Brace Ban

[Fixer]

Just saw a Facebook post from the NRA. It states that the White House is working with the DOJ to review this matter. They were thanking all who contacted the DOJ about this. Hopefully it will get resolved favorably.

 

[BE Mike]

Trump never declared any kind of emergency that he needed to exempt gun stores from.

Holcomb adding them to the essential list is just the kind of pandering you get from these Rs that really do not care for our gun rights. If he gave a about them we would have made some real progress in the last four years.

His propensity for heavy handed governing actually makes me wonder if maybe he wouldn't give his full support to a federal confiscation.

Admittedly, living where I do, I don't get much "news" about Indy from the drive by media. Having said that, I see where the governor has signed into law pro-gun bills allowing carry in church, suspension of IN handgun license fees and more. I see that he was honored by the NRA. I know that under R's switchblades are now legal and other antiquated laws have been rescinded. IN's first lady is an NRA pistol instructor. IN has garnered the NRA National Matches at Camp Atterbury and the ranges have been improved greatly. I don't see a D anywhere even giving lip service to lessening burdens on gun owners, but I do see D's wanting all kinds of bans and "reasonable" gun laws.

 

[DadSmith]

Allowed carry in church if you are allowed to go to church. King Holcomb had that shut down too.

 

[ajeandy]

So apparently I missed 20 pages of this thread and don't feel like reading through the back and forth between 2-3 people. Was there anything more to come of the ban other than just the Q braces? I didn't miss anything on all braces being banned no?

 

[Ggreen]

So apparently I missed 20 pages of this thread and don't feel like reading through the back and forth between 2-3 people. Was there anything more to come of the ban other than just the Q braces? I didn't miss anything on all braces being banned no?

It's a precedent the atf is trying to set. The off topic banter should be moderated out as t lhe recent letter from the atf today is outright scary with implications and intentions.

 

[BE Mike]

So apparently I missed 20 pages of this thread and don't feel like reading through the back and forth between 2-3 people. Was there anything more to come of the ban other than just the Q braces? I didn't miss anything on all braces being banned no?

No, there has been no action to ban ALL arm braces, but there is a fear that this ATF ruling will lead to a ban on them all. It seems like many of the later comments are frustrations involving COVID-19 that have lead to some people focusing the frustration and resulting anger towards the governor.

 

[Ggreen]

No, there has been no action to ban ALL arm braces, but there is a fear that this ATF ruling will lead to a ban on them all. It seems like many of the later comments are frustrations involving COVID-19 that have lead to some people focusing the frustration and resulting anger towards the governor.

Braces are only banned on some guns. They are also banned based on builder perceived intent. The letter attacks q, but implies problems with any individually built braced pistol that is not submitted for review. So technically it does ban all braces unless implicit permission is given on that particular gun.

 

[jkaetz]

So apparently I missed 20 pages of this thread and don't feel like reading through the back and forth between 2-3 people. Was there anything more to come of the ban other than just the Q braces? I didn't miss anything on all braces being banned no?

I'm not sure I see a brace ban. I see wordsmithing such that braces, combined with other accessories (with no written details), can magically transform an AR pistol to an SBR that should be registered under NFA rules. There will be no need to try to collect the braces, anyone seen with what looks like an SBR will likely be questioned and hassled into submission. It will be a war of attrition not a head on assault.

 

[Ggreen]

I'm not sure I see a brace ban. I see wordsmithing such that braces, combined with other accessories (with no written details), can magically transform an AR pistol to an SBR that should be registered under NFA rules. There will be no need to try to collect the braces, anyone seen with what looks like an SBR will likely be questioned and hassled into submission. It will be a war of attrition not a head on assault.

I think you're wrong. They will ban certain braced guns to set a precedent for banning certain braces previously given the OK.

 

[jkaetz]

I think you're wrong. They will ban certain braced guns to set a precedent for banning certain braces previously given the OK.

Yes, but still not banning the brace itself, only saying that it makes the weapon into an SBR. Don't get me wrong, the end result is the same and it's not a good one.

 

[Ggreen]

Yes, but still not banning the brace itself, only saying that it makes the weapon into an SBR. Don't get me wrong, the end result is the same and it's not a good one.

No the latest reply to q aims at an adjustable brace ban. Not just q

 

[KG1]

So for right now it's about adjustable braces correct?

 

[Ggreen]

So for right now it's about adjustable braces correct?

Not implicitly. That is a factor, but the sweeping message is that if the atf thinks your pistol is a rifle then they can make that determination whenever they feel the need or want. Currently it's not about the brace at all, but about the perceived intent of the firearm as a whole.

Do you have an optic on your pistol meant for a rifle? Then it can be a rifle. Optics were one part of the equation brought up.

 

[ajeandy]

No, there has been no action to ban ALL arm braces, but there is a fear that this ATF ruling will lead to a ban on them all. It seems like many of the later comments are frustrations involving COVID-19 that have lead to some people focusing the frustration and resulting anger towards the governor.

Thanks lol...I will now disappear from this thread...

 

[Ggreen]

Things that can turn your pistol into an SBR

-weight
-oal
-brace
-secondary grip (looking at you afg)
-sights and scope not made for 1 handed shooting
-other peripheral accessories the atf thinks are sbrs
-outward appearance as a shoulder fired weapon

Literally an attack on pistols as a whole. Your fixed brace isn't safe, your sights that aren't traditionally pistol sights aren't safe, your hands stops aren't safe, literally nothing about a pistol is safe from this atf position.

Response to q below.

 

[jkaetz]

Things that can turn your pistol into an SBR

-weight
-oal
-brace
-secondary grip (looking at you afg)
-sights and scope not made for 1 handed shooting
-other peripheral accessories the atf thinks are sbrs
-outward appearance as a shoulder fired weapon

Literally an attack on pistols as a whole. Your fixed brace isn't safe, your sights that aren't traditionally pistol sights aren't safe, your hands stops aren't safe, literally nothing about a pistol is safe from this atf position.

I think we're splitting hairs as this is what I'm saying. Typically a ban involves having to turn something in. In this case they are trying to reclassify a good number of pistols that they previously said were ok into SBRs with associated regulations. IMO this is even worse as has been pointed out by SB Tactical, there is no definition of what is and isn't a pistol. It's a set of goalposts continuously moving.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Like I posted earlier, the adjustable buttstock is the problem.. It has no straps to make it a brace and it has a butt pad for ones shoulder along with the LOP is to long. Just what that letter says.
Manufacturers kept skirting around and got cought.
Monkey dance all you want..... Its a SBR, plain and simple....

 

[Trigger Time]

It's not off topic, I'm just illustrating the fact that there are no big "federally deputized" task forces using local officers to enforce federal law. There are a few (minuscule amount) of local officers attached to federal task forces, but no major force of local officers dedicated to enforcing flagrant violations of federal law like state-legal marijuana or sanctuary cities.

The states will do what they want, and if it ever comes to the feds attempting to confiscate firearms from states like Indiana, well...

Ok yep I agree with you, based on my very limited knowledge on this.
And on the pic too

 

[Ggreen]

Like I posted earlier, the adjustable buttstock is the problem.. It has no straps to make it a brace and it has a butt pad for ones shoulder along with the LOP is to long. Just what that letter says.
Manufacturers kept skirting around and got cought.
Monkey dance all you want..... Its a SBR, plain and simple....

The atf specifically approved adjustable lop Sb, Maxim, and others as pistol braces. Don't cherry pick or get caught up. The atf specifically approved the sig mcx braced pistol that uses an adjustable pdw brace that is nearly identical to its pdw rifle stock.
Edit. It's lop is under the 13.5 limits set by atf, it doesn't have a buttpad the rear is open and easily shoots from one hand, the rear of the brace is wider than a shoulder stock, the tangs are not supported so you cannot shoulder it, the only solid piece on the rear of the brace covers the buffer tube.

 

[Ggreen]

I think we're splitting hairs as this is what I'm saying. Typically a ban involves having to turn something in. In this case they are trying to reclassify a good number of pistols that they previously said were ok into SBRs with associated regulations. IMO this is even worse as has been pointed out by SB Tactical, there is no definition of what is and isn't a pistol. It's a set of goalposts continuously moving.

It's a ban when they turn this into a sweeping rule that now individually bans braces on pistols. Their determination is not specific to q, but q is the example they are using to set the precedent. Idk what part of this letter gives you the idea that this isn't a forecast for a widespread ban on pistol braces and pistol accessories