TexasCHLforum.com

I surely don't know, but what really blows my mind is that I remember at one point last year (?) the ATF stated that the hey would not be making rulings about braces any longer. But now I guess they're making rulings again? Assuming of course this is a result of the brace and not a judgment on some other portion of the weapon.

I'm guessing this has to do with the brace itself. Looking at the picture, it seems the brace is probably creating a "length of pull" (distance between middle of trigger and end of brace) of more than 13.5 inches fully extended. That ATF has already issued a letter in the past stating that a LOP of over 13.5 inches would redesign the brace to be a shoulder stock. If that's the case, then shortening the brace on a honey badger will bandaid the problem. To fix the real problem, we need to have the ATF stop legislating from their back office and repeal the NFA.

Oldgringo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pm Guys and Gals, if we don't ALL get out and vote RED, the end will be nigh.

See, now that is something we can agree on.

strogg wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:02 am I'm guessing this has to do with the brace itself. Looking at the picture, it seems the brace is probably creating a "length of pull" (distance between middle of trigger and end of brace) of more than 13.5 inches fully extended. That ATF has already issued a letter in the past stating that a LOP of over 13.5 inches would redesign the brace to be a shoulder stock. If that's the case, then shortening the brace on a honey badger will bandaid the problem. To fix the real problem, we need to have the ATF stop legislating from their back office and repeal the NFA.

Perhaps, but while I was researching this, a user on a different forum stated that his fully extended was 12.5" (the Honey Badger).

crazy2medic wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:21 am How do they square the fact they approved the arm braces, then after thousands are in circulation to suddenly ban them? I Know it's the GOVT but they makes 0 sense!
Does the term arbitrary and Capricious come to mind?

This is precisely what happened with the redefining of bump stocks as "machine guns". Previously approved by the ATF, then made illegal. No compensation to owners, and (using the ATF's definition) the largest gun confiscation in U.S. history. SCOTUS effectively endorsed this confiscation by refusing to hear the case.

I've long held that our rights mentioned in 2nd Amendment need the same level of protection as other rights that are mentioned in the Constitution. The easiest example is the right to vote. Can you imagine what would happen if Trump ordered an Executive agency to arbitrarily rescind the right to vote of 300,000+ citizens. I'd imagine that SCOTUS would, at a minimum, want to hear that case.

Note I say "mentioned" because these rights WERE NOT granted by government in any way. Rather, these are rights that we chose to retain for ourselves when we decided to form the government that we currently have.

But an ar15 doesn't meet the definition of a firearm as listed by atf, so sense it's not going on a "firearm" why is the atf involved?

AR-15 lower receiver does not house the bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to the barrel, as defined in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, it does not constitute a “receiver” and cannot be considered a “firearm” under federal law.

cheezit wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:43 pm But an ar15 doesn't meet the definition of a firearm as listed by atf, so sense it's not going on a "firearm" why is the atf involved?

AR-15 lower receiver does not house the bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to the barrel, as defined in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, it does not constitute a “receiver” and cannot be considered a “firearm” under federal law.

I think there was a case thrown out or sent to the appeals court in California arguing that very point.

Oldgringo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pm Guys and Gals, if we don't ALL get out and vote RED, the end will be nigh.

Sure, because the current (red) administration is the one pushing more incremental infringements.

From the article:

Worse than simply creating new rules is the fact that they often exist solely in agency-internal memos. The public isn’t notified of the rules (let alone given a public comment period, such as what happened with the proposed M855 ammo ban), yet the agency attempts to actively enforce them on otherwise law-abiding folk with no intention or knowledge of breaking the law.

Not notifying the public should make those rules un-enforceable.

I agree with many of Ronald Turk's options to reduce or modify firearms regulations. As the COO of the ATF, he very much knew what he was talking about. Time to start implementing his ideas.

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:28 am

Oldgringo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pm Guys and Gals, if we don't ALL get out and vote RED, the end will be nigh.

Sure, because the current (red) administration is the one pushing more incremental infringements.

The people in the ATF under Trump are the exact same people that were in the ATF under Obama. Idiotic bump stock ban that everyone likes to point to notwithstanding, the Trump presidency has not damaged gun rights. It also has not expanded them, unfortunately, but if you really expected it to, then you may be a little naive. We have fared much better under Trump than we would have under Hillary. We will fare much better under Trump than under Biden, God willing.

LucasMcCain wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:16 am

Grayling813 wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:28 am

Oldgringo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:28 pm Guys and Gals, if we don't ALL get out and vote RED, the end will be nigh.

Sure, because the current (red) administration is the one pushing more incremental infringements.

The people in the ATF under Trump are the exact same people that were in the ATF under Obama. Idiotic bump stock ban that everyone likes to point to notwithstanding, the Trump presidency has not damaged gun rights. It also has not expanded them, unfortunately, but if you really expected it to, then you may be a little naive. We have fared much better under Trump than we would have under Hillary. We will fare much better under Trump than under Biden, God willing.

No disputing we’re better off with Trump than Clinton or Biden.

However Trump has endorsed red flag laws, and his administration allowed the ATF to reclassify bump stocks after the still mysterious Las Vegas shooting.
Saying it’s the same people at ATF under Trump as Obama is another indication of his not fulfilling the promise of draining the swamp.

That being said, I fully support and will vote for Trump again.
I’m not naive enough to believe anyone in government cares about me beyond whether or not I continue to pay my taxes.

Pawpaw wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:43 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuNvgFfrcAI

I understand that the Q,LLC owner is rightfully upset. However, he has grossly overstated the impact of the cease and desist letter set to Q. It did not make 4 million American felons. The letter applies only to pistols manufactured and sold by Q. It does not apply to all pistol braces manufactured by SB Tactical. I'm rather surprised that Colion seemed to accept this bogus claim, but perhaps he didn't want to contradict his guest.

This isn't to say that the BATFE won't go after other AR pistols with SB Tactical braces. They might do just that.

Chas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGKe6JdyY8

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:06 pm

Pawpaw wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:43 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuNvgFfrcAI

I understand that the Q,LLC owner is rightfully upset. However, he has grossly overstated the impact of the cease and desist letter set to Q. It did not make 4 million American felons. The letter applies only to pistols manufactured and sold by Q. It does not apply to all pistol braces manufactured by SB Tactical. I'm rather surprised that Colion seemed to accept this bogus claim, but perhaps he didn't want to contradict his guest.

This isn't to say that the BATFE won't go after other AR pistols with SB Tactical braces. They might do just that.

Chas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGKe6JdyY8

I think this was the implication of what was said. But if that was the case I really wish people would explicitly say what they mean and mean what they say instead of treading in that muddy area that's often left open to speculation.

Paladin wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:14 am
Not notifying the public should make those rules un-enforceable.

Being made up by unelected government officials should make them un-enforceable.

Not to mention the fact these rules violate the 2nd Amendment as does the laws theses devices are trying to get around.