More malarkey from the atf about braces and OAL

[flenna]

I used to deal a lot with OSHA and I would say the ATF is similar- if you write and ask if something is illegal the immediate response is almost always “yes”. Even if the correct answer should probably be “no”.

[26 Inf]

Because there are some stupid mother ****ers that own guns.

"G-g-guys, is this okay? God knows I w-w-wouldn't want to break the law or anything."

Yeah, all us guys that follow the law until we can get it changed are stupid motherfvckers.

And, yeah it was a stupid question. I mean, damn, you wouldn't want anyone to know the correct procedure for measuring to see if they are in compliance, would you?

correspondence requesting the correct method to “measure a firearm with a ‘stabilizing brace’ and folding adaptor.” It was explained that the correspondence was sent in the form of an email over a year ago and that the person had received a response via email shortly after it was sent. This letter was unsolicited and came over a year after the original request and response.

Last time I looked, the penalties are not inconsequential. I don't blame a guy for asking.

[DaBigBR]

Same here, Euro, but I was at a carbine class recently that consisted primarily of local and state LE. While no one really batted an eye at my "firearm", and it was a great time had by all, I kinda had that sinking feeling that maybe it wasn't worth the hassle bringing it. I guess if I never brought it outdoors, I could probably toss a real stock on there. It would probably be about the same amount of time in the slammer as one of these stupid measurement violations.

The majority of cops don't know the nuances of these laws and the majority of those that do, don't care. Not a good "Plan A" for staying out of trouble, but it's a fact.

I've been a police for sixteen years, so I feel like I've met and talked to enough of them to have a sense on this.

[JediGuy]

Then stocks aren’t permanent either therefore SBRs don’t really exist

This was also my line of thinking...

Overall, it seems to me that nothing has changed. The vertical grip thing is getting into areas of law that I see a jury siding with “agency knowledge” over a citizen. Then we can get to the idiocy of surmising that BCM’s foregrips are at an angle so therefore not a “vertical fore grip.” Does no one remember that the proverbial Tommy gun was the reason for that clause...and the grip was at an angle? I digress.
The pistol brace thing was a sensible workaround, but some of the stuff people pull just ends up requiring more “clarification.”

[GTF425]

Yeah, all us guys that follow the law until we can get it changed are stupid motherfvckers.

My only problem is with guys who continue to poke the bear and recommend braces as "stamp free SBRs" and such.

They are the kind of people that are going to ruin it for everyone, because it leads to misconceptions about the rule of law and has a lot of people seeking clarification on it.

[prepare]

If you think a bureaucracy is going to come up with anything that makes sense then you obviously don’t have any either.

[jpmuscle]

People really need to stop caring what the king thinks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tehpwnag3]

100% agree. However, being detained on suspicion until an authority can validate the legality of my firearm was really what I was worried about. As far as doing my own due diligence, I knew to the best of my knowledge that my firearm was GTG in the eyes of the law (maybe?). And, again, everyone was totally cool at class and a couple guys (cops) commented on how light and handy it felt. I made VERY small talk about it.

The majority of cops don't know the nuances of these laws and the majority of those that do, don't care. Not a good "Plan A" for staying out of trouble, but it's a fact.

I've been a police for sixteen years, so I feel like I've met and talked to enough of them to have a sense on this.

[Diamondback]

This was also my line of thinking...

Overall, it seems to me that nothing has changed. The vertical grip thing is getting into areas of law that I see a jury siding with “agency knowledge” over a citizen. Then we can get to the idiocy of surmising that BCM’s foregrips are at an angle so therefore not a “vertical fore grip.” Does no one remember that the proverbial Tommy gun was the reason for that clause...and the grip was at an angle? I digress.
The pistol brace thing was a sensible workaround, but some of the stuff people pull just ends up requiring more “clarification.”

ISTR that the thing with the Thompson grip is it having positive finger grooves while Magpul, BCM etc do not and are more like "ergonomic hand rests," and that's why a pistol Thompson with a horizontal forearm can have a correct 10.5" barrel while a Chicago Typewriter has to go up to 13.5". do not. Don't recall where I saw this though.

[tehpwnag3]

I think I read somewhere that if you can get your thumb around the grip, it helps define a VFG. This is one of those grey areas that someone with more knowledge than me could help clear up.

ISTR that the thing with the Thompson grip is it having positive finger grooves while Magpul, BCM etc do not and are more like "ergonomic hand rests," and that's why a pistol Thompson with a horizontal forearm can have a correct 10.5" barrel while a Chicago Typewriter has to go up to 13.5". do not. Don't recall where I saw this though.