06-08-2021, 09:21 PM
"Then a second letter came out which said ok, this one's legal too and you can situationally shoulder it, but if the possessor of the brace designs the firearm with the intent to shoulder it, it's not legal. "
This may or may not be true, I'm not contesting the point...
But how does one correctly discern the "intent" of a designer, ie, the one building the pistol.
Laws and regulations are supposed to be concrete about an act, not about a thought.
And if something can be done "situationally" or "once in a while", how does one clearly and correctly ascertain whether this particular use is beyond the "situationally" occasion? Besides, when the ATF is "evaluating" the gun, it is in effect just sitting there, they cannot see it in action to even determine if this is a "situationally" time.
All making it very subjective, IMO.
This may or may not be true, I'm not contesting the point...
But how does one correctly discern the "intent" of a designer, ie, the one building the pistol.
Laws and regulations are supposed to be concrete about an act, not about a thought.
And if something can be done "situationally" or "once in a while", how does one clearly and correctly ascertain whether this particular use is beyond the "situationally" occasion? Besides, when the ATF is "evaluating" the gun, it is in effect just sitting there, they cannot see it in action to even determine if this is a "situationally" time.
All making it very subjective, IMO.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"