IF I wanted that, that’s what I would have done. Different strokes for different folks.
Last edited:
Only 256,162 braced firearms were registered with ATF during the 120-day "amnesty" period
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
IF I wanted that, that’s what I would have done. Different strokes for different folks.
SA Hellion.. stupid name but I like it so far, except the bolt release. (Only Bullpup experience prior was an AUG I had 20yrs ago)
Did u consider the Tavor?
Of course but the choice to take your hellion instead of a 10.5" AR pistol would be totally independent from a choice to register the pistol as a SBR. Because it doesn't matter which way you comply with the rule (register or remove the brace) you can still treat is as a pistol because AN SBR IS ONLY AN SBR WHEN IT'S IN SBR CONFIGURATION.
So not registering a braced pistol because you want to take the brace off and travel with a pistol isn't a thing. Because if you take the brace off a SBR that was registered under amnesty it's still a pistol and is legal anywhere it was legal before.
Ultimately at that point crossing state lines would have nothing to do with the decision to not register it as a SBR because you don't want to register it an keep it in it's current configuration.
Last edited:
Not at all..
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,741
After seeing photos of bullpups I was interested but then I found out they weigh a lot more than an AR pistol. Not good for a little old lady.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,741
I dunno why somebody would want a 14" barrel, that's barely shorter than a standard one.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,741
No, because the person in the Oval Office wants to get rid of as many guns as possible, and directed ATF to do this.
Sistema1927
Member
Two things.
1) Let's be honest. For many of us, myself included, the brace was a convenient work around to have an SBR without it being called an SBR or needing to get a tax stamp. I was already on their radar, with a From 4 for a can (which was finally approved between the Form 1's for the two braced pistols that I registered), so there was no down side to getting free SBR approvals.
2) Many owners are woefully ignorant. I recently had a friend show me his braced pistol, about 3 weeks into May. He had no clue that the rule had been processed, and also told me that he couldn't believe that something he just bought would now be illegal. Thus, even though I warned him, he is going to continue to use it as is with no modification.
So, for some of us, the rule is a hidden blessing. For others, it is a hidden trap.
1) Let's be honest. For many of us, myself included, the brace was a convenient work around to have an SBR without it being called an SBR or needing to get a tax stamp. I was already on their radar, with a From 4 for a can (which was finally approved between the Form 1's for the two braced pistols that I registered), so there was no down side to getting free SBR approvals.
2) Many owners are woefully ignorant. I recently had a friend show me his braced pistol, about 3 weeks into May. He had no clue that the rule had been processed, and also told me that he couldn't believe that something he just bought would now be illegal. Thus, even though I warned him, he is going to continue to use it as is with no modification.
So, for some of us, the rule is a hidden blessing. For others, it is a hidden trap.
I bet your friend appreciates you posting this.
Sistema1927
Member
I have more than one friend. How about you?
If find 2 problems with this first 16 really isn't standard it's an arbitrary infringement for the people who keep and bear arms. The government chose a 14.5" barrel as standard for the M4. Second you're absolutely right a 14.5" barrel is barely shorter that the arbitrary 16" legal limit for the people so why infringe?
Jim Watson
Member
I have read that the minimum RIFLE barrel length of 16" was actually a late accommodation for things like Swedish Mauser carbines and 6.5mm Mannlicher carbines. Originally it was 18" same as shotguns.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,741
You're right, the limit is an infringement. There is a youtube video where the presenter discusses in some detail how SBR's came to be NFA items, I don't remember all the details except that the banners wanted to ban handguns but that wasn't gonna fly so they banned SBR's instead. I guess 16" didn't seem like a big infringement back then when the gun owner demographic was mostly male, but 16" is really long for many females, including 4'11" me, plus even if the woman is taller the longer barrel is still heavier. And protestations from biological males competing in women's sports notwithstanding, women do not have the same upper body strength as men.
Not sure.
Elkins45
Member
Ian from Forgotten Weapons said it was originally 18” but was changed to 16” when they realized a whole bunch of M1 Carbines had been sold to the public as surplus through the CMP.
Not just that but there's also 90 years of gun developments that makes it idiotic. When the NFA was passed 1934 the 357 magnum hadn't been introduced yet 1935, the 44 would be another 20 years in 1954. IHMSA started 40 years later and put many rifle cartridges in handguns, during that same time frame handgun hunters developed the uber magnums starting in 1958 with the 454 Casull.
Now days they want to try an regulate a piece of plastic on the back of a weapon that has very little to do with the effectiveness of the weapon and takes 10 minutes to install.
For the record it is possible to realize the idiocracy of NFA and SBR and still comply because I love my dog.
Yep 1934 NFA both rifles and shotguns were 18"
The 1968 GCA changed rifles to 16" due to the M1 Carbine.
