BREAKING: ATF says most popular pistol braces "shouldering devices"

[zghorner]

SURE seems, once again, that we have people that struggle with the definition of “shall not Be infringed”.

If you’re one that is ok with them going away, never liked them, thought the were a ‘work-around’ or something else, you may want to check your beliefs. Because I guarantee you, this isn’t stopping.

I agree 100%. I regret my indifferent stance on bump stocks (not that I could have changed their fate). I thought they were lame, uncomfortable crap...even still, I am embarrassed that I ever accepted another infringement so casually.

braces are a miracle for some of us. The short barrel laws are just as retarded as the suppressor laws and what many of you consider a “work around” and don’t really care about I consider a victory for the people via creativity from firearms parts companies. Sure they are lame compared to a tax stamp gun but a happy medium for some of us.

having to get permission from the government to have a barrel under 16” is completely f**king unamerican.

 

[JD8]

Come on, even I knew they are a way around the SBR rules. I am sure there was major debate among the ATF on if they were legal or not.

Again, GO read what the ATF has previously "ruled" about them.

 

[JD8]

I don't think anyone is against them, or struggles with the definition of
"Shall Not Be Infringed", but we really have to admit that they would not be an item if we were not trying to work around around the SBR requirements. So, get off your high-horse. (by the way, I have 2 of them)

Most people have the problem where they basically said they aren't within the authority to judge the intent of use..... allowing their use...... to what we have now. Their bi-polar nature is the issue, and their rulings have created the size of the problem you have now.

 

[JD8]

Oh, I agree. The ATF rulings over the years are anything but logical (or in many cases, Constitutional), but they are what they are and will remain "the law" until they are ruled otherwise. That is up to us to push the issues, correspond with our Representatives and Senators, and keep the issues in the public eye. But we at least have to be honest with ourselves.

It's no different than taking all the tax advantages the IRS "allows."

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I agree. That's half the fun!

 

[Seadog]

I agree 100%. I regret my indifferent stance on bump stocks (not that I could have changed their fate). I thought they were lame, uncomfortable crap...even still, I am embarrassed that I ever accepted another infringement so casually.

braces are a miracle for some of us. The short barrel laws are just as retarded as the suppressor laws and what many of you consider a “work around” and don’t really care about I consider a victory for the people via creativity from firearms parts companies. Sure they are lame compared to a tax stamp gun but a happy medium for some of us.

having to get permission from the government to have a barrel under 16” is completely f**king unamerican.

I agree with you. The work arounds remind of of the work arounds of the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. If it wasn’t for the work arounds there wouldn’t have been any cool guns sold in that ten year span. Work arounds are paramount to our 2A freedom. It just goes to show how stupid the SBR laws are and how they should be repealed. Just like they were trying for the suppressors 3 years back.

What next? They going to ban the shockwave shot guns? Typical government overreach

 

[RickN]

Most people have the problem where they basically said they aren't within the authority to judge the intent of use..... allowing their use...... to what we have now. Their bi-polar nature is the issue, and their rulings have created the size of the problem you have now.

The problem as I see it is some braces are designed as braces for the arm, and some are clearly nothing more than a thinly disguised stock.

 

[JD8]

The problem as I see it is some braces are designed as braces for the arm, and some are clearly nothing more than a thinly disguised stock.

It doesn't matter how you see it. Again, educate yourself. Start with their 2014 ruling and go through 2017..... then till now.

 

[RickN]

It doesn't matter how you see it. Again, educate yourself. Start with their 2014 ruling and go through 2017..... then till now.

If they were ruling on changing styles of braces, it does matter. If they said those just meant to be a brace were OK, but the manufacturers kept pushing them and making them more like stocks then you can expect the ruling to flip back and forth. I would have to see each brace they ruled on to have an informed opinion. When you go from a brace to a small stock, the ruling is going to change.

 

[YetiSam]

If they were ruling on changing styles of braces, it does matter. If they said those just meant to be a brace were OK, but the manufacturers kept pushing them and making them more like stocks then you can expect the ruling to flip back and forth. I would have to see each brace they ruled on to have an informed opinion. When you go from a brace to a small stock, the ruling is going to change.

View attachment 181838 View attachment 181839

You can do the actions in picture 2 with the brace in picture 1...