About those arm braces on rifle caliber pistols...

Mike_from_Texas · Mar 16, 2019

PinnedandRecessed said:
THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS!

Personally I think that people need to stop asking questions about things that are already legal. Do we want the ATF in all it's "wisdom" looking any further into ANYTHING related to firearms? I hope the resounding answer is NO. Stop asking questions that nobody wants to hear the answer to. The ATF bureaucracy doesn't need any help subverting our rights.

This. STFU about it and don’t bring attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

DaleGribble82 · Mar 17, 2019

Mowingmaniac 24/7 said:
I'm wondering how an SBR is 'all that much superior' to my 16" barrel AR15?

I have collapsible stocks on them and when they are collapsed they're pretty darn short and can still be used quite effectively even collapsed.

Or, is it really, when you get down to it, SBR's are a fad?

If not, I gotta wonduh, how often do folks carry SBR's in cars, cuz hey man, they're very tactical in cars cuz they short and can be quickly deployed here in iraq/afghanistan, I mean Merica, doncha know?

Or, are they for preppers for when the shtf scenarios or what?

A lot of people carry either SBRs or braced “pistols” in their vehicles these days. I don’t but quite a few do. I agree with you to an extent that the SBR/Brace thing is quite faddish. In other words a lot of people have them because of Instagram. I’d rather just get a stamp and have an SBR, but that is just me.

Dawico · Mar 17, 2019

DaleGribble82 said:
A lot of people carry either SBRs or braced “pistols” in their vehicles these days. I don’t but quite a few do. I agree with you to an extent that the SBR/Brace thing is quite faddish. In other words a lot of people have them because of Instagram. I’d rather just get a stamp and have an SBR, but that is just me.

I think a lot of people have braces because screw the .gov.

$200 because I want a barrel less than 16" but also have some sort of stock on it? Screw that.

The NFA laws don't make any sense and I am glad to see workarounds.

majormadmax · Mar 17, 2019

Google ATF and "constructive intent"... :banghead:

oldag · Mar 17, 2019

DaleGribble82 said:
A lot of people carry either SBRs or braced “pistols” in their vehicles these days. I don’t but quite a few do. I agree with you to an extent that the SBR/Brace thing is quite faddish. In other words a lot of people have them because of Instagram. I’d rather just get a stamp and have an SBR, but that is just me.

I'd rather not file anything with the ATF that I do not absolutely have to...

PinnedandRecessed · Mar 17, 2019

Dawico said:
I think a lot of people have braces because screw the .gov.
$200 because I want a barrel less than 16" but also have some sort of stock on it? Screw that.
The NFA laws don't make any sense and I am glad to see workarounds.

...plus you don't have to notify the govt when you want to travel out of state with it. You can feel the smug from all the "I'm superior because I SBR'd it". I moved to Texas from a state where SBR's are illegal. Braces allowed us to have more options.

APynckel · Apr 15, 2019

IXLR8 said:
Does that mean that they will create criminals out of the law abiding citizens that purchased them?

Yup. That's their goal. Same thing with the "machinegunning" the bumpfire stocks. You're not a felon for possessing something you legally purchased. You had no "intent" when you purchased or added such a device to your weapon to create a machinegun.

It's such a bass ackwards logic situation.

APynckel · Apr 15, 2019

oldag said:
I'd rather not file anything with the ATF that I do not absolutely have to...

The ATF and the NFA aren't even supposed to exist....

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

tonelar · Apr 15, 2019

Does it seem legit that a change in law wouldn't also grandfather in already owned firearms?

Also, there'd likely be a challenge that SCOTUS would have to settle.

SQLGeek · Apr 15, 2019

tonelar said:
Does it seem legit that a change in law wouldn't also grandfather in already owned firearms?

Before this bumpstock fiasco I'd say yes but now...

45tex · Apr 15, 2019

Our great "Not of the Swamp" President got a case of the big head and NRA TSRA et al fed the fire, so he burnt some of the Constitution. And all of elected Texas went sheep-like along with him. Then he made criminals out of people like me. Only thing that saved me was that horrible boating accident. Lost everything!

pronstar · Apr 15, 2019

tonelar said:
Does it seem legit that a change in law wouldn't also grandfather in already owned firearms?

Also, there'd likely be a challenge that SCOTUS would have to settle.

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

Not my words:
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

IXLR8 · Apr 16, 2019

45tex said:
Our great "Not of the Swamp" President got a case of the big head and NRA TSRA et al fed the fire, so he burnt some of the Constitution. And all of elected Texas went sheep-like along with him. Then he made criminals out of people like me. Only thing that saved me was that horrible boating accident. Lost everything!

Apparently boating accidents are coming up for a vote as well. Failure to notify police about both lost and stolen firearms will be a crime.
It seems there is a lot of pending legislation that could hurt a legal firearm owner.

ZX9RCAM · Apr 16, 2019

IXLR8 said:
Apparently boating accidents are coming up for a vote as well. Failure to notify police about both lost and stolen firearms will be a crime.
It seems there is a lot of pending legislation that could hurt a legal firearm owner.

This never dawned on me.
All those boating accidents...

pronstar · Apr 16, 2019

IXLR8 said:
Apparently boating accidents are coming up for a vote as well. Failure to notify police about both lost and stolen firearms will be a crime.
It seems there is a lot of pending legislation that could hurt a legal firearm owner.

For lost guns, this would really only work if there’s a registry.

If I lose guns that the .gov doesn’t know I own, then how can they prosecute me for failure to inform?

Theft should be reported regardless, imho, for liability reasons.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

diesel1959 · Apr 21, 2019

IXLR8 said:
After spending a great deal of money and effort to obtain legal SBRs, the arm braces seem to offer nearly the same thing... or do they?

It seems that more and more pending legislation is attempting to change this. Recent legislation discussions have discussed reverting rifle caliber pistols to NFA laws.

Does that mean that they will create criminals out of the law abiding citizens that purchased them? I find it unlikely that there will be any grandfathering of these previously purchased firearms.

There are a few firearms that I might purchase with an arm brace. It seems that they could become essentially worthless with a little change in law.

What do you think?

I don't think this will be changing again, but I could be wrong. And as I'm disabled with a serious shoulder injury (among other injuries), the braces give me options that I don't have otherwise. I don't see them forcing someone to have a HC hangtag in order to have an arm brace.

I can see certain states keeping them verboten; however, I think they'll remain fine at the fed.gov level

diesel1959 · Apr 21, 2019

zincwarrior said:
If you shoot a brace like a stock, isn't that uncomfortable? It sure looks like it would be.

Some braces--yes. Others, not so much.

diesel1959 · Apr 21, 2019

DaleGribble82 said:
A lot of people carry either SBRs or braced “pistols” in their vehicles these days. I don’t but quite a few do. I agree with you to an extent that the SBR/Brace thing is quite faddish. In other words a lot of people have them because of Instagram. I’d rather just get a stamp and have an SBR, but that is just me.

There's that thing about crossing state lines . . .

HKShooter65 · May 9, 2019

APynckel said:
The ATF and the NFA aren't even supposed to exist....

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Agree.
Though it's like saying National Parks are unconstitutional.
Good luck with those.

I have 1/2 dozen correctly registered NFA SBRs.
I have 1/2 dozen forearm brace pistols.
All legal and staying under the radar for life!

The proper SBRs like my Uzi, MP5 and M4 carbine are great and function as designed.
The forearm braces are a silly and awkward loophole work-around but they are cheap, functional and legal.

We pay our money, live our lives and make our choices.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means I can own live Claymore mines and weapons grade plutonium?
I'm thinking not. Rational societies must set limits. ATF and NFA are rational limits, methinks.

Stay legal, my friends.
Loosing your liberty for an illegal firearm is foolish.

Hoji · May 10, 2019

Single point bungee sling for the win. No tactical dildos on a piston pistol

.

About those arm braces on rifle caliber pistols...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

Well-Known

New Member

Uncoiled

Úlfhéðnar

TGT Addict

Allegedly

Member

Member

Well-Known

Muh state lines

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Over the Rainbow bridge...

TGT Addict

por vida

por vida

por vida

TGT Addict

Bowling-Pin Commando

Attachments

Forum statistics