ATF vs Q honey badger

[IVC]

So is it just not possible to remove the pistol brace and just have a regular buffer tube? It looks kind of strange, like the brace is somehow part of the gun, but I would think it could be removed and just be a pistol.

Buffer tube is part of the action so it cannot be removed, which is why AR pistols are generally safe from being designated an SBR even if buffer tube can be shouldered.

Remove the brace and use the buffer tube in any way you like, and you're completely in the clear. Silly, but that's how it works - buffer tube is a necessity, the brace is not.

[Milsurp1]

[beanz2]

People made fun of those who bought SBR stamps.

This is most certainly true! I kept saying look to bump stocks as an example, one day and they're gone.

Dammit. There goes another $200.

.

[SCVlongstroke]

[k1dude]

The ATF had to ban it, because there's SOOOO many people dying as a result of these braces.......NOT!

[SkyHawk]

Specific pistols are being considered SBR’s by the ATF - not braces specifically.

The Honey Badger, and two similar models are being called SBR’s because of all of their individual nuances.

Yeah title is misleading. They CURRENTLY are not going after braces in general. They are going after particular pistols with a brace with an LOP longer than 13" while simultaneously having an OAL extended shorter than 26" and is capable of firing in that configuration. I dont agree with their ruling, but this is their reasoning.

Where in the ATF letter are these nuances or any reference to LOP?

https://mcusercontent.com/557cc802f23161a8ffe100a66/files/dd6aa903-36c2-4d14-9de5-91aa62215cd2/Q_LLC_6_02_02814_Cease_Desist_Letter.pdf

What I see in that letter could be applied to any AR or similar pistol (AK, MPX etc) with a brace. Apparently NRA lawyers agree:

Since 2012, ATF has repeatedly found that firearms with pistol stabilizing braces, like the one equipped on Q’s Honey Badger pistol, are not “designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” and are therefore not subject to regulation under the NFA. Now, with no notice or opportunity for public input, ATF appears to be reversing course.

The NRA strongly disagrees with this arbitrary, inequitable, and incorrect determination by ATF that puts millions of firearms owners in danger of federal prosecution.

So is that hyperbole, do you gentlemen have some information they don't and that was not shared in the ATF letter?

In Arizona they aren't and state police won't enforce. Just spoke with them today. Same thing with Maine State Police. They don't give a **** about some opinion letter.

It's not considered law. It's an opinion. That's all.

So the ATF can giveth, but the ATF cannot taketh away - that it? Pistol braces were not a thing until the ATF 'opinion' letter that gave birth to them. Had the ATF originally ruled they were SBR you would have never heard of or seen one. So yes, their opinions do in fact matter. Most prosecutions for SBR are done by the feds, and their expert witnesses at trial are ATF employees.

[BaronW]

Oh good. I was worried there wouldn't be a case to take to SCOTUS (with ACB) to dismantle the NFA.

[Milsurp1]

[beanz2]

Aaaand, just like that. ATF eForms website is down. Usually it goes down at 10 pm.

Nope, sorry suckers, no SBR for you!

.

[nitroxdiver]

In Arizona they aren't and state police won't enforce. Just spoke with them today. Same thing with Maine State Police. They don't give a **** about some opinion letter.

It's not considered law. It's an opinion. That's all.

The Noveske Ghettoblaster is next I bet.

NFA needs to go.

Idaho too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nitroxdiver]

The ATF set up and came after RW. Not Idaho state police.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Milsurp1]

[nitroxdiver]

[sheepdawg]

I hate the Deep State. When is President Trump going to abolish the ATF by Executive Order. We don’t need to wait for ACB to become a Supreme Court Associate Justice for President Trump to do that. How come no one says “De-fund the ATF!” ATF has certainly killed a lot of innocents, both two-legged and four-legged.

[sigstroker]

Yeah title is misleading. They CURRENTLY are not going after braces in general. They are going after particular pistols with a brace with an LOP longer than 13" while simultaneously having an OAL extended shorter than 26" and is capable of firing in that configuration. I dont agree with their ruling, but this is their reasoning.

The letter didn't say anything about LOP.