Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 9 of 146 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131959109 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 1459
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Nunya, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    721
    Rep Power
    21474841

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    This was written by John Crump (not a lawyer, think what you want of his videos) over at ammoland.com

    "Any pistol with a length of pull that is consistent with that of what would be found in a rifle would be considered an SBR. Any adjustable attachments, such as a multi-position buffer tube, would also automatically make the pistol an SBR. If the shooter places an optic on their firearm that requires an eye relief that is consistent with what*s used on a rifle, such as a scope, then that gun will also be considered a short barreled rifle. If a firearm has the surface area to be fired from the shoulder, such as a firearm equipped with a nonadjustable buffer tube, then that will be considered an SBR, basically making every AR-15 pistol an SBR."

    https://www.ammoland.com/2023/01/atf...#axzz7qQLPofpA

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    33,567
    Rep Power
    21474887

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Hey, that's what we were just discussing.

    We shall see.
    If that's the case, then why not just say that?
    Why is all the focus on braces?

    I dunno. I'm not gonna run around screaming that the end is near until we learn more.
    LOTS of people are going to try to "guess" what's going on - some are going to do it for the "views" it gets them.
    Things are going to get much more confusing before they get clear.
    I called to check my ZIP CODE!....DY-NO-MITE!!!

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    1,285
    Rep Power
    4664884

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Emptymag View Post
    Hey, that's what we were just discussing.

    We shall see.
    If that's the case, then why not just say that?
    Why is all the focus on braces?

    I dunno. I'm not gonna run around screaming that the end is near until we learn more.
    LOTS of people are going to try to "guess" what's going on - some are going to do it for the "views" it gets them.
    Things are going to get much more confusing before they get clear.
    Agree. I got mad for 3 seconds. Then I went back to brunching.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    In a college town, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,257
    Rep Power
    21474841

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Stupid question for a friend…lets say one has a PMF AR pistol on an 80% lower…

    Short of noncompliance: How is one supposed to “register” this as an SBR? hard to register something that doesnt exist in their books/doesnt have a serial number…

    Does this effectively do away with 80% ARs (its a stretch, i know…)

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,910
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by ray h View Post
    They aren't banning "pistols", but they are trying to change the definition of what a stock is, to include an item (arm braces) that looks similar and may or may not be used similarly to a stock.
    They got their pee pees smacked when they tried to regulate how people hold a gun, they are doing the same thing again. The ATF says a handgun should be designed to be able to shot with one hand and not shouldered. Pistol braces are for that very purpose, so they aren't going after them based on their intended purpose, they are once again, going after them based on how people are using them.
    They already know this is going to be struck down because it already has been struck down, in the mean time they are going to get as many people to "register" their firearms as they can, for future reference.
    Correction - by their own admission, they are changing the definition of a rifle, not a stock.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,910
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Emptymag View Post
    Hey, that's what we were just discussing.

    We shall see.
    If that's the case, then why not just say that?
    Why is all the focus on braces?

    I dunno. I'm not gonna run around screaming that the end is near until we learn more.
    LOTS of people are going to try to "guess" what's going on - some are going to do it for the "views" it gets them.
    Things are going to get much more confusing before they get clear.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    7,194
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by bluetrane2028 View Post
    The language in this ruling now defines "single pull of the trigger" and not "single function of the trigger."

    So... it's a two-fer, now they have standing to ban binary triggers.

    Neat.
    In what ruling?
    The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Location
    Under a mountain
    Posts
    562
    Rep Power
    21474839

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling




    Ian at Forgotten Weapons has an interesting video about SBR*s. He says that the reason SBR*s are prohibited is that the 1934 Firearms Act was originally going after handguns and wanted to tax every handgun sold $200. SBR*s were added so that they could eliminate the potential loophole of people cutting down Rifles and Shotguns to a handgun lengths making them easy to conceal. Then they could claim the SBR was a rifle, not a handgun and exempt from the NFA.

    Lobbyists got handguns removed from the NFA, but the SBR*s were still in it when passed. So were included not because they were scarier or more dangerous than other guns, but to cut off a potential loophole.

    He also does a good job explaining how absurd the SBR rules are and has a lot of interesting history in the video including why shotguns need and 18 inch barrel and a rifle is 16 inches.
    Last edited by Ilikebuckets; January 15th, 2023 at 10:53 AM.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    ., Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,718
    Rep Power
    21474852

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilikebuckets View Post



    Ian at Forgotten Weapons has an interesting video about SBR*s. He says that the reason SBR*s are prohibited is that the 1934 Firearms Act was originally going after handguns and wanted to tax every handgun sold $200. SBR*s were added so that they could eliminate the potential loophole of people cutting down Rifles and Shotguns to a handgun lengths making them easy to conceal. Then they could claim the SBR was a rifle, not a handgun and exempt from the NFA.

    Lobbyists got handguns removed from the NFA, but the SBR*s were still in it when passed. So were included not because they were scarier or more dangerous than other guns, but to cut off a potential loophole.

    He also does a good job explaining how absurd the SBR rules are and has a lot of interesting history in the video including why shotguns need and 18 inch barrel and a rifle is 16 inches.
    on a side note, wasnt the miller case trying to say a man couldn't own a sawed off shotgun because it had no military purpose or history. IE we can ONLY own military weapons, the intent was always for citizens to own military arms?
    There is no way to make it out alive...

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NEPA, Pennsylvania
    (Wyoming County)
    Posts
    2,320
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodwanderer View Post
    Stupid question for a friend*lets say one has a PMF AR pistol on an 80% lower*

    Short of noncompliance: How is one supposed to *register* this as an SBR? hard to register something that doesnt exist in their books/doesnt have a serial number*

    Does this effectively do away with 80% ARs (its a stretch, i know*)
    I'm going to try and not say that registering a "personally manufactured firearm" is "stupid" because to each their own, but there's absolutely no reason I can think of to build something that you want kept off the radar and totally legal to do so, and then go and do something like registering it as an SBR, or even selling it in pistol form (in PA) for that matter.

    It isn't hard to add a S/N and register it like you make it sound.

    It's a fucking mess, lets just wait and see what happens
    Last edited by ExFlyinguy; January 15th, 2023 at 05:25 PM.
    "It seems that the Constitution is more or less guidelines than actual rules"
    My feedback: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=305685

Page 9 of 146 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131959109 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ATF ruling......
    By verbious in forum Gunsmithing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 4th, 2015, 10:52 PM

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
  •