View Full Version : Is this a pistol?
OutofBatt3ry
01-20-23, 20:40
https://i.imgur.com/eG3iKBy.jpg
Asking for a friend
Looks like a pistol but it does have a 'rearward attachment' so who knows.
Remember the first two rules of Fight Club.
hotbiggun42
01-21-23, 00:39
Looks like one.
Depends on your social credit score and whether or not you ever attended a Trump rally.
It looks like a free SBR tax stamp thats missing its brace to me.
Andy
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-21-23, 08:39
someone need to make hollowed out dildos that fit over receiver extensions so that our 'pistols' can identify as gay sex toys, and it be Anti-Alphabet Crew to outlaw them...
I think if you are trying to base it on the latest rule, than you would have to remove the foam.
Yes, in that configuration, and assuming that buffer tube is 6.5" or less, it is a pistol...
69607
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2021r-08f508pdf/download
someone need to make hollowed out dildos that fit over receiver extensions so that our 'pistols' can identify as gay sex toys, and it be Anti-Alphabet Crew to outlaw them...
Dude...That would be hilarious!
6.5" or less, though...Might disappoint some of the Kamo Kloset Krowd.
OutofBatt3ry
01-21-23, 11:24
Yes, in that configuration, and assuming that buffer tube is 6.5" or less, it is a pistol...
69607
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2021r-08f508pdf/download
In the same graphic, each paragraph is contradictory. The top says "..or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations." but the bottom implies a pistol tube is ok as it is a functional part of the weapon and a pistol tube is obviously not designed to be shouldered. Then they show a pistol tube with a foamy. (I brought this up the other day)
As 1/2 joking as this post is...they purposely made the new "rules" confusing.
The real question, will actual pistol tube AR's be considered SBR's.
For anyone that's ever shot an AR pistol before braces were a thing, trying to pull the tube into your shoulder was absolutely terrible. Much better stabilization from a single point sling.
I don't know...It doesn't seem that confusing to me.
The first paragraph is the definition of the "factoring criteria" from the ruling (i.e. the things they consider when determining if a "rearward attachment" is a "stock") and the second paragraph, as well as the following two slides, are examples of the application of the factors.
So, whether or not a "reward attachment" is judged to be a "stock" depends on whether or not it is required for the function of the weapon.
A 6-6.5" buffer tube is required for a AR to function, so the fact that it is present does not automatically mean it's intended to allow the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. Thus, an AR pistol can have a 6-6.5" buffer tube (They don't care about the foamie thing) and still be a pistol.
However, if you took that same buffer tube and stuck it on the back of an AK, then it would be factored differently. It's not required for the function of the weapon, so in the ATF's eyes, it's sole purpose is to extend the weapon rearward to allow surface area for shouldering. Given that, it would be judged as a "stock" in that config.
The AR in your OP is a pistol and they don't care about the foamie thing...
OutofBatt3ry
01-21-23, 11:54
If you read it word for word, the second paragraph only reinforces the first "..or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations."
Then they go into how a pistol tube can't be designed to be shouldered. It's like they're implying because it CAN be shouldered, it's a stock.
The logic of both paragraphs referencing each other doesn't make sense; because a pistol tube is obviously not designed to be shouldered.
It's like they forgot a "not". "..or other rearward attachment that is not necessary for the cycle of operations." The only way both paragraphs make sense is if you add the "not".
This entire section is just poorly written. On purpose? Who knows.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in this.:sarcastic:
I just checked and the wording on the slide is consistent with the wording in the full ruling.
So I think it goes down like this.
These are the criteria used to decide.
One of the criteria is whether or not the "rearward attachment" is necessary for the function of the firearm.
-> If it is necessary for function, and assuming the other factors are satisfied (namely LOP), then it isn't intended for shouldering.
-> If it is not necessary for function, then it is intended only to allow for shouldering
They singled out the foam covered tube in the main ruling because it was submitted for review in conjunction with some kind of a Glock situation -> It was not necessary for function and only served to increase the rearward length.
OutofBatt3ry
01-21-23, 12:11
I just checked and the wording on the slide is consistent with the wording in the full ruling.
So I think it goes down like this.
These are the criteria used to decide.
One of the criteria is whether or not the "rearward attachment" is necessary for the function of the firearm.
-> If it is necessary for function, and assuming the other factors are satisfied (namely LOP), then it isn't intended for shouldering.
-> If it is not necessary for function, then it is intended only to allow for shouldering
They singled out the foam covered tube in the main ruling because it was submitted for review in conjunction with some kind of a Glock situation -> It was not necessary for function and only served to increase the rearward length.
The entire thing is dildos.
The entire thing is dildos.
:lol:
You are not wrong...
You could write a letter to the ATF and ask [emoji849].
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-21-23, 12:40
Dude...That would be hilarious!
6.5" or less, though...Might disappoint some of the Kamo Kloset Krowd.
Girth…. It’s my magic and my curse…
OutofBatt3ry
01-21-23, 12:51
Girth…. It’s my magic and my curse…
lol:cool:
Yes, in that configuration, and assuming that buffer tube is 6.5" or less, it is a pistol...
69607
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2021r-08f508pdf/download
Where do they get the 6-6.5" length on buffer tubes? Is that for Pistol specific tubes, or just how much stocks to the rear of the castle nut? The following is approx 7.25" long:
https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcm-pistol-receiver-extension-buffer-tube-for-ar15-pistols/
OutofBatt3ry
01-21-23, 13:06
Where do they get the 6-6.5" length on buffer tubes? Is that for Pistol specific tubes, or just how much stocks to the rear of the castle nut? The following is approx 7.25" long:
https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcm-pistol-receiver-extension-buffer-tube-for-ar15-pistols/
A standard Milspec tube and pistol tube are the same length and stick out past the castle nut between 6 to 6.5 inches from my measurements. But with the absurd rules, a full length bare tube from an A2, would be a stock...because of length of pull. It's a buffer tube, how can it have length of pull? lol, they just make up the rules as they go.
I wonder how many lightly *used* stripped braced pistol lowers will be sold at the gun shows for *cash* in the next 6 months ? Then the seller goes and buys a AR rifle stripped lower or a complete AR lower. That would put more AR's in circulation. LOL !!! MAGA !!!
Averageman
01-21-23, 16:20
Girth…. It’s my magic and my curse…
"FromMyColdDeadHand"
Shall be now named TunaCanTommy from here forth.
Inkslinger
01-21-23, 16:22
"FromMyColdDeadHand"
Shall be now named TunaCanTommy from here forth.
He won’t touch bottom, but he’ll wreck the hell out of the sides.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.