Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
coping from FB since some here don't go there or use it ..
from Mac at Military Arms ...
"You can go to the Federal Register and submit your comments to the BATF online regarding braces. This is the letter I submitted. I don't recommend using my letter word for word, it's likely to be rejected as spam. Please use it to guide your own personalized letter. You can submit comments anonymously so your personal information isn't posted publicly at the end of the process. I elected to have my personal info posted. I want them to know who made the comment. Here's the link to the Federal Register:
www.federalregister.gov
Here is the complete comment I posted: "
The BATF has long held, and this notice doesn't seem to change their official view, that braces do NOT change the classification of a pistol to a rifle or SBR. The BATF has also long held that braces were not stocks but instead they were benign accessories.
The industry could submit alternative brace designs that differed from the original approved model and depending on which agent reviewed the new device it was either approved as "not a stock" or it was deemed to be a stock. At one time two identical braces were submitted and one was approved while the other was not.
This document claims to offer clarification but instead serves to create more questions than answers. It seems the BATF seeks to stop commerce by threatening well over 1 million law abiding Americans through gross ambiguities in this “clarification” notice in such a way they either destroy or surrender their legally purchased property or they voluntarily take part in the largest gun owner registration scheme in American history under the threat of going to federal prison if they put the wrong unspecified accessory on their pistol.
It’s important to note such a registry of gun owners is specifically banned by federal law (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926).
No where in this document does the BATF specify what defines a brace, instead they speak in generalities about other accessories and “holistic views” of each Americans’ firearm. Are 1 million plus Americans to send their pistols to the BATF for a determination? Is that even practical?
The “clarification” says the BATF may deem a firearm with a brace to be a rifle/SBR depending on type and caliber. What calibers? What is a “type”? Braces were originally approved for a pistol in a rifle caliber (AR15 pistol in 5.56x45mm).
The BATF mentions the weight and length of the pistol may make it an illegal SBR, what is the weight? It’s not defined, instead we get “A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun”. What is too heavy? Who gets to determine what is unwieldy, Arnold Schwarzenegger or PeeWee Herman? Not to mention the whole purpose of the brace was to make heavy or otherwise unwieldy handguns easier to use!
The BATF says length of pull may make a pistol an illegal SBR with a brace but gives no dimensions. What are the dimensions?
The BATF says the attachment method may make your pistol an illegal SBR but doesn’t define any attachment methods.
The BATF says that peripheral accessories such as bipods would make a pistol an illegal SBR. This is news to the long range hand gun community that has been putting bipods on Thomson Center pistols for 30+ years legally, or Ruger Charger pistols.
The whole letter defines NOTHING. Clearly the purpose of this letter isn’t to offer clarification, it’s intended to stop commerce, force an illegal registration of gun owners, or scare people into destroying their property.
The industry asked for features that define a brace vs. a stock and this document doesn’t even address braces themselves such as defining what material they must be made of, what length they must be, if they require a strap, if they must be made of plyable material, etc. None of that is clarified.
This letter needs to be withdrawn and if the BATF wants to offer clarification vs. forcing an illegal gun registration through gross ambiguities, they need to offer the industry clear guidance as to what defines a BRACE.
We’ve established braces do not change the classification of a pistol and this letter does not change that. So, please tell us what specific features make a brace vs. a stock. Several braces have been approved and remain legal braces, so please detail what parameters were used to determine these devices were braces and stop trying to destroy a $400,000,000+ industry and intimidating law abiding gun owners.
Finally, please define what specific problem this letter addresses and who specifically does it help vs. passively threaten in an attempt to force an illegal registration of gun owners.
"
from the comments
" The BATF says that peripheral accessories such as bipods would make a pistol an illegal SBR. This is news to the long range hand gun community that has been putting bipods on Thomson Center pistols for 30+ years legally, or Ruger Charger pistols. "
is this now a SBR
from Mac at Military Arms ...
"You can go to the Federal Register and submit your comments to the BATF online regarding braces. This is the letter I submitted. I don't recommend using my letter word for word, it's likely to be rejected as spam. Please use it to guide your own personalized letter. You can submit comments anonymously so your personal information isn't posted publicly at the end of the process. I elected to have my personal info posted. I want them to know who made the comment. Here's the link to the Federal Register:
Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (``ATF'') is publishing the objective factors it considers when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act (``NFA'') and/or the Gun Control Act...
www.federalregister.gov
Here is the complete comment I posted: "
The BATF has long held, and this notice doesn't seem to change their official view, that braces do NOT change the classification of a pistol to a rifle or SBR. The BATF has also long held that braces were not stocks but instead they were benign accessories.
The industry could submit alternative brace designs that differed from the original approved model and depending on which agent reviewed the new device it was either approved as "not a stock" or it was deemed to be a stock. At one time two identical braces were submitted and one was approved while the other was not.
This document claims to offer clarification but instead serves to create more questions than answers. It seems the BATF seeks to stop commerce by threatening well over 1 million law abiding Americans through gross ambiguities in this “clarification” notice in such a way they either destroy or surrender their legally purchased property or they voluntarily take part in the largest gun owner registration scheme in American history under the threat of going to federal prison if they put the wrong unspecified accessory on their pistol.
It’s important to note such a registry of gun owners is specifically banned by federal law (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926).
No where in this document does the BATF specify what defines a brace, instead they speak in generalities about other accessories and “holistic views” of each Americans’ firearm. Are 1 million plus Americans to send their pistols to the BATF for a determination? Is that even practical?
The “clarification” says the BATF may deem a firearm with a brace to be a rifle/SBR depending on type and caliber. What calibers? What is a “type”? Braces were originally approved for a pistol in a rifle caliber (AR15 pistol in 5.56x45mm).
The BATF mentions the weight and length of the pistol may make it an illegal SBR, what is the weight? It’s not defined, instead we get “A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun”. What is too heavy? Who gets to determine what is unwieldy, Arnold Schwarzenegger or PeeWee Herman? Not to mention the whole purpose of the brace was to make heavy or otherwise unwieldy handguns easier to use!
The BATF says length of pull may make a pistol an illegal SBR with a brace but gives no dimensions. What are the dimensions?
The BATF says the attachment method may make your pistol an illegal SBR but doesn’t define any attachment methods.
The BATF says that peripheral accessories such as bipods would make a pistol an illegal SBR. This is news to the long range hand gun community that has been putting bipods on Thomson Center pistols for 30+ years legally, or Ruger Charger pistols.
The whole letter defines NOTHING. Clearly the purpose of this letter isn’t to offer clarification, it’s intended to stop commerce, force an illegal registration of gun owners, or scare people into destroying their property.
The industry asked for features that define a brace vs. a stock and this document doesn’t even address braces themselves such as defining what material they must be made of, what length they must be, if they require a strap, if they must be made of plyable material, etc. None of that is clarified.
This letter needs to be withdrawn and if the BATF wants to offer clarification vs. forcing an illegal gun registration through gross ambiguities, they need to offer the industry clear guidance as to what defines a BRACE.
We’ve established braces do not change the classification of a pistol and this letter does not change that. So, please tell us what specific features make a brace vs. a stock. Several braces have been approved and remain legal braces, so please detail what parameters were used to determine these devices were braces and stop trying to destroy a $400,000,000+ industry and intimidating law abiding gun owners.
Finally, please define what specific problem this letter addresses and who specifically does it help vs. passively threaten in an attempt to force an illegal registration of gun owners.
"
from the comments
" The BATF says that peripheral accessories such as bipods would make a pistol an illegal SBR. This is news to the long range hand gun community that has been putting bipods on Thomson Center pistols for 30+ years legally, or Ruger Charger pistols. "
is this now a SBR
