whitewolf001

Welcome to free territory cousin. I assume you mean Kommiefornia in your PRK reference?

The, "let's set an AR on fire and/or destroy it" vids? :D  I actually appreciate them as they pretty much make the AR haters slam their feet into their mouths. I appreciate all guns so long as they function properly, even the Hi-Points. *looks around waiting to be struck by lightning*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6cwh4IxXSc

Soooooo, anyone looking at ditching their braces? Not for selling purposes, just curious in all honesty.

I really wish FN would expand some more on the FNX line, it's killing me man. I NEED a FNX-9 Tac!!!

More than likely a SUPER common name OR someone with your name has done something and that's all they see. The appeal allows them time to dig a little further and usually figure out what is going on. You would think that this system of approval/denial could be applied to the NFA side of things but that's neither here nor there I suppose...

Cigar smoking, Jameson drankin, gun totin dudes with awesome senses of humor? I'd have a beer with them ANY time, sounds awesome.

Meh, keep calm and brace on. ;)

Pretty much the same experience in Lone Survivor. Nobody said a peep and just walked out all solemn. Was rather moving.

These guys crack me up so much. Enjoy, mind the language for those whom might be sensitive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaISwLnrgo

I, I don't even know why I clicked on here... 

I LOVE this though. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/16/company-that-provided-guns-for-taken-3-does-more-than-talk-after-reading-liam-neesons-fiery-anti-gun-rant/ PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film "Taken 3". While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties. We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same.

My exact thoughts were, "well that was quick". Sent from the future using a flux capacitor.

Just found this... http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/   Late this morning (like, midnight ish) three men participated in an armed home invasion in California. One of the men was using an AR-15 pistol equipped with a pistol arm brace. The men were caught and arrested, but instead of simply being charged with the usual weapons related felonies the California police decided to tack on the charge of “possession of a short barreled rifle.” This is a state statute and not a Federal one being charged, but it still doesn’t bode well for others . . .   From a local source: According to Turlock police spokesperson Officer Mayra Lewis, three suspects, one armed with an AR-15, entered the home and forcefully took several items from a resident. Justin Singh and Adari allegedly took the victim’s purse and other personal items while Austin Singh waited by the door with the AR-15, said Lewis. The suspects then fled in a white SUV. […] Authorities located the assault rifle, with the laser sight on, in the vehicle, according to Ceres SWAT. A large quantity of marijuana was also located. […] Justin and Austin Singh were both arrested for robbery, possession of an assault weapon, possession of a short-barrelled rifle, and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Justin Singh was also arrested for violation of his probation for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Adari was arrested for robbery and possession of an assault weapon. So, before we get ahead of ourselves, the California statute is MUCH more broad in its definition of a “short barreled rifle” than the Federal law that the ATF just recently clarified: As used in Sections 16530 and 16640, Sections 17720 to 17730, inclusive, Section 17740, Article 1 (commencing with Section 27500) of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 4, and Article 1 (commencing with Section 33210) of Chapter 8 of Division 10 of Title 4, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following: (a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length. (b ) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches. (c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length. (d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive. (e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. While the statute is more broad than the Federal version, it still takes some wiggling to fit the arm brace equipped AR-15 into one of these categories. In fact, the felons in question have a pretty good chance that the judge can and will throw out the charge, like they did when the ATF tried to make their claim that a vertical foregrip constituted an AOW and the court threw out the charge (U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. 1993) ). We will keep an eye on the situation, stay tuned.

So riddle me this, if you get a SBR approved, does the lower HAVE to be engraved stating it as such?

The Feds? Surely you jest...

I will have to look into this...  :D How many were in on your hunt when you went?

Never... :whistle:

That's what happens when twits keep pushing the issue. Ugh...

Is it hard to imagine TICS employee's not being very intelligent with guys like this running the show?

This one was just released today wasn't it or are there multiple threads created on this today already? Haha

Well now to wait for tactical mag flips outta some Glocks...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-atf-releases-open-letter-claiming-misusing-pistol-brace-makes-sbr/   The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol. These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA. The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added). Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.” In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort. In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent. ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length. The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.” The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA. If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300. Max M. Kingery Acting Chief Firearms Technology Criminal Branch Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division