6.8 SPC Forums banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited by Moderator)

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Vert Grips on Pistols have always been a no no.
That said the AOW tax stamp is $5


The folding stock is just another way of nibling away at regulating AR's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Vert Grips on Pistols have always been a no no.
That said the AOW tax stamp is $5
Sadly I should have known better, it helps me stabilize the optic as I always use the pistol grip as designed. Shame on me. HOPEFULLY it will click with the rest who was not aware. Thanks for the quick response!!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
If the "pistol" was over 26" long then it was considered a firearm and not a rifle or handgun and you can put a vertical grip on it. The only thing different is the 26" measurement cannot include the brace. It was never spelled out in the past but the brace is considered an accessorize and cannot be measured. Basically the same way a flash hider cannot be measured unless it is permanently affixed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Its nice that they stay consistent on these things.....

AFAIK a forward grip that is angled like the magpul one is still fine on a pistol because it is not vertical.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
Its nice that they stay consistent on these things.....

AFAIK a forward grip that is angled like the magpul one is still fine on a pistol because it is not vertical.
Yes, which makes no sense at all but an angled fore grip is fine, vertical is not because by adding a vertical grip that is redesigning the weapon so that it is no longer intended to be fired with one hand but the angled grip somehow doesn't do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yes, which makes no sense at all but an angled fore grip is fine, vertical is not because by adding a vertical grip that is redesigning the weapon so that it is no longer intended to be fired with one hand but the angled grip somehow doesn't do that.
I can live with an angled foregrip. I'm fortunate that I'll be in a seminar for instructors with one of the "STATE" legal defense organizations. I plan on bringing this up and see how their industry is offering coverage or education.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
I can live with an angled foregrip.
I personally don't care for either but the point I was getting at is how does one change the design so it is no longer intended for one handed use and the other does not. For that matter, how many people actually shoot their handguns with one hand anyway? The whole notion that it has to be designed to shoot with one hand is complete and utter nonsense, as are many federal gun laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
I personally don't care for either but the point I was getting at is how does one change the design so it is no longer intended for one handed use and the other does not. For that matter, how many people actually shoot their handguns with one hand anyway? The whole notion that it has to be designed to shoot with one hand is complete and utter nonsense, as are many federal gun laws.
I agree , most modern pistols have indents / palm pads / sererations on front of the trigger guards for the purpose of using both hands and shooting one handed is only brought up in training as a secondary tool only to be used if absolutely necessary .

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
When did the BATFE become its own sovereign nation?
just asking because the last time I checked you needed both the Congress and the Senate along with the President’s signature to pass a law.
I don’t know why am even surprised anymore, the ATF changes it’s mind more often than a teenage girl changes clothes.
This is nothing more than an ATF opinion that will probably change 2 more times.
I sure am glad that we elected a pro second amendment president this go around aren’t you?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
When did the BATFE become its own sovereign nation?
just asking because the last time I checked you needed both the Congress and the Senate along with the President’s signature to pass a law.
I don’t know why am even surprised anymore, the ATF changes it’s mind more often than a teenage girl changes clothes.
This is nothing more than an ATF opinion that will probably change 2 more times.
I sure am glad that we elected a pro second amendment president this go around aren’t you?
While I will have to point out that no new law has actually been passed and this is just basically a clarification of how they intend to measure a firearm going forward, it is kind of curious to me that the interpretation of most laws in this nation are left up to the supreme court yet BATFE is allowed to do this on their own and is quite often left unchallenged.
Basically what is going on is that pistol braces have only been on the market for a few years and everyone just assumed that with a pistol brace attached it would be included in the measurement of overall length but before this decision came out recently, there had never been any discussion about that matter. It was just assumed. Now it is clarified. Personally I think the decision is probably legally correct. Adding an accessory has never been included in the overall length of any firearm unless it were permanently attached. E.G. the flash suppressor. The flash suppressor is considered an accessory and it cannot be included in the overall length unless it has been pinned and welded to make it permanently attached. The pistol brace is no different. It is an accessory designed to help you shoot with one hand and not part of the firearm itself therefore it cannot be included in the OAL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
I personally don't care for either but the point I was getting at is how does one change the design so it is no longer intended for one handed use and the other does not. For that matter, how many people actually shoot their handguns with one hand anyway? The whole notion that it has to be designed to shoot with one hand is complete and utter nonsense, as are many federal gun laws.
I agree , most modern pistols have indents / palm pads / sererations on front of the trigger guards for the purpose of using both hands and shooting one handed is only brought up in training as a secondary tool only to be used if absolutely necessary .
Although pistols can be held with both hands to fire, that does not change the fact that they are designed for shooting with one hand. That's why it's called a handgun, and not a handsgun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Basically what is going on is that pistol braces have only been on the market for a few years and everyone just assumed that with a pistol brace attached it would be included in the measurement of overall length but before this decision came out recently, there had never been any discussion about that matter. It was just assumed. Now it is clarified. Personally I think the decision is probably legally correct. Adding an accessory has never been included in the overall length of any firearm unless it were permanently attached. E.G. the flash suppressor. The flash suppressor is considered an accessory and it cannot be included in the overall length unless it has been pinned and welded to make it permanently attached. The pistol brace is no different. It is an accessory designed to help you shoot with one hand...
LOL. No. Actually, the pistol brace is an accessory designed to circumvent NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles.
The obvious intent is to, in effect, turn a pistol into an SBR, such "pistols" being typically held and fired like a rifle.

 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
LOL. No. Actually, the pistol brace is an accessory designed to circumvent NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles.
The obvious intent is to, in effect, turn a pistol into an SBR, such "pistols" being typically held and fired like a rifle.

Well, going to have do disagree. People are using it for that purpose but that is not what it was designed for. If that were the "obvious intent" then they would not be legal at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Well, going to have do disagree. People are using it for that purpose but that is not what it was designed for.
Oh, puhleez. Arm braces are clearly designed so they can be used as shoulder stocks. One company even refers to its arm brace as a stock:

"Perfect for PDW pistols the Maxim Defense Arm Brace...[is] the perfect stock to run on your pistol while waiting for your Form 1 to clear."
https://www.maximdefense.com/product/maxim-cqb-pistol-pdw-brace-for-ar15/

There is little practical difference between "arm braces" and shoulder stocks. And some are virtually identical to one another, as seen here:

Arm Brace



Shoulder Stock


If that were the "obvious intent" then they would not be legal at all.
Nonsense. Bump stocks used to also be legal, even though their obvious design intent was to circumvent legal restrictions on machine guns.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,969 Posts
Nonsense. Bump stocks used to also be legal, even though their obvious design intent was to circumvent legal restrictions on machine guns.

This sounds like someone running for Governor of California or one of the 20 plus loons trying to get the nomination to the democratic ticket for president.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,757 Posts
Oh, puhleez. Arm braces are clearly designed so they can be used as shoulder stocks. One company even refers to its arm brace as a stock:

"Perfect for PDW pistols the Maxim Defense Arm Brace...[is] the perfect stock to run on your pistol while waiting for your Form 1 to clear."
https://www.maximdefense.com/product/maxim-cqb-pistol-pdw-brace-for-ar15/

There is little practical difference between "arm braces" and shoulder stocks. And some are virtually identical to one another, as seen here:

Arm Brace



Shoulder Stock



Nonsense. Bump stocks used to also be legal, even though their obvious design intent was to circumvent legal restrictions on machine guns.
Well you are the expert so what ever you say genius. They are running all over the law and it will bite them in the ass before it is over with. Mark my words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Well you are the expert so what ever you say genius. They are running all over the law and it will bite them in the ass before it is over with. Mark my words.
I would not say that they "are running all over the law," but they are certainly pushing it as far as they can.

As with bump stocks, the test will come when an arm brace-equipped AR "pistol" is used in a mass shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
Oh, puhleez. Arm braces are clearly designed so they can be used as shoulder stocks. One company even refers to its arm brace as a stock:

"Perfect for PDW pistols the Maxim Defense Arm Brace...[is] the perfect stock to run on your pistol while waiting for your Form 1 to clear."
https://www.maximdefense.com/product/maxim-cqb-pistol-pdw-brace-for-ar15/

There is little practical difference between "arm braces" and shoulder stocks. And some are virtually identical to one another, as seen here:

Arm Brace



Shoulder Stock



Nonsense. Bump stocks used to also be legal, even though their obvious design intent was to circumvent legal restrictions on machine guns.
I guess I don't understand how bump stocks work . Machine guns fire multiple times with one trigger pull , for some reason I thought the trigger was actuated each time the stock retracted and extended .

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
I guess I don't understand how bump stocks work . Machine guns fire multiple times with one trigger pull , for some reason I thought the trigger was actuated each time the stock retracted and extended .

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
And as far braces ,I always use mine as it was designed to be used . Are you saying that because my car can run 120 mph it was designed with the intent of be driven at twice the legal speed limit ?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top