ATF vs Q honey badger

[MurdaJ]

ATF says brace with 13.5" pull is a SBR. Qs is 13.35 and ATF are saying it's an SBR.

Any support for this? I dont remember any mention of lop

[Quiet]

ATF says brace with 13.5" pull is a SBR. Qs is 13.35 and ATF are saying it's an SBR.

Any support for this? I dont remember any mention of lop

Per BATFE, circa 02-2018...

Modifying an arm stablizing brace to make it easier or more comfortable to shoulder makes it a shoulder stock and installing an arm stablizing brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock, makes it a shoulder stock.

If the length of pull with the arm stablizing brace is 13.5" or greater, then the arm stablizing brace is considered a shoulder stock.

When measuring overall length to determine if a firearm is a Title 1 Handgun, Title 1 Other, or Title 2 AOW; the firearm is measured in the shortest possible firing configuration (arm stablizing brace is removed or folded/collapsed, if it permanently attached).
^Since the firearm is not intend to be fired from the shoulder, overall length is measured with the firearm in the shortest possible firing configuration.

[sigstroker]

Any support for this? I dont remember any mention of lop

There wasn't any. It just keeps getting repeated over and over like a Democratic talking point.

[MurdaJ]

Per BATFE, circa 02-2018...

Modifying an arm stablizing brace to make it easier or more comfortable to shoulder makes it a shoulder stock and installing an arm stablizing brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock, makes it a shoulder stock.

If the length of pull with the arm stablizing brace is 13.5" or greater, then the arm stablizing brace is considered a shoulder stock.

When measuring overall length to determine if a firearm is a Title 1 Handgun, Title 1 Other, or Title 2 AOW; the firearm is measured in the shortest possible firing configuration (arm stablizing brace is removed or folded/collapsed, if it permanently attached).
^Since the firearm is not intend to be fired from the shoulder, overall length is measured with the firearm in the shortest possible firing configuration.

Thanks, my research was prior to that date, and I hadn't looked into it until now.

[MurdaJ]

There wasn't any. It just keeps getting repeated over and over like a Democratic talking point.

Seems like it was put out, just hard to look up

[M60A1Rise]

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/atf-suspends-attempt-to-resurrect-obama-era-ar-15-ban/

On Wednesday, the agency informed New Hampshire gun company Q LLC that it will not enforce a cease-and-desist order issued by its Boston branch. The Department of Justice is now reviewing the field office's decision to label an AR-15 featuring a specialized arm brace illegal.

[Quiet]

Any support for this? I dont remember any mention of lop

There wasn't any. It just keeps getting repeated over and over like a Democratic talking point.

Seems like it was put out, just hard to look up

Lower Federal Court in Ohio, [US v Wright (2018)], SBR arrest for a AR pistol with an arm stablizing brace and BATFE went on record about the 13.5" length of pull.

No conviction because of length of pull ended up being less than 13.5".

BATFE initially measured it having a length of pull of 13.75", but they measured it using a method that was not consistent with previous measurement determinations.
(measurement of length of pull is done parallel with the barrel and buffer tube) {evidence picture is wrong way to meaure, which is why no conviction for SBR}

[sigstroker]

That has nothing to do with the thread though, where everyone keeps saying atf told Q their lop was too long. Which never happened, it's like talking to the New York Times in here.

[Quiet]

That has nothing to do with the thread though, where everyone keeps saying atf told Q their lop was too long. Which never happened, it's like talking to the New York Times in here.

The Owner of Q has stated that one of the issues that BATFE brought up was the length of pull being greater than 13.5" and that the BATFE had measured it using an inconsistent method (similar to what was done in US v Wright) for them to obtain the greater than 13.5" length of pull.

[MurdaJ]

Thanks quiet, threads like this with contributions like yours, are why I signed up, and still browse this forum.

[sigstroker]

The Owner of Q has stated that one of the issues that BATFE brought up was the length of pull being greater than 13.5" and that the BATFE had measured it using an inconsistent method (similar to what was done in US v Wright) for them to obtain the greater than 13.5" length of pull.

It wasn't in the cease and desist letter.

[beanz2]