SBR. Contollability, speed, effectiveness in people, limited over penetration, it hits all the spots. M193 is coming out of a 10.5 inch AR at about 2800FPS, and will fragment in people or walls out to a reliable 50-60 yds.
If you like Vodka, a Krink with the triangle brace is pretty solid too.
Yes, the NFA is a stupid law, but It's what we have right now, and the braced pistols are a great way to have an SBR without having an SBR.
FWIW, when I did the safety test to join my new range, of the 15 people there, mine was the only "rifle" AR.
-
https://rifleshooter.com/2015/12/223-remington-5-56mm-nato-barrel-length-and-velocity-26-inches-to-6-inches/
That M193 is a lot faster out of a 10" barrel than I thought. I was thinking more along the lines of the other two test rounds. The heavier 5.56 rounds people like gets pretty slow too.
https://defensivepopulace.net/7-62x39-is-the-ideal-choice-for-short-barrels/
7.62X39
What I had in mind was a CMMG Mutant with the 10" barrel. Figured that would be easier to find a good muzzle device for. The other choice I was considering was the Brownells BRN-180 pistol in 300 Blackout, but the upper is $900 so it isn't much cheaper in the end. I have soft point 5.45X39 also.
-
This just popped up. Havn't had time to digest yet
"ATF is thumbing their hose at the president"
BREAKING NEWS: ATF Making AR/AK Pistols AOWs and MORE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u87NIIvofjU
-
This just popped up. Havn't had time to digest yet
"ATF is thumbing their hose at the president"
BREAKING NEWS: ATF Making AR/AK Pistols AOWs and MORE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u87NIIvofjU
Well, I hope this is false.
Otherwise, I hope Trump fires everyone in the ATF.
-
Well, I hope this is false.
Otherwise, I hope Trump fires everyone in the ATF.
It is a tiny agency. Only 5,000 sinecures. Transfer the tobacco and alcohol tax mission back to the Treasury, the explosives storage and transport mission to the dept of energy and/or transportation, and then just delete the rest.
-
Well, I hope this is false.
Otherwise, I hope Trump fires everyone in the ATF.
The 4473 stuff he mentions is new to me as well. Sounds like a de-facto registry?
-
It is a tiny agency. Only 5,000 sinecures. Transfer the tobacco and alcohol tax mission back to the Treasury, the explosives storage and transport mission to the dept of energy and/or transportation, and then just delete the rest.
Or delete all of the "sin taxes" and let the DoE have the fun stuff.
-
BREAKING!!! ATF Says 23 SB Tactical Braces Are Not Approved Devices (AKA NFA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IkVtY1PMoU
ATF Issues Conflicting Documents on Legal Pistol Braces
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf-singles-out-23-sb-tactical-firearms-braces-that-do-not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6emLE3lYC
-
What I heard is they specifically said the SBA3 brace was a shouldering device or something and they should stop advertising the ATF has approved the use of braces they don't have specific letters for. It didn't sound like they had sent a cease and desist letter.
Either way, the information came from freedom of information act requests, not a new letter from the BATFE.
-
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AJNUi39j8lBzXnM&cid=9AE0ADE41E416136&id=9AE0ADE41E416136%2130714&parId=root&o=OneUp
Looks like they're going after all of 'em.
ETA official version:
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-27857.pdf
-
Well past time to start deleting alphabet agencies.
QFT.
Evil shouldn't be tolerated under the color of "law"
I LOATH Malum prohibitum laws.
There has to be a list of who works at these agencies and their addresses. Lists work both ways.
-
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AJNUi39j8lBzXnM&cid=9AE0ADE41E416136&id=9AE0ADE41E416136%2130714&parId=root&o=OneUp
Looks like they're going after all of 'em.
ETA official version:
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-27857.pdf
So I have been clear on here (and other forms of social media) that I am about done with complying with the ATF's random whims.
That said, this:
[quoteConsequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement
a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms
may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that
process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been
informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the
collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this
notice, in good faith. ][/quote]
And the fact that I actually own several extra braces right now makes me think I should probably go ahead and register every reciever that I own, that could take a stabilizing brace, as an SBR free of charge just in case I slip and put a brace on the wrong lower.
You know, in good faith.
-
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
(Billing Code: 4410-FY-P)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Docket No. 2020R-10W
Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”; Withdrawal of Guidance
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is announcing the withdrawal of a notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020.
DATES: The withdrawal is effective [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: This Notice also will be made available on the ATF Web site (www.atf.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lange, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1
Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the proposed guidance was not a regulation. The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document.
The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement.
December 23, 2020
Marvin G. Richardson Associate Deputy Director
-
Good news - for now anyway. I wish a legalese interpreter wasn't always needed for even the simplest statements they put out.
I wonder how long into next year before the new administration urges them to try again?
-
According to this it's still up.
Don't Trust ATF! Pistol Brace Letter Still Up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E5Fdt-XD8