• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

ATF doing ATF Things

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Case in point on the fickle interpretation of braces by BATF

 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Case in point on the fickle interpretation of braces by BATF

I wonder if what did them in is the fact the brace is standard. Don't all other AR-15 pistols come standard without a brace, and it is added aftermarket?
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I wonder if what did them in is the fact the brace is standard. Don't all other AR-15 pistols come standard without a brace, and it is added aftermarket?

A pistol (or "Other") is a pistol. It can't be something different that what someone has legally transferred it as. That said, there's plenty of "Pistol" marketed firearms that are sold with braces.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
A pistol (or "Other") is a pistol. It can't be something different that what someone has legally transferred it as. That said, there's plenty of "Pistol" marketed firearms that are sold with braces.
Sure. Whatever it is transferred as up and until you can't transfer it as a pistol any longer. That is what happened. Second part of your post answered my question tho. So the lager question remains, what makes the Honey Badger not a pistol anymore and all the others remain pistols? If the answer is nothing, then all the others will fall soon enough, no?
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
That thing is so obviously designed to be a shoulder stock it's ludicrous. Most braces I've seen have a couple of flimsy pieces of rubber that wrap around the arm, but it's obvious you can put an arm in there. That thing would be lucky to fit an anorexic model's arm in there. I mean, come on.

If the firearms community spent the effort some of us are spending defending gimmicky corner-case bullshit like AR pistols, gat cranks, bump stocks, and the like into actually reaching out and educating the non gun-owning public on how we're statistically not a threat, we'd be in a lot safer place right now.
 

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Not saying I agree, but after all the hooplah about the Sig brace a few years ago, I'm having a hard time seeing what's surprising about this ruling.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I wonder if what did them in is the fact the brace is standard. Don't all other AR-15 pistols come standard without a brace, and it is added aftermarket?
Negative:
https://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1907

I think what did them (Honey Badger) in is the strap, or rather, how short and unusable it is. The strap doesn't even pretend to be usable for strapping around a regular sized person's arm. That is what the strap is ostensibly for.
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
That thing so so obviously designed to be a shoulder stock it's ludicrous. Most braces I've seen have a couple of flimsy pieces of rubber that wrap around the arm, but it's obvious you can put an arm in there. That thing would be lucky to fit an anorexic model's arm in there. I mean, come on.

If the firearms community spent the effort some of us are spending defending gimmicky corner-case bullshit like AR pistols, gat cranks, bump stocks, and the like into actually reaching out and educating the non gun-owning public on how we're statistically not a threat, we'd be in a lot safer place right now.


I am not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but outside transferring the lower to someone while waiting for a stamp, couldn't you just swap the brace for a sig brace or any other of the braces out there and dispose of the original 'brace?'

At this point, I'll vote for whoever runs on a platform of defunding the ATF.
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
I'm not a gun guy, just a dumb end user. But putting this picture up on a screen for a multiple choice test with pistol or short-barreled rifle as choices, I'd be hard pressed to argue for pistol.

HB-PISTOL-LEFT-OPEN.jpg
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I'm not a gun guy, just a dumb end user. But putting this picture up on a screen for a multiple choice test with pistol or short-barreled rifle as choices, I'd be hard pressed to argue for pistol.

HB-PISTOL-LEFT-OPEN.jpg
Reminds me of I know it when I see it.

I tire of sharing my personal stances/philosophy on AW, but I will say this:
If you are fighting over what defines a controllable firearm vs. a non-controllable firearm, you have de facto conceded that it is right to control firearms.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I'm not a gun guy, just a dumb end user. But putting this picture up on a screen for a multiple choice test with pistol or short-barreled rifle as choices, I'd be hard pressed to argue for pistol.

HB-PISTOL-LEFT-OPEN.jpg
Which is why the laws (federal/ state/ local) are supposed to be explicitly clear on engineering and measurements, so that it is scientific and not subjective. For example, barrel length of X" long, definition of suppressor, or definition of fully automatic vs. semi-automatic.

By the way, if any law is unconstitutionally vague (i.e. invites subjectivity), then it can be nullified and stricken by a court, and the legislative body will have to go back and craft a law that is not unconstitutionally vague. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
I'm not a gun guy, just a dumb end user. But putting this picture up on a screen for a multiple choice test with pistol or short-barreled rifle as choices, I'd be hard pressed to argue for pistol.

HB-PISTOL-LEFT-OPEN.jpg
Depends, does it shoot the blue or green laser bolt?
 
Top