Well there go the pistol braces.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Fox123

    Ultimate Member
    May 21, 2012
    3,926
    Rosedale, MD
    You think they read the comments?

    They pay as much attention as the MGA does.


    They couldn’t even be bothered to make it the required 90 day comment period.
     

    Dogmeat

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 5, 2013
    4,641
    Montgomery County, MD
    I'm confused. Will this be illegal or require a $200.00 tax stamp? :facepalm:

    20170104164725-4567.jpg
     

    Trumpet

    SCSC/NRA life member. MSI member
    Oct 29, 2005
    2,077
    Couldn't registering/taxing a brace be a potential ADA conflict?
     
    Jun 4, 2015
    71
    I responded to their query, for all the good it will do.

    If you read the summary, they're basically saying, "If you put a wrist brace on a "12 gauge firearm" we don't believe you're actually using it with one hand. Also, if your optic has rifle length eye relief, nice try."

    Let's be honest, a bunch of people ARE using them as SBR workarounds.

    I pointed out that for any of those "violations" there are usually existing other laws they can use to prosecute, and trying to define what combination of features makes a brace legal vs not is going to create a bunch of inadvertent criminals with no actual intent.

    I'm more concerned with the fact they're trying to redefine "Firearm" in a way that will probably ban ARs, FNs, and most modern pistols based on the faulty definition in the GCA. Briefly, the courts ruled in favor of a home builder who drilled out an 80%, because an AR lower isn't a firearm, since it doesn't contain both the firing mechanism AND the barrel (GCA 68's definition). Which applies to literally most modern pistols and modern rifle designs. ATF is vowing to "Fix" that problem.
     

    Action

    Member
    Mar 25, 2020
    3
    Can someone show me where any of these big brother laws has lessened shootings? There was the O’Malley nonsense restrictions in Md. He has been gone for years but his useless restrictions remain. 10 shot capacity, minimum barrel lengths, fooding stocks is total ******** however no one ever challenges it and they just compile more and more. I can see the pressure cooker exploding one day when we the people had enough. They are suppose to represent us, the majority without dictating nonsense by ignorant asses sho know nothing of what they speak if.
     

    Oh3

    Member
    Jan 2, 2016
    90
    Carroll Co
    Can someone show me where any of these big brother laws has lessened shootings? There was the O’Malley nonsense restrictions in Md. He has been gone for years but his useless restrictions remain. 10 shot capacity, minimum barrel lengths, fooding stocks is total ******** however no one ever challenges it and they just compile more and more. I can see the pressure cooker exploding one day when we the people had enough. They are suppose to represent us, the majority without dictating nonsense by ignorant asses sho know nothing of what they speak if.

    This is another "follow the data; follow the science" (unless it disagrees with the agenda) question
     

    jjdf82

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 24, 2020
    12
    Can’t say I’m surprised the ATF is doing this, but that doesn’t make me any less annoyed or pissed about it. I’ve recently been in the market for a Z-5RS, great timing.

    Man, we’re all going to be so much safer with this change.
     

    tjaw

    Member
    Nov 14, 2014
    81
    Monkton, MD.
    Yes, make the commitment to Comment

    We all need to comment on it.

    I agree and will Comment. Will the Comment make a bloody difference at all? I think we know the answer to that question. But standing for the Right Thing, in any way, is much better than doing nothing.
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,608
    White Marsh, MD
    I responded to their query, for all the good it will do.

    If you read the summary, they're basically saying, "If you put a wrist brace on a "12 gauge firearm" we don't believe you're actually using it with one hand. Also, if your optic has rifle length eye relief, nice try."

    Let's be honest, a bunch of people ARE using them as SBR workarounds.

    I pointed out that for any of those "violations" there are usually existing other laws they can use to prosecute, and trying to define what combination of features makes a brace legal vs not is going to create a bunch of inadvertent criminals with no actual intent.

    I'm more concerned with the fact they're trying to redefine "Firearm" in a way that will probably ban ARs, FNs, and most modern pistols based on the faulty definition in the GCA. Briefly, the courts ruled in favor of a home builder who drilled out an 80%, because an AR lower isn't a firearm, since it doesn't contain both the firing mechanism AND the barrel (GCA 68's definition). Which applies to literally most modern pistols and modern rifle designs. ATF is vowing to "Fix" that problem.

    Here's the issue. It doesn't specify any of that. Who decides what caliber is "too big" for a pistol? It's all open ended purposefully to try and hose people.
     

    Oh3

    Member
    Jan 2, 2016
    90
    Carroll Co
    I agree and will Comment. Will the Comment make a bloody difference at all? I think we know the answer to that question. But standing for the Right Thing, in any way, is much better than doing nothing.

    It'll matter as much as the parental input did regarding school closures. Their mind is made up already.
     

    FHJ69

    Active Member
    Mar 13, 2011
    458
    Upper PDRMC
    Question for the thought pool. Say this gets through and ATFE waves the $200 tax. Once it's registered as a SBR for $0.00; what's stopping anyone from putting a normal collapsible stock on said item? Asking for a friend.
     

    Speed3

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 19, 2011
    7,816
    MD
    Question for the thought pool. Say this gets through and ATFE waves the $200 tax. Once it's registered as a SBR for $0.00; what's stopping anyone from putting a normal collapsible stock on said item? Asking for a friend.

    If its an sbr, tjsn you can put a stock on it, as long as its over 29"
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    Usually, contractors wind up reviewing and adjudicating public comments. In the past, I've had teams of folks review public comments for NEPA documents related to DOD training lands and infrastructure improvements. I pity the poor folks who have to review these (they can often be nasty), but they are largely a formality. I remember getting very helpful comments like "More land for the baby-killer Army"... and several I can't reproduce on the forum.

    I will be adding my comments to the record, but I have no illusions that it will move the needle. The decision has already been made.
     

    Oh3

    Member
    Jan 2, 2016
    90
    Carroll Co
    Oh... wife just emailed me that NRA is saying Rich Hudson and 89 other Republican members of congress signed a letter of opposition to the guidance. I have the screenshot with letter, but no way of posting it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,490
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom