View Full Version : Honey Badger Pistol is now an NFA Item
Haven't seen this posted anywhere else, if it is and I missed it, MODS feel free to delete.
Damn Bureau of Agents Trampling Freedom Everywhere are at it again.
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/10/rogue-atf-heads-targets-the-honey-badger-before-the-election/#axzz6aVlXJMYs
I read an article about this the other day. Ban me if you want but the "brace" on the pistol is pushing the limits in my opinion. Look for pictures of it, the thing is dubious at best.
I read an article about this the other day. Ban me if you want but the "brace" on the pistol is pushing the limits in my opinion. Look for pictures of it, the thing is dubious at best.
We already banned you like 4 times yesterday
Unjust laws are no laws at all.
Unjust laws are no laws at all.
Never the less according to the law in place I sand by my statement.
It will piss me off.
What's next null and voiding sbrs?
Zundfolge
10-10-2020, 19:03
I read an article about this the other day. Ban me if you want but the "brace" on the pistol is pushing the limits in my opinion. Look for pictures of it, the thing is dubious at best.
If its so obvious than F Troop should have said no the first time they saw one. Instead they say "that thing's ok" today and then change their mind tomorrow. They need to be held accountable for changing their minds. The law needs to say if they ever say "yes" to something that yes is permanent and if they want to change it to a "no" they have to either grandfather everyone that bought in while it was still "yes" or reimburse everyone they have inconvenienced (and/or just give them free tax stamps).
They can't be allowed to turn law abiding citizens into felons on a whim.
Again the brace I've seen in the pictures related to this decision push the limits of what is generally considered to be allowed. Not saying it's correct in terms of the constitution at all. This brace may actually be a breach of the nfa though.
Great-Kazoo
10-10-2020, 19:56
Again the brace I've seen in the pictures related to this decision push the limits of what is generally considered to be allowed. Not saying it's correct in terms of the constitution at all. This brace may actually be a breach of the nfa though.
Sounds like "another sensible gun owner" phrase to me.
Sounds like "another sensible gun owner" phrase to me.
Cool story bro.
Why do you need an AR15 ? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
Why do you need an echo/BFS ? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
Why do you need a Pistol Carbine? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
Why do you need a ClassIII firearms? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
Why do you need a bump fire stock ? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
Why do you need a pistol brace? I just need 3 rounds of .243 for deer hunting ...bruh!
^I've heard too many of those.
Why the fuck do you need a F150? I just need a Nissan Leaf EV (or GM EV1) to commute!
Why the fuck do you need a coffee? I just need a water in the morning to hydrate!
^
I call those bitch ass mouth farting a Commie talk.
Bailey Guns
10-10-2020, 21:05
Why the fuck do you need a F150?
I don't. I need an F250 to haul around all my guns and ammo, bitches...
eddiememphis
10-10-2020, 21:12
It will piss me off.
What's next null and voiding sbrs?
Yup.
TEAMRICO
10-10-2020, 21:57
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/10/wh-investigating-atf-decision-to-increase-regulation-on-certain-pistols/
What do you make of it?
Here is my issue with this...the ATF okd the brace. They also okd the brace on other ARs. An AR is an AR is an AR. If they have okd it on one there is no difference between AR a with this brace and AR b with this brace. Either they are all legal or none are.
I saw a video today that claims the agent who reviewed this gun and decided it was an sbr is a holdover hire from Obama and that there are suspicions this was done specifically to make Trump look bad to the 2A crowd.
Great-Kazoo
10-10-2020, 22:51
Here is my issue with this...the ATF okd the brace. They also okd the brace on other ARs. An AR is an AR is an AR. If they have okd it on one there is no difference between AR a with this brace and AR b with this brace. Either they are all legal or none are.
I saw a video today that claims the agent who reviewed this gun and decided it was an sbr is a holdover hire from Obama and that there are suspicions this was done specifically to make Trump look bad to the 2A crowd.
Obama hold overs making trump look bad.
UNPOSSIBLE.
Every hold over should have been offered early retirement, or a new posting, in another country.
Great-Kazoo
10-10-2020, 22:53
Cool story bro.
It would be, if it was not for your original response. That concerns me when a "gun owner" believes an object on a firearm. Which is cosmetic at best, is pushing the limits.
the "brace" on the pistol is pushing the limits in my opinion. Look for pictures of it, the thing is dubious at best.
Aloha_Shooter
10-10-2020, 23:00
Oh c’mon, it looks like an SBR to begin with. Personally, I don’t think SBRs should fall under the NFA but they do. I find it far more likely that the ATF agents who first approved it wanted to let pistol braces slide for the disabled who genuinely need braces to help them with their pistols but had to rethink that position when a lot of people brazenly used them to circumvent the law. Every idiot that posts a video or how-to instructions on ways to circumvent the law is begging the authorities to increase restrictions.
Push to reduce the scope of the NFA itself IMO.
Great-Kazoo
10-10-2020, 23:09
Oh c’mon, it looks like an SBR to begin with. Personally, I don’t think SBRs should fall under the NFA but they do. I find it far more likely that the ATF agents who first approved it wanted to let pistol braces slide for the disabled who genuinely need braces to help them with their pistols but had to rethink that position when a lot of people brazenly used them to circumvent the law. Every idiot that posts a video or how-to instructions on ways to circumvent the law is begging the authorities to increase restrictions.
Push to reduce the scope of the NFA itself IMO.
LOOKS, but not by definition, until this ruling, was an NFA specific gun. With millions of ATF approval letters in circulation for "braces" this is suspect, to say the least.
Throw in almost any LE on the street has no clue (unless an avid gun owner) what the criteria is for an NFA item.
Hell 3 cops will give you 4 answers regarding the legality of a fixed blade knife.
buffalobo
10-11-2020, 08:49
https://youtu.be/box0-koAuIY
This hasnt been posted yet?
UncleDave
10-11-2020, 09:16
Honey Badger don’t care! Oh, the ATF says, “Get away from me!”. But Honey Badger don’t care.
I don't think that someone could actually even for their hand in that brace, nevermind their arm. I can see why someone decided that it's not actually a brace because of that.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/F914B45D-4D00-4962-8518-694CE63277A1-920x518.jpeg
Honey Badger don’t care! Oh, the ATF says, “Get away from me!”. But Honey Badger don’t care.
Answer of the day. :)
I don't think that someone could actually even for their hand in that brace, nevermind their arm. I can see why someone decided that it's not actually a brace because of that.
Its a pistol brace. It doesn't mater if 99.9999999999999% of purchasers misused it as a stock, it still remains a pistol brace.
Abolish the NFA and ATF.
I'm not trying to say anything about how right or fair the nfa is. I'm saying that if that "hole" that actually makes the brace a brace gets so small that it can't actually function as a brace then you've ended up with a stock. As much as anyone may dislike the law that's how it works.
Imagine a stock with a 1mm wide hole with velcro wrapped around it as an example.
Bullsh*t, if the white house cared then Trump wouldn't have "Instructed the ATF to make a rule with the power of a law with bumpstocks" his exact quote.
I'm not trying to say anything about how right or fair the nfa is. I'm saying that if that "hole" that actually makes the brace a brace gets so small that it can't actually function as a brace then you've ended up with a stock. As much as anyone may dislike the law that's how it works.
Imagine a stock with a 1mm wide hole with velcro wrapped around it as an example.
Moving the goalposts and calling the 99 yard line as 20. Brilliant! Have you thought of a career as an ATF Strategist? Do you hate dogs? Would you like to make felons out of citizens just trying to follow the law, which is already unconstitutional?
Aloha_Shooter
10-11-2020, 11:20
LOOKS, but not by definition, until this ruling, was an NFA specific gun. With millions of ATF approval letters in circulation for "braces" this is suspect, to say the least.
Throw in almost any LE on the street has no clue (unless an avid gun owner) what the criteria is for an NFA item.
Hell 3 cops will give you 4 answers regarding the legality of a fixed blade knife.
There is a saying in engineering that form follows function. The Honey Badger looks like a stock with a velcro strap added just so they could claim it was a brace, thereby letting a "pistol" function as an SBR. As I've said before (or think I have on other threads), I would prefer the NFA be repealed in its entirety or at a minimum amended to remove SBRs and suppressors but as long as it is the law, this looks to me like a clear-cut case of a product being approved mistakenly and then having the approval retracted when users (and maybe sellers) were blatantly showing it was an end run around the law.
Everything Stalin did was Legal. Da, comrade.
Saw this video last week. A good breakdown on what's going on.
http://youtu.be/nuNvgFfrcAI
The gun manufacturer doesn't make the brace, SB Tactical does and they integrate it.
Well that video makes it seem like the brace isn't really part of the conversation at all.
So far:
Badger is sbr.
Other pistol with brace is okay for now (unless I assume it is same brace as honey badger has).
? [Dunno]
So far:
Badger is sbr.
Other pistol with brace is okay for now (unless I assume it is same brace as honey badger has).
? [Dunno]
Actually...other AR pistols with that same brace have been examined and declared legal.
Aloha_Shooter
10-11-2020, 13:13
Saw this video last week. A good breakdown on what's going on.
http://youtu.be/nuNvgFfrcAI
The gun manufacturer doesn't make the brace, SB Tactical does and they integrate it.
Roughly at 16:00, he talks about people wanting a shorter, more compact rifle then realizes what he just said and corrects to pistol.
I absolutely agree that they need to come up with a solution for the "instant felon" issue BUT the bottom line remains that you have a firearm that is CLEARLY designed to be an SBR, seemingly used by its customers as an SBR, but marketed as a "pistol" to get around the SBR taxes or legal limitations. Why so surprised or outraged that the Feds finally glommed onto that dodge? The solution IMO is to push to remove SBRs from the NFA.
This is like a child asking his/her parent if they can have ice cream but then being told only after dinner. Child thinks about it and declares the 2 Snickers bars eaten earlier were dinner then goes and has ice cream then is upset that the parent says, "no, that's not right."
https://i.imgur.com/3I4ltHm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3I4ltHm.jpg
On the 2nd photo, it should be "I am the law and I love collecting taxes"
I know ATF is now DOJ, but I still see them as some what see them as treasury dept.
Roughly at 16:00, he talks about people wanting a shorter, more compact rifle then realizes what he just said and corrects to pistol.
I absolutely agree that they need to come up with a solution for the "instant felon" issue BUT the bottom line remains that you have a firearm that is CLEARLY designed to be an SBR, seemingly used by its customers as an SBR, but marketed as a "pistol" to get around the SBR taxes or legal limitations. Why so surprised or outraged that the Feds finally glommed onto that dodge? The solution IMO is to push to remove SBRs from the NFA.
This is like a child asking his/her parent if they can have ice cream but then being told only after dinner. Child thinks about it and declares the 2 Snickers bars eaten earlier were dinner then goes and has ice cream then is upset that the parent says, "no, that's not right."
***Inappropriate response on my part***
83370
I absolutely agree that they need to come up with a solution for the "instant felon" issue BUT the bottom line remains that you have a firearm that is CLEARLY designed to be an SBR, seemingly used by its customers as an SBR, but marketed as a "pistol" to get around the SBR taxes or legal limitations. Why so surprised or outraged that the Feds finally glommed onto that dodge? The solution IMO is to push to remove SBRs from the NFA."
There are some problems with this...the definition of a pistol is any firearm designed to be fired with 1 hand. If you look at the photo included...that ribbing on the front of the trigger guard...that is for a second hand to get purchase on. If we follow the argument then every shooter who have placed a second hand on their pistol while shooting has "created" an aow....and are instant felons as a result.
You call this a dodge. Working within the lines of the law is not a dodge. This is what the liberals always claim.
Any pistol with a forearm suddenly becomes a dodge as it no longer is "designed" to be fired with just 1 hand.
This is nothing but games the liberals are playing to try and attack gun owners. Don't fall for it and don't buy into their games.
Actually...other AR pistols with that same brace have been examined and declared legal.
Not to nitpick here, but they haven't.
ATF letters are not in any way precedential, do not affect law, and they can and do change at a whim. At most, they reflect the opinion of a portion of the ATF as of the date they are written. An ATF letter doesn't mean squat, if they change their mind tomorrow and you have yesterday's letter, its only value will be wiping your butt in the can, and they have a history of changing their mind.
So when a new ATF director is appointed (possibility in as little as three months) this is on the radar of the opposition, and it is incredibly easy to "ban them" simply by the progressive/socialist/commie ATF director that is appointed simply stating "we're going to prosecute braces as SBR now".
Not to nitpick here, but they haven't.
ATF letters are not in any way precedential, do not affect law, and they can and do change at a whim. At most, they reflect the opinion of a portion of the ATF as of the date they are written. An ATF letter doesn't mean squat, if they change their mind tomorrow and you have yesterday's letter, its only value will be wiping your butt in the can, and they have a history of changing their mind.
So when a new ATF director is appointed (possibility in as little as three months) this is on the radar of the opposition, and it is incredibly easy to "ban them" simply by the progressive/socialist/commie ATF director that is appointed simply stating "we're going to prosecute braces as SBR now".
True...but the same documents that declared the honey badger to be illegal are the same kinds of documents that declared the other ones legal.
Zundfolge
10-11-2020, 15:12
Not to nitpick here, but they haven't.
ATF letters are not in any way precedential, do not affect law, and they can and do change at a whim. At most, they reflect the opinion of a portion of the ATF as of the date they are written. An ATF letter doesn't mean squat, if they change their mind tomorrow and you have yesterday's letter, its only value will be wiping your butt in the can, and they have a history of changing their mind.
So when a new ATF director is appointed (possibility in as little as three months) this is on the radar of the opposition, and it is incredibly easy to "ban them" simply by the progressive/socialist/commie ATF director that is appointed simply stating "we're going to prosecute braces as SBR now".
Yeah, that needs to change. The law needs to step in and say that if anyone at ATF says "yes" to something, it will require an act of congress to turn that into a "no" or a at the very least they need to be financially liable for the impact of their changes (either by having to buy back the guns they've changed their minds on, at more than market value, or at the very least they need to give out free tax stamps when they make a non NFA item into an NFA one ... and I also think bypass the standard BGC).
Nobody should be allowed to turn law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen without a full vote in congress and presidential approval.
Yeah, that needs to change. The law needs to step in and say that if anyone at ATF says "yes" to something, it will require an act of congress to turn that into a "no" or a at the very least they need to be financially liable for the impact of their changes (either by having to buy back the guns they've changed their minds on, at more than market value, or at the very least they need to give out free tax stamps when they make a non NFA item into an NFA one ... and I also think bypass the standard BGC).
Nobody should be allowed to turn law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen without a full vote in congress and presidential approval.
They can't "buy back" something they never sold.
Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine when referring to government "buy backs".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.