MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt?

[MSRAddict]

I just read an item in a news feed. Unknown veracity. Item advises that the Q company has received a letter from BATFE stating that their Honey Badger pistol is now classified as a SBR. The Honey Badger is a short barreled AR that comes with a forearm brace. If accurate, this specifically reverses the 'Clarification Letter' BATFE sent to SB Tactical regarding the classification and use of their brace.

[keystone183]

I just read an item in a news feed. Unknown veracity. Item advises that the Q company has received a letter from BATFE stating that their Honey Badger pistol is now classified as a SBR. The Honey Badger is a short barreled AR that comes with a forearm brace. If accurate, this specifically reverses the 'Clarification Letter' BATFE sent to SB Tactical regarding the classification and use of their brace.

My understanding is that SB makes the brace for Q, but the letter only refers to the Q brace. Has nothing to do with the rest of the SB line (or other braces). FOR NOW.

[LRRPF52]

ATF’s angle appears to be going after the smallest company that also has a large online presence in the market.

They sent them a cease and desist letter from distribution or sale of their Q Honey Badger AR15 pistol, which differs from their Honey Badger SBR.

Pistol:



SBR:




In the ATF letter, they mention that the overall length is 20-25 inches long. This might be what triggered the Nazis working at Industry Operations, Boston Field Division. Sounds like some office went rogue and wants to stick it to the industry after seeing the sales reports of AR15 pistols.

I just looked at the very detailed NSSF reports for sales in 2020, and AR15 pistols chambered in 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem are the 5th most common caliber/type of new pistol sold on Gunbroker.

BATFE is a bureaucratic tumor that metastasized out of Alcohol Tobacco Tax Division, which was a tumor that spread from the Bureau of Revenue during Prohibition. Bureau of Revenue was created in 1913 so they could finance the public debt to a foreign-controlled fiat currency run by the new banking system. They later named it the IRS after President Truman cracked down on bribery and tax evasion among its own employees in 1952.

Instead of laying off all the Treasury agents assigned to the Bureau of Prohibition once the Volstead Act was repealed, they found other jobs within the growing bureaucracy for them to do, like regulation of Alcohol and Tobacco.

Then after the Warren Commission, where Congress was misled and lied to repeatedly about almost every detail of the JFK assassination, they convinced Congress that we needed more gun laws to prevent crazy people like Lee Harvey Oswald from ordering firearms through the mail to PO Boxes (After the Trump order to declassify the JFK files, we now know that the FBI knew Oswald was a US intelligence agent, had a large file on him, destroyed the file, then assigned one of the CIA officers who worked Oswald’s unit to be the liaison to the Warren Commission).

Under false information and pretense provided by the FBI and CIA, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 banning the sale of firearms through the mail, requiring Federally-licensed firearms dealers to transfer firearms to citizens after they filled out some detailed paperwork. Administratively, the ATF was tasked with enforcing this network of FFLs, fees, licensing, and regulation in direction contradiction to the Bill of Rights.

Now imagine a young mother, single with children living in her apartment. She watches everything that has transpired recently, and goes to a local gun store to find something to protect her home and family. She selects an AR15 pistol for the home and her vehicle. She likes the fact that she can shelter in place if there’s a burglary without the cumbersome bulk and length of a rifle or shotgun, that she can carry it in a diaper bag or purse between walking to her car, where the neighbors can all see her, as she doesn’t want to bring any undue attention to herself.

One day, she’s a legal possessor of a pistol. The next day, some overzealous bureaucrat in Boston just decides that AR15 pistols similar to hers constitute felonious behavior.

Time to shut down this ATF monster and eliminate these archaic, prohibition-era laws that were meant for Chicago street gangs in the 1920s and 30s. Americans are not to be treated under the foundation of law based on incidental criminal use of items by a few.

[Wethepeople]

Just read the news and came here to respond. LRRP52 pretty much covered all the bases. Not just the ATF, but the entire Federal Government has become a giant leviathon of enormous proportions. Being a life long small government advocate, I have given up hope we will ever achieve that, at least in my lifetime.
I support the repeal of all gun laws to pre 1934. Largely a result of the Bonus Army of WW1 Veterans who marched on DC in 1932. Dishonest historians repeat over and over again, the 1934 GCA was a result of 1920s mobster style criminals. Somethings never change. The same dishonest arguements fuel the gun debate today, turning law abiding gun owners into criminals.
I beleive the Honey Badger is just the beginning of the effort to get all AR pistols.

[Wethepeople]

Some interesting history surrounding the 1934 GCA. For the sake of brevity, I have omitted alot of detail. You can research more details on your own.
Two things of significance many don't know.
When the hungry WW1 veterans and their families, called the Bonus Army marched on DC to protest for early redemption of their promised service certificates in 1932, they setup encampment across the Potomac. The service certs were scheduled to be redeemed in 1945. The families were in the early throes of the depression. Eventually, federal troops led by McArther, complete with cav and tanks, disbanded the camp and protestors. Hoover ordered the assault equating it to an insurrection and National Security threat. The Bonus Marchers had broad popular support and the events cost Hoovers election defeat by FDR. This "insurrection" scared Hoover to the point strategies began to be discussed to limit firearm ownership. Discussions indeed occurred over the mobsters of the previous decade as well. Dillinger too was a populist figure. Civilians often helped him and his gang evade capture. The same is true of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker who met their demise in 1934.
After FDR won the election, there was an assassination attempt on his life by Giuseppe Zangara. An Italian immigrant and Italian Army veteran of WWI.
These two events, the Bonus March and the assassination attempt on FDR by Zangara, combined with the access to automatic firearms and other NFA devices of the day, played as much a role in the 1934 GCA as the mobsters of the day. Politicians of the period were hesitant to vilify WW1 Veterans, so the mobsters became the public impetus for the 1934 legislation.
There are many parallels between then and now. Politicians today are also hesitant to vilify veterans as an excuse for more GC. Behind the curtain, government documents have shown that elements of our veteran population are considered potential national security and or potential domestic terrorist threats. The criminals committing gun crimes are the excuse used to call for more gun control.

[Double Naught Spy]

Regardless of what you think of the government, it would appear that Q went into production assuming their proprietary brace would not be seen as a thinly disguised shoulder stock and didn't bother running it by that ATF first (paraphrasing a friend of mine). Business-wise, that was a poor move. They essentially gambled that it would all be good and lost and lost for their customers who purchased them.

[Wethepeople]

I would like to understand what subtlety in all the other "legal braces" vs. the braces used on the Q LCC guns, makes the legal versions a pistol and Q's an NFA regulated SBR. This makes no sense to me unless ATF is going to attempt to reclassify all previously legal pistols as NFA regulated SBRs. If anyone has figured this out, I sure would like to hear an explanation.

[Lastrites]

Next up the SBa3 brace which never got an approval from big brother, there has be 100,000 of them on the streets.

[LRRPF52]

Regardless of what you think of the government, it would appear that Q went into production assuming their proprietary brace would not be seen as a thinly disguised shoulder stock and didn't bother running it by that ATF first (paraphrasing a friend of mine). Business-wise, that was a poor move. They essentially gambled that it would all be good and lost and lost for their customers who purchased them.

The pistol brace Q uses is a licensed SB Tactical brace. SB Tactical has been dealing with the ATF for the past decade on establishing a standard, which the ATF refuses to nail down.

SB Tactical has retained the legal services of the former Director of the ATF over the years working towards this goal.

If you recall, there were rumors earlier this year that the ATF was going to reverse their opinion on the use of pistol braces again, so members of Congress were contacted, who then went to Secretary of the Treasury to get some leadership to reign-in the rogue elements within the ATF who are actively seeking to hurt the industry and American citizens.

Once Treasury stepped in and ordered the ATF to cease its pattern of reversals and gotcha games, many of the rogue activists in the different regions didn’t like that.

The one in Boston who issued this bogus cease and desist letter to Q waited until we’re within a month of the election to add more chaos to the political season.

It has nothing to do with Q tempting the ATF, since SB Tactical has been trying to get an industry standard out of ATF for at least 8 years now. Here are the ATF letters dating back to 2012.

ATF policy has always been to never make things clear, then charge people with crimes or revoke FFLs and SOTs based on the Stalinist tactic of, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Their modus operandi has always been very evasive on establishing clear guidelines and metrics, whether it be fire control, receiver markings, barrel length measurements, accessories, FFL paperwork organization (alphabetical vs chronological), dates, inspections, etc. All of their conduct in each of these areas of extrajudicial regulatory intrusion have been arbitrary, litigated within ATF-controlled courts, with almost a 100% conviction rate when criminal charges are filed and prosecuted against people for technicalities that don’t involve any actual crime.

Meanwhile, regional ATF Assistant SAICs have personally lied on 4473s listing their office as their address when straw-purchasing handguns that later showed up at the murder scene of a Mexican beauty queen as part of the Fast & Furious Gun Runner scandal, in addition to the thousands of firearms that were purposely allowed to walk via an ATF-assisted cartel straw-purchaser network.

It’s the same old story. Bureau of Revenue agents caught cheating on their taxes? Let's re-brand it as the IRS and “clean it up”.

Elliott Ness (the Prohibition Enforcement Officer of the 1920s and 1930s who was an alcoholic drunk driver/caused a car accident while intoxicated) makes a name for himself helping to put away Al Capone? Let’s have more like him please! Expand that agency even though Prohibition has been repealed.

Senior regional ATF Agents personally engage in straw-purchasing for murderous drug cartels? Give those men a raise!

But the common citizen looking for practical ways to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights are the bad guys, clinging to what little is left of the 2A. We should penalize them, bully the smaller businesses who can’t afford to fight ATF letters in ATF court, and wage war on what barely remains of the American firearms industry and ownership base. It only makes sense.

[LRRPF52]

I would like to understand what subtlety in all the other "legal braces" vs. the braces used on the Q LCC guns, makes the legal versions a pistol and Q's an NFA regulated SBR. This makes no sense to me unless ATF is going to attempt to reclassify all previously legal pistols as NFA regulated SBRs. If anyone has figured this out, I sure would like to hear an explanation.

Has nothing to do with the brace, and everything to do with ATF getting reeled-in by Treasury under this Administration and Congress.

Once ATF leadership was ordered to stop their BS, many of them were incensed that someone had the gaul to finally slap them down.

Boston field division thinks they are a law unto themselves like they’ve always been, so they decided to single out Q and attempt to bully them with this bogus cease and desist letter, which is a big FU to ATF leadership, the Treasury, and the members of Congress who originally contacted Treasury to ask them to get some clarification on all of this.

ATF doesn’t like to be nailed down to any identifiable set of rules, because it doesn’t allow them to play gotcha, especially with businesses.

They’ve been allowed to engage in these jack-booted gestapo-like tactics from the start of their vile existence, and they don’t like it when people with authority over them finally exercise that authority.

Congresses in the past have just let them do whatever they want really.

[LRRPF52]

Next up the SBa3 brace which never got an approval from big brother, there has be 100,000 of them on the streets.

They only issued a letter to Q because Q is a small company that Boston office thinks it can bully around.

They never issued a cease and desist to Daniel Defense, Ruger, Springfield Armory, SiG, or any of the other major firearms manufacturers who manufacture AR15 pistols with SB Tactical OEM braces.

[LRRPF52]

This video explains the background behind SB Tactical and the ATF leading up to this stunt by Boston field office.

It’s the most informed source you will find on the matter:

[video=youtube_share;jJEHb5H37Do]https://youtu.be/jJEHb5H37Do[/video]

[StoneHendge]

Big picture is with the ATF acting like it does and what the law says about SBRs, manufacturers and consumers took risks producing and buying these braces. I personally have shied away from them because of that. I hesitate to say it on a public forum, but I doubt anyone could truthfully say the Grendel pistols they built weren't designed by themselves to be shouldered with an "arm brace". I know what I see when I see people shooting pistols at the range.

Edit add: Also, remember that the Dayton shooter used a pistol. No one in the public probably knows, but perhaps he was shouldering it. Which could lead to interagency politics.....

[keystone183]

Big picture is with the ATF acting like it does and what the law says about SBRs, manufacturers and consumers took risks producing and buying these braces. I personally have shied away from them because of that. I hesitate to say it on a public forum, but I doubt anyone could truthfully say the Grendel pistols they built weren't designed by themselves to be shouldered with an "arm brace". I know what I see when I see people shooting pistols at the range.

Edit add: Also, remember that the Dayton shooter used a pistol. No one in the public probably knows, but perhaps he was shouldering it. Which could lead to interagency politics.....

What the hell does any of that matter? Just another range toy like a bumpstock?

[StoneHendge]

I'll add my experience and thought process with the 12.5" Grendel pistol I built.

I tried my 2.5-10x Vortex Viper HSLR on it. I found that given the limited mounting area on an upper receiver, the position of the ocular with the 3" or so of eye relief afforded by it was such that when I held it in a position that enabled me to resolve a target through the scope, the pistol brace was positioned in such a way that it could be perceived that I designed and built the pistol to be shouldered (even though it was not). If I was brought to court over the pistol and was asked to resolve a target via demonstration to a judge and/or jury, I was uncomfortable taking the risk that they could perceive that I intended for the brace to be shouldered (given its position). Given the "spirit of the law" regulating SBRs, that perceived risk outweighed the benefits from having the pistol and I ended up selling the barrel.

[keystone183]

I'll add my experience and thought process with the 12.5" Grendel pistol I built.

I tried my 2.5-10x Vortex Viper HSLR on it. I found that given the limited mounting area on an upper receiver, the position of the ocular with the 3" or so of eye relief afforded by it was such that when I held it in a position that enabled me to resolve a target through the scope, the pistol brace was positioned in such a way that it could be perceived that I designed and built the pistol to be shouldered (even though it was not). If I was brought to court over the pistol and was asked to resolve a target via demonstration to a judge and/or jury, I was uncomfortable taking the risk that they could perceive that I intended for the brace to be shouldered (given its position). Given the "spirit of the law" regulating SBRs, that perceived risk outweighed the benefits from having the pistol and I ended up selling the barrel.

The fact that you would worry about the perception of an interpretation of a statute, regarding a legally purchased product..... its pretty much all that needs to be said regarding the atf.

[StoneHendge]

The fact that you would worry about the perception of an interpretation of a statute, regarding a legally purchased product..... its pretty much all that needs to be said regarding the atf.

I have nothing good to say about the ATF (or any other government agency (well, maybe ICE and Border Patrol ).

Regardless, under the Firearms Control Act, a rifle is legally defined as a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder. A short barrelled rifle is defined as a rifle with a barrel less than 16". Short barrelled rifles require an ATF stamp and it is a felony to possess one without a stamp. I agree that it is very much a gray area to go after a manufacturer. But I think it would be a lot worse if the ATF started going after individuals who bought pistol braces and/or pistols with the intent to shoulder them. And to expand on what I said above, I've seen individuals who are complete and total strangers to me shoulder pistols at the range. I don't think we want ATF agents undercover at public ranges arresting people until word gets around that people should stop doing it.

[Wethepeople]

Don't know about anyone else. I built my pistol for the express purpose of complying with the SBA/ATF letters. Particularly, the ATF clarification that occasional contact with ones shoulder was not illegal. I have found firing a pistol with the brace contacting my cheek is nearly as stable as from my shoulder. If I wanted to look like Rambo, I would have nixed the brace altogether.

Thanks for the comments LRRP52. Big Colin Noir fan.

[LRRPF52]

Big picture is with the ATF acting like it does and what the law says about SBRs, manufacturers and consumers took risks producing and buying these braces. I personally have shied away from them because of that. I hesitate to say it on a public forum, but I doubt anyone could truthfully say the Grendel pistols they built weren't designed by themselves to be shouldered with an "arm brace". I know what I see when I see people shooting pistols at the range.

Edit add: Also, remember that the Dayton shooter used a pistol. No one in the public probably knows, but perhaps he was shouldering it. Which could lead to interagency politics.....

The stabilizing pistol brace grew out of a solution to the unique challenges of AR15 pistols.

SB Tactical worked with the ATF in advance to get the approval letter for the first brace, which was the SiG Brace.

The problem with most AR15 pistols was that the Receiver Extension Tube protrudes to the rear, so people were wrapping them in foam, neoprene, whatever to make it more comfortable against their arm or cheek.

The SiG Brace made it easier for people to stabilize the pistol since it was designed as a stabilizing brace.

ATF Firearms Technology Branch evaluated the SiG brace and blessed-off on AR15 pistols equipped with the brace as pistols under the law, not SBRs.

SB Tactical went through this process with all of the stabilizing braces, including Q’s Honey Badger pistol brace.

There are now at least 4 million stabilizing braces in circulation on various AR15 and other pistol actions.

You can’t build “intent of use” as a criminal clause into a product accessory, especially after the ATF signed off on these products when attached to AR15 pistols.

I personally don’t shoulder my pistol brace, because I don’t shoulder regular rifle stocks. I don’t even place buttstocks in the deltopectoral groove on my body because I then have to bring my head to the gun.

I was raised and trained to bring the gun to my head, and if your stance is the way mine is, you would have to cant your head over to the side in order to get a good sight picture when bringing the firearm up into the position where it is aimed.

My buttstock or stabilizing brace placement is inches away from my shoulder, so again, if someone claimed that I intended to shoulder any pistol or carbine, I can demonstrate anatomically how that argument falls apart. Maybe someone else intended to shoulder their brace-equipped pistol. In 2017, ATF stated that they can’t regulate intent and that someone shouldering a stabilizing brace pistol isn’t changing the design of these braces by doing so, nor could they prosecute them for behaving in that manner.

Another thing that pistol stabilizing braces really did for consumers was provide a solution for people with disabilities and smaller statures, especially women and youth.

Since the ATF ensured that the length of pull measurement was under a certain distance as to preclude these from constituting a Short Barreled Rifle, the compactness of a pistol wasn’t compromised.

If you listen to the owner of Q, he stated that before the ATF sent him the cease and desist letter, they changed the standard by which length of pull is measured by taking their ruler from the trigger to the bottom tip of the stabilizing brace on the Honey Badger, rather than to the rear that is inline and parallel to the bore, so there is something going on with the Boston field office where they appear to have a vendetta or peculiar “get Q” campaign going on within that office (which is the one that Q headquarters in New Hampshire is subject to).

[Wethepeople]

I suspect the name Q is what triggered these rogue agents.