[stanc]

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.

 

[stanc]

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.

 

[stanc]

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.

 

[stanc]

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.

 

[stanc]

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 .

You understand correctly. Bump stocks do not turn a semi-auto into a full-auto weapon.

But, bump stocks do make a semi-auto rifle capable of emulating full-auto fire very well.

 

[stanc]

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 ?

If you're saying that your car was designed to be driven at speeds up to 120 mph, then I'd say that you answered your own question. :a26:

 

[stanc]

Only a liberal would say that since a vehicle is capable of doing 120 the manufacturer intends for you to drive that fast .

I dunno if that's what a liberal would say, but it should be obvious to any rational person that the manufacturer of such a vehicle clearly intends for you to have the option of doing 120. Otherwise they would not have designed it to be capable of going that fast.

Likewise, arm braces are clearly designed to also serve as functional shoulder stocks. As I noted in an earlier post, one manufacturer is honest enough to admit that its arm brace is a stock.

 

[stanc]

Using your logic a vehicle not equipped with a breathalyzer was designed to be driven by drunk drivers .

A vehicle not equipped with a breathalyzer is designed so it can be driven by drunk drivers.

After all if they put speed limiters in computer at 55 no one could speed and breathalyzers could stop drunk drivers .

That's true.

How far will such logic take us down the rabbit hole? Should Scopes that allows me to shoot farther than normal hunting ranges be outlawed ? After all they must have been designed for snipers .Should triggers that allows me to shoot almost as fast as a bump stock be outlawed? After all they could be used for Mass shootings and are of no use in the hunting world .

Whoa! Back that horse up a ways, pardner. I never said anything should be outlawed.

 

[stanc]

No but your opinion that objects that can be misused or used in a way the manufacturer did not intend them to be used means they were designed to be misused is the logic and talking points liberal politicians and sleazy lawyers use every day. Of that is not what you mean I apologise.

No apology necessary, but I am not talking about the "misuse" of a product. What I mean is that manufacturers intentionally design their products with capabilities they think the buyer wants.

If a car is designed to be driven at speeds up to 120mph, many of the folks who buy one will take it well over the legal speed limit. That is not misuse. That is using an intended design feature.

Similarly, shooters who fire their arm brace-equipped AR "pistol" from the shoulder are not misusing the brace. It was intentionally designed to be capable of use as a functional shoulder stock.

 

[stanc]

Since this thread is about pistol braces, the ohio boy was using a short barrel ar, couldn't tell if that was a stock or a brace. LEO pic was a little grainy to tell.

Shockwave Blade brace.

 

[stanc]

My stance/interpretation is this:

I currently have a LEGAL AR Pistol. It uses a carbine buffer stock as designed, it is not intended to be shouldered. If I inadvertently shoulder it to shoot without intention...

How does one "inadvertently" and without intention shoot an AR "pistol" from the shoulder?

 

[stanc]

So, I'll predict that the brace will be put on the ban as in the same manner as the bumpstock.

Dayton shooter used a gun that may have exploited an ATF loophole

"Even though it looked like a rifle, the gun used to kill nine people and wound at least 14 more was likely classified as a pistol, skirting around laws restricting short-barreled rifles."

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne.../2019/08/05/dayton-shooter-used-gun-may-have-exploited-atf-loophole/1920506001/

 

[stanc]

I don't skate around the law with my blade pistol braced AR I use it as it was designed to be used one hand shooting . Unless you witness me or another member using one to skirt around the law you have no right to claim we do .

Where did I claim that you shoot your AR "pistol" from the shoulder?

 

[stanc]

You claim that is why we buy them don't you ?

I said that most braces are designed to function as shoulder stocks, and some are almost identical in form and function as shoulder stocks.

I never claimed that you shoot your AR "pistol" from the shoulder, or that you bought it for that purpose.

Again have you witnessed anyone using them as stocks other than on u tube ?

Nope.