06-09-2021, 05:42 AM
StoneHendge Wrote:Can you give one example of this? Don't reference a portion of an ATF letter from a manufacturer, retailer or gun rag. Reference the entire document.
Well.. first off, Google is your friend too. But sure, I can spend the 30 seconds and Google that:
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-co....21.17.pdf
It vacillates some, but this is the linchpin letter that SB Tactical received and posted, that is the basis for most of the modern brace systems we've seen in the last 5 years or so. Arguably SB-Tactical and others have stretched the content of the letter, but only arguably - and it does have line items specifically stating braces are legal in this application. An argument that is validated by the fact they've been able to run for many years without interruption, yet HoneyBadger was shut down almost instantly. Which validates that the ATF has considered the SB Tactical and similar versions to be compliant with the law. In particular, the only criteria denoted as being a violating criteria, is the creation of a length so long such as to have no other purpose than to be a shoulder stock. Which indeed as far as I can tell, has been one of the primary and defining criteria the ATF has been using on the topic... until now.
And that, is the best shot I've got, for writing and submitting your opinion request the ATF either withdraw, or at the least auto-grandfather. Make no mistake - "pistol" owners are so going to loose this fight. The best shot you have now is to try and get route to being grandfathered, or at least getting a free NFA stamp option. And I would suggest writing your letters with that in mind.