Join BayouShooter For Free
CS

Page 1 of 10 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92
  1. #1
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    ATF says pistol braces are NFA items

    https://youtu.be/-IkVtY1PMoU

  2. #2
    Donít troll me bro!

    User Info Menu

    Well, there ya go. I won’t reiterate on all I’ve said about the ATF but my position has not changed. Cue all the peeps that could care less because they think pistol braces are stupid. I saw them over by the bumpstock haters.
    Last edited by Magdump; November 25th, 2020 at 03:40 AM.
    Doesnít play well with TROLLS...

  3. #3
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Simply not true. Even the hyperlink in this guy's video doesn't work. As of right now, AR15 pistol braces are still 100% legal. You guys are so gullible....post a link to any other source stating pistol braces are now illegal according to the ATF.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

  4. #4
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    Simply not true. Even the hyperlink in this guy's video doesn't work. As of right now, AR15 pistol braces are still 100% legal. You guys are so gullible....post a link to any other source stating pistol braces are now illegal according to the ATF.
    There was an Ammoland article explaining SB Tactical had 2 determination letters and 23 versions were not covered by the letters. The link to that article does not work now. It looks like Ammoland may have pulled the article. The only think I can find is a link to a short write up of that article.

    http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=76577


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    There was an Ammoland article explaining SB Tactical had 2 determination letters and 23 versions were not covered by the letters. The link to that article does not work now. It looks like Ammoland may have pulled the article. The only think I can find is a link to a short write up of that article.

    http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=76577


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Doesn't common sense tell you that if it was indeed true there would be more proof available on line than just one guy on youtube saying its so?
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

  6. #6
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Ammoland had an article and then took it down. The way I read it, is it was not so much a ban. ATF did not want them to say that the braces were approved when they were not. It looks as if SB didn't send the paperwork through.

    https://www.facebook.com/21034310580...3962450109550/
    Last edited by WhereIsIt?; November 25th, 2020 at 06:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    On something of this magnitude, the traditional 2A organizations (NRA, NSSF, etc.) are all over an issue like this. Louisianan Tom Gresham (GunTalk, Guns & Gear) is very active in communicating on these kind of issues. Other than the Honey Badger stuff, I havenít seen or read anything yet by any of the above.

    If there has been communication by top-level industry sources, please pass it on our kindred spirits (like BS members!)

    On the other hand,for the next four years, I suspect that the communication channels are going to be overloaded with calls to action. Vigilance will be required.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    Doesn't common sense tell you that if it was indeed true there would be more proof available on line than just one guy on youtube saying its so?
    Common sense would tell me something is going on between the ATF and SB Tactical after the Honey Badger incident. To what extent that was I could not guess. But the explanation above seems plausible. The ATF didnít say the 23 were illegal. The ATF said the 23 werenít covered under the current letters.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    I'm sure ATF remembered what Regan did to them back in the day when they peeed him off . The agents could not buy gas , tires or have vehicles repaired and were car pooling around to check up on dealers . Trump would have done the same thing if they didn't give a little so gun owners would back him . Now that Harris is going to be in charge they will not be so quick to appease us . Our salvation is the socialist party will not push gun issues too hard until they get control of the scotus .

    Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf...ation-letters/

    The Ammoland article is back up after they edited it. The letter from the ATF says they approved 2 models as braces. Any changes to those designs could change the classification. The ATF said they repeatedly warned SB Tactical that more than 20 models fit in that latter description.

    It looks like the ATF isn't saying those braces are illegal. It looks like the ATF is saying they have not evaluated those braces to determine if they would be classified as a brace or a stock so SB Tactical should stop marketing them as ATF Compliant.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •