New pistol brace rule announced

The problem is they can’t do that because there was never any emphasis placed on intended use. So, that would make them responsible for them not being used as intended. You know they are not going to admit they stepped on it. And because they didn’t this becomes an opportune time to toss the whole thing behind reclassification and regulation.

1 Like

Congrats!

1 Like

convenient.

I love my M4s just the way they are, not big on “cool point” additions.

1 Like

So do I. The only thing on any of my M4s are a white light I can bump with my hand as a gross motor function and an AimPoint M68cco or (comp M4) and a Troy backup iron sight. When I had my M16A1 I literally duct taped a Blackhawk light to the triangle handguard LOL keep it simple.

1 Like

My HH6 and I are both shooters. Yep it’s the same with us all about keeping a balanced budget :us:

1 Like

You have to go into the history of the NFA and remember you are dealing with a bureaucracy. The 1st rule of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself by making useless rules and increasing it’s budget.
The original intent was to outlaw handguns but the 2A got in the way. They did not want citizens to be able to make a pistol from a rifle but that became moot when they could not ban pistols however they did not get rid of the useless rules. Original rifle barrel length was 18" which was shortened to 16" because the government had a bunch of M1 Carbines to sell and they had 17 3/4" barrels and manufacturers lobbied for 16". Since the bureaucracy had to accept pistols they intended to follow the useless laws to the letter otherwise they would have no purpose.
The brace was invented to aid handicapped shooters but people used the loophole to make SBRs. The main mess began when ATF condoned the use and later changed their minds at the behest of the Biden administration. The head of the ATF was appointed by Biden. The whole NFA and the ATF need to go. It was never constitutional and yes they are planning on doing something they would get shot for.

Not a loophole and not an SBR. The rules the ATF created for SBRs specifically do not include pistol braces. They even ruled that a brace is not a butt stock.

Aside from that, does it really matter if it is a pistol, an SBR, or a rifle? They are all firearms. So ease of use should be regulated? They seem to want to make semi-autos illegal, too. It seems they are using Australia as a model to attack our inalienable rights.

I refuse to board that train.

2 Likes

I agree with you but the ATF changed their mind and says TS.
It is getting worse. They just changed the rules on NFA items. Got a suppresser in your name? No one else can touch it or be able to touch it. Not even your spouse. Want to by a suppresser? You can look but not touch. I started a new thread on this.

1 Like