06-11-2021, 05:42 AM
Sinclair, I have zero respect for Australians other than Klem, Melinda (a chance encounter in Innsbruck 32 years ago and no, I don't remember her last name) and Greg Norman (who gave the finger to the media long before any of us had the desire).
GF, a rifle with a barrel under 16" has always been illegal under the NFA. The NFA defines a rifle as:
c)Rifle
The term rifle means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
In all of their letters, the ATF has said "pistol braces" are ok as long as they are used as they are allegedly designed, but if the possessor takes action to design his/her weapon to be shouldered, then it becomes a SBR under the NFA. As I challenged above, find a single example of an ATF letter that doesn't have this caveat. Even better, for every YouTube video you can find of someone using an arm stabilizer as an arm stabilizer, I'll find you 20 where the arm stabilizer is shouldered.
I personally don't think this is the battle to fight since it can not be won - not in a court nor in the court of public opinion. The law has been in place for over 85 years. This has nothing to do with creating a law that tramples on the 2nd Amendment. It's enforcing a law that tramples on the 2nd amendment that already exists.
Bjorn, se the ATF's worksheet in the notice for an explanation. This should be where efforts should be focussed- on loosening the definition. The notions that pistols are meant to be fired with one hand and that being able to aim make something more like a rifle than a pistol are absurd.
GF, a rifle with a barrel under 16" has always been illegal under the NFA. The NFA defines a rifle as:
c)Rifle
The term rifle means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
In all of their letters, the ATF has said "pistol braces" are ok as long as they are used as they are allegedly designed, but if the possessor takes action to design his/her weapon to be shouldered, then it becomes a SBR under the NFA. As I challenged above, find a single example of an ATF letter that doesn't have this caveat. Even better, for every YouTube video you can find of someone using an arm stabilizer as an arm stabilizer, I'll find you 20 where the arm stabilizer is shouldered.
I personally don't think this is the battle to fight since it can not be won - not in a court nor in the court of public opinion. The law has been in place for over 85 years. This has nothing to do with creating a law that tramples on the 2nd Amendment. It's enforcing a law that tramples on the 2nd amendment that already exists.
Bjorn, se the ATF's worksheet in the notice for an explanation. This should be where efforts should be focussed- on loosening the definition. The notions that pistols are meant to be fired with one hand and that being able to aim make something more like a rifle than a pistol are absurd.
Let's go Brandon!