Let's nol go off on other groups who succeed in defending their rights. Not relevant to this discussion.
I think it is great as well, I just don't care to own an AR pistol, I'll take mine full size, although I do think it is stupid we can't go under 16' on the barrel without a tax stamp and registration.I like braces.
Perhaps it's time for our government to review whether the tax stamp is needed along with review of other items like sound suppressors to prevent hearing damage.I do think it is stupid we can't go under 16' on the barrel without a tax stamp and registration.
Like you, I too didn't care much about AR pistols until I started shooting Pistol Caliber Carbines and now appreciate AR based "pistols" for defensive use as advantages are 30+ round capacity (over 15-17 rounds from magazine grip pistols) and higher muzzle velocities, etc.I think it is great as well, I just don't care to own an AR pistol
That would be awesome, England hands them out like candy. Just walk in and buy them.Perhaps it's time for our government to review whether the tax stamp is needed along with review of other items like sound suppressors to prevent hearing damage.
Like I said before: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Just because you don't like or agree with what type of firearm someone else owns doesn't mean you throw them under the bus just to save your favorite class of firearms. Some of the comments in this thread are proof that we ARE our own worst enemy at times.
May be cheaper, definitely more complicated.I think its cheaper to pay the tax stamp.
Nobody in this thread is saying they think braces should be illegal.
And with that, I’m out! Going to shoot my braced AR pistol from my shoulder and maybe plink a bit with a .22 pistol.
I’ve seen lots of people on other internet sites who almost seem resentful that pistol braces are a thing. Personally, I think some of them are angry they had to pay the tax and play by some stupid rules Big Bro sets.Maybe not directly but there a a few posts that question how an AR pistol is a pistol. I stand by my statement that we ARE our own worst enemy at times. Enjoy your braced pistol, I know I enjoy both of mine.
I think AlexanderA has a point. Anyone who knows about guns and gun laws knows that a pistol brace is a workaround. I always have been surprised that they ever were legal.
Now, there is no reason in the world for them not to be legal, but the feds have not yet asked my opinion on the matter.
Because it's not designed to be fired with one hand. As to the argument that there are ARs in, for example, 9 mm, these are properly classified as "pistol caliber carbines" and not "pistols."Why is the notion an AR can be a pistol a fiction?
Well, virtually every modern example of an "AR" isn't faithful to the design as penned. The basic premise has been altered and modified in many ways (e.g. shorter barrels, railed receivers, adjustable buttstocks) over the years, so finding that the platform has been adapted to function as a pistol should not shock nor offend anyone.Because it's not designed to be fired with one hand.
The difference is that those designs, while ungainly, were originally designed as pistols (i.e., intended to be fired with one hand). The AR-15 was originally designed as a rifle. Even the Vietnam-era short-barrel, telescoping stock carbine (the XM-177) was a bit of a forced kludge job.There have been pistols with similar magazine arrangements e.g. the broomhandle Mauser. There have been large heavy pistols e.g. the Walker Colt.
Very good point. And many gun owners can become temporarily or permanently become injured/disabled simply by breaking a bone or sustaining physical/neurological injury.When the braces were submitted to ATF it's premise was quite clear, a way to help people with disabilities shoot. That makes it an ADA matter, and the federal government is as bound by ADA as anyone else.
So, when ATF ruled that the braces were legitimate for use by disabled people, that precedent became set in stone.
ADA does not require a person to be disabled (visibly or otherwise) to use ADA-mandated features, equipment, or devices. An able person can walk up a ramp instead of steps. An able person can use anything intended to help the less-able. That precedent is well set in stone at this point. An able person can use a cane, or a walker. any number of things. There's no penalty for taking the elevator instead of the stairs.
GCA/CFR do not mention caliber. So as long as a firearm meets the criteria for "pistol", it is a legal pistol.As to the argument that there are ARs in, for example, 9 mm, these are properly classified as "pistol caliber carbines" and not "pistols."
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
- a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
- and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
The letter says the ATF wants to ban ONE PARTICULAR MODEL which is on 700,000 firearms in use, and that in total 3 million are in use.No one is suggesting any manufacturer owns 23% of the market. It was just a "what if" remark for the sake of discussion.
Does that mean the rifle caliber bolt action pistols that were so popular years ago a notional fiction as well?The difference is that those designs, while ungainly, were originally designed as pistols (i.e., intended to be fired with one hand). The AR-15 was originally designed as a rifle. Even the Vietnam-era short-barrel, telescoping stock carbine (the XM-177) was a bit of a forced kludge job.
The law (quoted above by LiveLife) says "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand."
This wins my vote for outstanding post of 2020. I wish I could put 1,000 likes.Wait a minute everyone ...
Why are members of gun forum pointing out ways a gun accessory should be banned? We should be focusing on reasons why a gun accessory should remain as it benefits all gun owners regardless whether they have one arm or two arms, injury/weakness of arms, medical condition/arthritis, etc.
I believe the "stabilizing brace" was originally meant for gun owners who may have temporary/permanent conditions that would be helped by reasons I listed above including many of us who presently have or will have in the future. And perhaps this was why after ATF ruled in 2015 that shouldering of "stabilizing brace" was not permitted, maybe some pointed out gun owners with physical limitations should have the option to use the "stabilizing brace" one hand, two hand, or even shouldered to have ATF change their ruling in 2017.
How many of us broken bones that needed to be casted?
Let's say you injured your shooting hand/arm. Well, that doesn't mean the criminals will give you a pass and not rob you until you are healed and can shoot with your strong hand/arm. While you recover, I bet the "stabilizing brace" will certainly come in handy when shooting with your weak hand, particularly for home/self defense. And what if the injury becomes permanent?
Many gun owners have visual issues that require the aid of glasses/bifocals/progressives which may be temporary/permanent and use red dot/scopes to help us enjoy our hobby of shooting. I see "stabilizing brace" in the same light. And for those who will be negatively affected by loud indoor gunshot (Which is everyone according to OSHA) and/or cannot actuate the trigger quickly against violent/multiple home intruders/robbers/murderers/rapists, use of sound suppressors and binary triggers should be considered in same light to benefit the home owners/defenders.
So, let's shift our focus of discussion to why the "stabilizing brace" is beneficial to gun owners and why ATF should maintain current ruling.
And if a particular manufacturer was found to have not met the "spirit" of the "stabilizing brace", to me the worst case scenario is a product recall with product revision/update with replacement offered to the customers ... not talk of ban of gun accessory beneficial to gun owners.
As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller case and voiced by many judges and justices in subsequent newer cases that modern gun accessories as product of technological advancement should be protected under the Second Amendment just like First Amendment protecting modern means of free speech like email, text, online forum posts, etc.
Let's all get on the same page to protect our Second Amendment instead of helping the antis take away our modern "arms". And yes, increasing number of judges and justices have called one modern class of gun accessory, the ammunition storage device AKA magazines, "arms" protected under the Second Amendment - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/page-4#post-11275211
"My bet is ATF banning stabilizing brace is DOA, but it sure will fire up the AR-style "pistol" owners.
From Sig Sauer - https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace.html
"The SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace is a shooter's aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.
... This veteran-designed and U.S.-manufactured accessory enhances accuracy and reduces felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.
... The Pistol Stabilizing Brace uses the operator's forearm to provide stable support, thereby minimizing accuracy-robbing spin and shift. A flexible cuff with two adjustable nylon straps allows the SB15 to be custom fit to any user.
* ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching the SB15 to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control."
And yes, if I am building an AR based "pistol" say chambered for 9mm with a 10" length barrel with a "pistol stabilizing brace", the intent of the firearm design would be to fire with one hand.The law (quoted above by LiveLife) says "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand."
Excellent point.Does that mean the rifle caliber bolt action pistols that were so popular years ago a notional fiction as well?
Like I said before: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Just because you don't like or agree with what type of firearm someone else owns doesn't mean you throw them under the bus just to save your favorite class of firearms. Some of the comments in this thread are proof that we ARE our own worst enemy at times.
Nobody in this thread is saying they think braces should be illegal.
That's pretty interesting right there. I and probably many others here can shoot one-handed, and with either hand, but I prefer to use both hands, and all handgun instruction teaches two hands with one-handed only as an additional, "good to have" skill. So are all the people shooting their handguns with a two-handed grip also criminals?The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand