ATF removes brace rule

RBHarter

RBHarter

West Central AR
The AR may be built as either a rifle or pistol . The brace is a clever device/accessory that allows better control of the poorly designed pistol build that may recoil like a rifle or be too heavy/nose heavy . Sig came up with an around the forearm below the elbow clamshell deal just for the purpose , a brace . It is however shaped in such a way that a small statured person might inadvertently use it as a butt stock . Tackycool semi auto Mares leg on an AR lower . In doing so it's no longer a pistol but a short barreled rifle and subject to the tax permission stamp . The device was approved for the original maker . Approved again as the dust settled from the bump stock mess . Last month BATFE decided to reverse that decision and have now reversed the reversal of the whatever , because legalese makes my head hurt .

The last go it boiled down to "intent to misuse the device" by padding rear edge to simulate a butt pad . Kind of like having a rifle recoil tube proves intent to use the pistol upper as an SBR ......
 
Tomme boy

Tomme boy

Well-Known Member
They pulled it because everyone was figuring out that a AR receiver does not meet the 1968 gca definition of what a receiver is. That means that ALL AR15 type guns are not able to be regulated by the BATFE as they are not guns. The same way all auto pistols do not meet what a gun is. The main wording is the frame has to be able to have a barrel screwed into it. Not attached. And the upper receiver does not meet the wording either as it is not threaded into the receiver.

This is not over. When it comes back, it will be way worse. All the so called letters are also not legal that they put out. They have to go through this process of posting it for comment then they can use it as a real regulation. Their opinion means nothing. Watch this video. Dan O'Kelly is an ex BATFE and is an expert witness that testifies in federal court several times that all of this is true. He use the aft's own words against them and cases are thrown out all the time when he shows up. He puts there wording into plain english so that the uninformed can understand what is actually written and what it means. That way the judges and the jury can understand what is the real law and not just trust what the BATFE is saying it is.

 
RBHarter

RBHarter

West Central AR
That's kind of awkward .
That wording would make a M12 or 97' (made after 1899) or Ithica 37 a firearm but not A5 , BPS , 1100 or Mossy 500 series . Those barrels aren't threaded in either and only held in place with an "acorn nut" .

So the dreaded Saturday night Special Jennings/Bryco is a gun but not a BHP , 1911 or XD .
I haven't seen how a Dan Wesson works exactly but is it also not a threaded frame ?

What about those Win 22s with the B nuts holding the barrel in place ........

The bolts are a receiver component in the shotguns though ......
So break actions aren't guns either if they have a monolithic barrel hinge assy either .......

My head hurts ....
 
462

462

California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
My first ATF encounter was when I was issued my C&R license. Accompanying the license were a number of booklets, one of which pertained to C&R rules/regulations/laws.
The most baffling concerns sales of C&R guns: Infrequent. One per month? One per year? Nope, infrequent.
Talk about ambiguous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.