Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    On a hilltop, Pennsylvania
    (Bradford County)
    Posts
    474
    Rep Power
    21474840

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    It's not gobbledygook because they know exactly what they are doing and the intention here is clearly a back-door approach to rendering problematic most brace designs on the market.

    Their disdain and snark is evident right in sentence two:

    "The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported "stabilizing brace..."

    The deliberate use of that word alone is a shot across the bow.
    Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    In a college town, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,257
    Rep Power
    21474841

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    I just love how they assign points against for no sights at all on the firearm...

    Especially when they say they dont issue opinions on firearm accessories...

    Oh wait, that makes this entire argument on stabilizing braces hypocritical

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ercildoun, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    5,513
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    Show me where Joe McCarthy was was wrong about communists in the government.
    Corruption is the default behavior of government officials. JPC

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Moscow, Pennsylvania
    (Lackawanna County)
    Posts
    4,026
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    I believe they say it’s too heavy for one handed operation. But yet no one shoots one handed anything anymore

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Stone's throw from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Butler County)
    Posts
    6,016
    Rep Power
    21474855

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshIronshaft View Post
    https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

    Hold on to your pistol braces, the ride is about to get bumpy!

    Sharpen your pencils for the public comment period.

    It’s a long read. My favorite part is page 55 where they said they considered a tax free SBR registration for current brace owners but they rejected the idea since people would just register all their pistols as SBRs and take advantage of it.

    I feel personally attacked.
    The explanation of the points system makes my brain hurt.


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Montco, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    863
    Rep Power
    21474846

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    Quote Originally Posted by EFK View Post
    "The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported "stabilizing brace..."
    I'm going to take heat for this..... Can you blame them for using that term ("purported")? If we could take an honest poll of all the stabilizing brace owners in the country, what do you think is the ACTUAL percentage of owners that use the braces as intended (with their arm strapped in/onto the brace). 1%? Maybe even less?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    1,721
    Rep Power
    9892391

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces


  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    upper black eddy, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    338
    Rep Power
    8057744

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    if that geriatric fucker is coming for our guns, just put them all on the 2nd floor, since we all know that old fucker cant climb stairs without falling. besides the high ground is always an advantage
    IMG_2886.JPG
    picture shamelessly stolen off the net
    bailout the working class not the freeloading class

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    On a hilltop, Pennsylvania
    (Bradford County)
    Posts
    474
    Rep Power
    21474840

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    Quote Originally Posted by Royinmontco View Post
    I'm going to take heat for this..... Can you blame them for using that term ("purported")? If we could take an honest poll of all the stabilizing brace owners in the country, what do you think is the ACTUAL percentage of owners that use the braces as intended (with their arm strapped in/onto the brace). 1%? Maybe even less?
    Oh I agree. And I directly blame the dipshits who constantly post videos on wherever as well as companies like whatever company it was that began selling a 'shockwave blade protector' and not only was selling it but attempting to get approval for it. Yes, I agree, there may be some people who are using some form of brace to do something with them that perhaps is different than their advertised intent. Big fucking deal, I don't remember seeing a sudden surge in so-called hyped-up mass-shootings using braced arms. Either you're a criminal or your not. ATF opened the door to this clusterfuck and now they want to pretend like somehow the MILLIONS of braced arms and their owners out there are suddenly a problem, which they absolutely are not. It's nothing but a political ploy based upon optics so they can pretend that they're not all giant steaming piles of useless shit.
    Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Doylestown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    1,048
    Rep Power
    21474852

    Default Re: ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

    Kudos to all who made it through the entire typical .gov piece of shit proposed ruling. Safe to say when an assessment will be done with almost any brace on the market today the ATF will always get to 4 points in section 2 or 3.

    I wonder if even a longer buffer tube would constitute a brace/stock in this proposal.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 95
    Last Post: August 19th, 2021, 11:45 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 24th, 2014, 09:24 PM
  3. Proposed new rule for Classifieds....
    By Delkal in forum Support & Suggestions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: June 5th, 2013, 10:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •