Brace Ban

[Sigblaster]

Yuck to your uneducated take on braces and actually using one vs a stock.

I've owned an AR pistol, without a brace because they weren't invented yet, and I found it to be fun for a short while. Overall, I didn't find it any more useful than my 16" rifles. Actually, much less so. But it had that "cool factor".

I understand the appeal of short barreled rifles. I've used some in my career. I don't think they're the end-all and be-all of arms, but everyone has their preferences. I think longer-barrelled ARs are best, like my 20" AR with triangle hanguards. Love that gun.

That's what I ilke. You can like what you like, and I have no problem with that.

But please, don't try to sell me some story that braces were anything other an attempt to skirt SBR laws. It doesn't ring true. Probably because it's a lie.

 

[Sigblaster]

You fellas want to step back and take a minute please.

Especially you Ggreen. Please.

Please don't shut him off. I want to tak with him. We can keep it private though PM if you'd like.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I've owned an AR pistol, without a brace because they weren't invented yet, and I found it to be fun for a short while. Overall, I didn't find it any more useful than my 16" rifles. Actually, much less so. But it had that "cool factor".

I understand the appeal of short barreled rifles. I've used some in my career. I don't think they're the end-all and be-all of arms, but everyone has their preferences. I think longer-barrelled ARs are best, like my 20" AR with triangle hanguards. Love that gun.

That's what I ilke. You can like what you like, and I have no problem with that.

But please, don't try to sell me some story that braces were anything other an attempt to skirt SBR laws. It doesn't ring true. Probably because it's a lie.

Yep...
The evolution from starting as a tube and then a tube with a strap and ending as a adjustable with a end piece to fit a shoulder and no forearm strap it was inevitable for ATF to intervene... The world knows whats its for now with this model.

 

[Ggreen]

I've owned an AR pistol, without a brace because they weren't invented yet, and I found it to be fun for a short while. Overall, I didn't find it any more useful than my 16" rifles. Actually, much less so. But it had that "cool factor".

I understand the appeal of short barreled rifles. I've used some in my career. I don't think they're the end-all and be-all of arms, but everyone has their preferences. I think longer-barrelled ARs are best, like my 20" AR with triangle hanguards. Love that gun.

That's what I ilke. You can like what you like, and I have no problem with that.

But please, don't try to sell me some story that braces were anything other an attempt to skirt SBR laws. It doesn't ring true. Probably because it's a lie.

That 20" barrel isn't much help when your locked up in your car surrounded by people who want to hurt you and your family because you made a wrong turn towards a riot. Short barrels are pure utility whether pistol or sbr, I have both. No they aren't the same. They don't skirt the law more than a semi auto vs a full auto.

 

[churchmouse]

Please don't shut him off. I want to tak with him. We can keep it private though PM if you'd like.

Oh I was just letting folks know the heat will be kept on low in here. We are herding enough Cats recently.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

That 20" barrel isn't much help when your locked up in your car surrounded by people who want to hurt you and your family because you made a wrong turn towards a riot. Short barrels are pure utility whether pistol or sbr, I have both. No they aren't the same. They don't skirt the law more than a semi auto vs a full auto.

Some are imposters when they are actually one trying to be the other. And thats why its being corrected with todays laws.

 

[Ggreen]

Some are imposters when they are actually one trying to be the other. And thats why its being corrected with todays laws.

I don't understand this response?

 

[worddoer]

So from all the videos I have seen and articles I have read, I have been able to boil this down to a single sentence.

ATF: We refused to tell you what the law is, but you broke it and will now be punished.

 

[Sigblaster]

That 20" barrel isn't much help when your locked up in your car surrounded by people who want to hurt you and your family because you made a wrong turn towards a riot. Short barrels are pure utility whether pistol or sbr, I have both. No they aren't the same. They don't skirt the law more than a semi auto vs a full auto.

I agree that a 20" barrel wouldn't be ideal in the situation you describe, but then again, neither would a braced pistol or short barreled rifle. All of them would be unwieldy inside a vehicle. Reverse gear and heavy application of the accelerator would likely be the most prudent action in that scenario. But if you had to engage with arms for some reason, I don't see the difference between the braced pistol and SBR in their application. I see the brace being used as a shoulder stock, or either the braced pistol or SBR being wielded without shouldering. I don't envision anyone actually spending the time to strap a brace to their arm when seconds count. That's my point here. Braces were designed to serve as a shoulder stock when needed, while complying with the law as written. I don't have a problem with that. We should take advantage of every loophole the law allows. But we shouldn't be surprised when the government tries to tighten or close that loophole. We should fight it, yes, but we shouldn't be surprised by it.

 

[gmcttr]

...Reverse gear and heavy application of the accelerator would likely be the most prudent action in that scenario...

Reverse or forward. If you would be in the right to start shooting, you would be in the right to knock a few to the side driving away.

 

[dudley0]

I built a pistol so I could take my dedicated .22 upper off one of my SBR lowers. Might put it back because I miss the vertical grip.

That was my trade off.

Also I agree with the back ground on the brace. I am sure it helped a couple people with single handed shooting, but everyone else just gets a smaller gun without the paperwork.

As with most things that are questionable, once enough people bring it to light the man has to do something about it to save face.

 

[Ggreen]

I agree that a 20" barrel wouldn't be ideal in the situation you describe, but then again, neither would a braced pistol or short barreled rifle. All of them would be unwieldy inside a vehicle. Reverse gear and heavy application of the accelerator would likely be the most prudent action in that scenario. But if you had to engage with arms for some reason, I don't see the difference between the braced pistol and SBR in their application. I see the brace being used as a shoulder stock, or either the braced pistol or SBR being wielded without shouldering. I don't envision anyone actually spending the time to strap a brace to their arm when seconds count. That's my point here. Braces were designed to serve as a shoulder stock when needed, while complying with the law as written. I don't have a problem with that. We should take advantage of every loophole the law allows. But we shouldn't be surprised when the government tries to tighten or close that loophole. We should fight it, yes, but we shouldn't be surprised by it.

We shouldn't quietly accept gun control in any manner period. If braces made even halfway decent "stocks" why don't people use them on rifles? It's not a loophole it's an accessory that has been cleared for the last decade by the very office that is now saying they are illegal. Anyone here who has this argument that sympathizes with fed infringement needs to take a long hard look in a history book. This is just a stepping stone that conditions your mind to accept their control. What happens when they limit length of barrels capable of firing steel core ammo to keep its velocities at a safe level for armor? If your legislating intentions sports cars should be illegal, that Camaro was made to go over 80mph, they are just closing a loophole. Stop normalizing and enabling government overreach just because you like its current ceo

 

[Expat]

I hit the GOA site to send their letter.

I put my braced AR pistol shortly after I saw BHO on TV saying no one needed one of those. I immediately thought, I must really need one of those.

 

[Sigblitz]

Nobody needs a 30 round clip.

 

[KLB]

I can't find it now, but one of the articles I read said the ATF claimed the way the pistol was marketed played a part in the determination.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Nobody needs a 30 round clip.

Instigator.....

 

[Ggreen]

I can't find it now, but one of the articles I read said the ATF claimed the way the pistol was marketed played a part in the determination.

Yeah. They also are saying that just using a brave doesn't mean it's a pistol. Basically they want a sample of every pistol with a brace to determine its purpose, they'll know it when they see it. This would include home builds.

 

[Sigblaster]

We shouldn't quietly accept gun control in any manner period. If braces made even halfway decent "stocks" why don't people use them on rifles? It's not a loophole it's an accessory that has been cleared for the last decade by the very office that is now saying they are illegal. Anyone here who has this argument that sympathizes with fed infringement needs to take a long hard look in a history book. This is just a stepping stone that conditions your mind to accept their control. What happens when they limit length of barrels capable of firing steel core ammo to keep its velocities at a safe level for armor? If your legislating intentions sports cars should be illegal, that Camaro was made to go over 80mph, they are just closing a loophole. Stop normalizing and enabling government overreach just because you like its current ceo

You're arguing against me when I'm agreeing with you.

I never said we should "quietly accept gun control". To the contrary, I said we should fight it. We just shouldn't be surprised by it.

I'm in favor of eliminating all gun control laws. I'd be happy to be able to run down to Meijer and get a gallon of milk, a box of doughnuts, and an M60 machinegun without any paperwork at all.

My original comment was on the design of braces. They were obviously designed as a workaround to SBR laws, and I applaud that. Just don't try to convince me the weren't designed for that purpose, and aren't overwhelmingly used for that purpose.

 

[Ggreen]

You're arguing against me when I'm agreeing with you.

I never said we should "quietly accept gun control". To the contrary, I said we should fight it. We just shouldn't be surprised by it.

I'm in favor of eliminating all gun control laws. I'd be happy to be able to run down to Meijer and get a gallon of milk, a box of doughnuts, and an M60 machinegun without any paperwork at all.

My original comment was on the design of braces. They were obviously designed as a workaround to SBR laws, and I applaud that. Just don't try to convince me the weren't designed for that purpose, and aren't overwhelmingly used for that purpose.

Your original comment is wrong

 

[Ingomike]

Throughout this thread and the short lived dupe thread, several have blamed Trump for the bumpstock ban, and I agree he did that. What is missing is perspective on the situation at the time. I posted this in another thread when this topic came up and wanted to add it here.

I still believe that the bumpstock deal was a Solomon esque decision to me. I believe republicans were about to cave and really let the democrats pass some big time gun control. ( Remember republicans had the house, but it was Paul Ryan and 40 RINO's that are gone now.) One needs to step back and look at the political landscape at the time, it was not good for our side. The move by Trump short circuited the gun control drive and the fuse was snipped giving time for emotions to subside and with them the momentum for gun control.