ATF and Pistol Braces part 2..

Uzi

Uzi

.308 Win
Messages
2,976
Reaction score
3,289
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
This is precisely why I decided to purchase a cheaper atf approved brace and not bother to upgrade it.
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,045
Reaction score
54,155
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
My pistol upper came with a brace, but honestly I prefer just the bare buffer tube.

It's too short to really shoulder, but I can get a cheek weld to the buffer tube which helps immensely.

.223 just doesn't have enough recoil that I really need to shoulder it. The LOP is obviously terrible compared to a rifle, but I've tried it with the brace and it isn't any better.

So, as far as that, as long as they don't call a bare buffer tube a stock, I'll be ok.
 
Will556

Will556

.308 Win
LEO / LEA
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
6,184
Location
New York
Will556

Will556

.308 Win
LEO / LEA
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
6,184
Location
New York
"Update11/25/2020 and Response from SB Tactical

SB Tactical is aware that in response to FOIA requests from third parties, ATF has released internal documents that confirm the existence of an effort to malign and reclassify products used by millions of law-abiding Americans. Among those documents is an incomplete, redacted criminal evaluation that SB Tactical has never seen before and which contains multiple inaccuracies.

Contrary to the letters’ baseless accusation about SB Tactical’s marketing, SB Tactical has never and would never mislead its customers. SB Tactical has been working with ATF and DOJ for years and has sought determinations from the agency about the status of its products as applied to particular firearms. ATF’s false and irrelevant statements are sadly consistent with an activist and lawless ATF that refuses to engage SB Tactical or manufacturers on the legal status of accessories used by millions of Americans."

Sounds like the ATF needs to come forward and publicly say something because if the SBA3 is in fact not a brace then that means that almost every AR-15 manufacturer has been making illegal SBRs for at least 2 years now and the ATF hasn't said a word to the public at all. The only way we found out is through a fucking FOIA request.

It really sounds like the federal government is begging for a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the ATF.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
Will555 said:
Sounds like the ATF needs to come forward and publicly say something because if the SBA3 is in fact not a brace then that means that almost every AR-15 manufacturer has been making illegal SBRs for at least 2 years now and the ATF hasn't said a word to the public at all. The only way we found out is through a fucking FOIA request.

It really sounds like the federal government is begging for a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the ATF.
Click to expand...

Not to mention something like this if it happens COULD in theory be extremely detrimental the to NFA (this would be a good thing)

If the ATF ends up playing some fuck fuck games, claims that say even just the SBA3 isn't a brace but a stock, and that pistols are/where in fact rifles, but did nothing for 2 years

1) it would destroy any and all argument for SBRs to be an NFA item under the claim of "Public Safety"

2) the left would (should) lose any chance of being able to restrict SBRs as they would easily fall under "common use" and they wouldn't be able to claim "dangerous and unusual". Heller v DC
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
10,631
Reaction score
23,367
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Edwardteach72 said:
Not to mention something like this if it happens COULD in theory be extremely detrimental the to NFA (this would be a good thing)

If the ATF ends up playing some fuck fuck games, claims that say even just the SBA3 isn't a brace but a stock, and that pistols are/where in fact rifles, but did nothing for 2 years

1) it would destroy any and all argument for SBRs to be an NFA item under the claim of "Public Safety"

2) the left would (should) lose any chance of being able to restrict SBRs as they would easily fall under "common use" and they wouldn't be able to claim "dangerous and unusual". Heller v DC
Click to expand...
You are assuming Supreme Court decisions matter anymore. The Heller and McDonald cases should have prevented the SAFE act from passing legal muster. As well as turned May issue states into shall issue states. But it had zero effect.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
dsdmmat said:
You are assuming Supreme Court decisions matter anymore. The Heller and McDonald cases should have prevented the SAFE act from passing legal muster. As well as turned May issue states into shall issue states. But it had zero effect.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that previous SCOTUS had any intention in hearing 2A cases, such as the SAFE challenge.

Not saying this current one does either but more likely than the previous make up.

Also single state issue vs one that affected people in all 50 states
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
10,631
Reaction score
23,367
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Edwardteach72 said:
You are assuming that previous SCOTUS had any intention in hearing 2A cases, such as the SAFE challenge.

Not saying this current one does either but more likely than the previous make up.

Also single state issue vs one that affected people in all 50 states
Click to expand...
No I am saying with the Supreme court decisions all of the lower district courts had guidance and chose not to follow it. In other words SCotUS is a paper tiger.
 
Cavalry

Cavalry

.308 Win
Messages
3,820
Reaction score
6,514
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
After reading the letter from the ATF my biggest question is why SB tactical only sent in 2 braces for approval? Its not like it costs anything other than postage to submit to the ATF. Why would you not CYA and send every product in?

The letter as I read it also states that they are most concerned with SB tacticals advertising as "ATF approved" , not that the braces are NFA items.
 
Edwardteach72

Edwardteach72

.475 A&M Magnum
U.S. Military
Messages
14,883
Reaction score
15,065
Location
New York
Cavalry said:
After reading the letter from the ATF my biggest question is why SB tactical only sent in 2 braces for approval? Its not like it costs anything other than postage to submit to the ATF. Why would you not CYA and send every product in?

The letter as I read it also states that they are most concerned with SB tacticals advertising as "ATF approved" , not that the braces are NFA items.
Click to expand...

You must have missed the whole part where SB Tactical has mentioned they have tried to work WITH the ATF to establish standards for what is or isn't a brace and to get approvals and the ATF stopped all communications
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top