ATF has re-interpreted how to measure (AR) pistol OAL in reference to AOW.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?

If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.

And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.

But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.

But clearly the vast majority of the population isn't interested in scrupulously following the law, the bureaucrats charged with enforcing it aren't interested in making a federal case out of it, and the legislators who could amend the law aren't interested in doing so.

So basically everyone's lazy all the way around.

I expect that these sorts of discrepancies between the law as written and the law as enforced are probably all over the place, and probably in a lot of situations much scarier than the legal definition of what constitutes a pistol.

I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.

It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".

[CS1983]

Maybe we could elect people who promise to fight for our interests, and have a piece of Charmin signed by dead dudes on which to build the argument for such an attack on the incorrectness of said regulations?

Or we could just realize the truth: we are all criminals as soon as "they" want us to be, whether or not we attempt to follow the law as it is today (but maybe not tomorrow). Do with that what one will.

[Gman]

When a person/organism runs into an obstacle, it finds ways over, through, or around it.

When governments legislate away natural law/human nature, someone please let me know.

[davsel]

I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.

It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".

I have yet to witness a single person strapping an arm brace around their forearm.
The makers of these braces knew exactly what they were selling and whom their inteded customer was.
I just don't understand why some customers decided to press their luck with a vertical grip.

It is all just pointless confusion, since every firearm regulation since the signing of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[Gman]

It is all just pointless confusion, since every firearm regulation since the signing of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

How well is that working for us?

[FoxtArt]

By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.

While that argument can be made, the definition doesn't include or prohibit the use of two hands, it refers to designs that require two hands. The fact that almost everyone uses a two handed grip on a pistol doesn't mean they are designed for it. That argument becomes void when one attaches a vertical foregrip. PS to earlier poster: I'm the furthest thing from a "FUDD". Ignorance exists on all sides of an issue, don't be blind to your own. I especially disagree with the 86' NFA. That said, when the original was passed in '34, why was it passed? Sensationalized stories involving Thompson submachine guns and "gangsters" played a significant role. Imagine anyone in '38 arguing a Thompson with a stock removed suddenly was a pistol. When shooters far are wide made "creative interpretations" so...common, publicized, etc., It is a matter of time before it blows up in our own face. Inevitably, we bad actor will eventually make use of these false loopholes.... What is the ramifications then? Can you do a 180 and say "they've always been illegal new laws won't help". Shooters have to manage their own public relations. Unfortunately, because the broad association is so varied, the excesses of the few will result in the loss for the many.

People bitch about agency review clarifying things to be illegal that are obviously within the intent of their respective laws. Do you REALLY want bureuocracy to become even more dense, ala hitchhikers if the Galaxy? Do you really want EVERY possible minute detail spelled out in law? Thats what that position unknowingly advocates for. Do you want a 2020 NFA act? There's a difference between being a FUDD, and being a pragmatist that isn't hedonistic.

[Skip]

[snip]

Inevitably, we bad actor will eventually make use of these false loopholes.... What is the ramifications then? Can you do a 180 and say "they've always been illegal new laws won't help". Shooters have to manage their own public relations. Unfortunately, because the broad association is so varied, the excesses of the few will result in the loss for the many.

[snip]

I've always taken the view that if a mass murderer used an illegal firearm vs. any other means, only the brainwashed/mentally ill would focus on the weapon. In that case, there is very little PR that can be done.

Someone can use a firearm to murder a dozen kids and it's wall-to-wall coverage. FOR MONTHS. With annual anniversary celebrations and occasional reenactors. Does the media ever report the amount of gun control and list the rules/law broken? No, we just get "we need more gun control." Yeah, we aren't competing with that PR.

I also doubt that these rules decrease criminality, number of casualties, or are effective in any way. Does a VFG, on any configuration/classification, make a firearm more deadly? Does it make it more/less likely to be used in a crime? The gangsters NFA was supposed to stop simply didn't care. Modern bangers don't care. Mass murdering monsters don't care. Only people with something to lose, who would never do these things (us), care.

These technical rules are shit and that is why a lot of people don't obey them. The further the rules/laws deviate from shared values, the less compliance the kings will get. They can either demand compliance for authority's sake or change the rules. The rule by fiat method of these letter is even worse at decreasing legitimacy because it criminalizes configurations that were previously permitted by the same letters. Am I supposed to subscribe to every opinion letter and review each firearm I own to ensure compliance? How do I do that?

NFA was created from moral panic to solve the consequences from another moral panic (prohibition). Funny how society recognized one was bad policy and the other wasn't.

[SA Friday]

The ability to readily mount a stock is an issue. You have to plug off the screw hole in the tail of the tube with a two part epoxy or something

Nope. 2004 ATF "opinion letter" on that too. The tube is irrelevant to whether it's a pistol or rifle, and the ability to add a stock isn't relevant either. The SB A3 and A4 models of braces use standard carbine buffer tubes.

[DDT951]

I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.

It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".

There is another reason for having an AR pistol.

In CO the law for carrying a concealed weapon reads:

(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or

The annotations to the law include:
The words "about the person" means sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use. People in Interest of R.J.A., 38 Colo. App. 346, 556 P.2d 491 (1976).
"Concealed" means placed out of sight so as not to be discernible or apparent by ordinary observation. People ex rel. O.R., 220 P.3d 949 (Colo. App. 2008).




This, to me, means if you are say hiking you can legally put an AR15 pistol (handgun) in a backpack if you have permit. It also reads to me that you cannot put a registered SBR in said backpack because that would be on your person and not readily discernible by ordinary observation.

[Irving]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think most people who think they're going to hike around with an AR pistol in a backpack don't actually hike, or have much wilderness experience at all. So while it may be often discussed online amongst people who like to pretend they are preppers or know what they are doing in the woods, I suspect hardly anyone is actually doing that.