06-09-2021, 05:59 AM
lazyengineer Wrote:Well.. first off, Google is your friend too. But sure, I can spend the 30 seconds and Google that:
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-co....21.17.pdf
It vacillates some, but this is the linchpin letter that SB Tactical received and posted, that is the basis for most of the modern brace systems we've seen in the last 5 years or so. Arguably SB-Tactical and others have stretched the content of the letter, but only arguably - and it does have line items specifically stating braces are legal in this application. An argument that is validated by the fact they've been able to run for many years without interruption, yet HoneyBadger was shut down almost instantly. Which validates that the ATF has considered the SB Tactical and similar versions to be compliant with the law. In particular, the only criteria denoted as being a violating criteria, is the creation of a length so long such as to have no other purpose than to be a shoulder stock. Which indeed as far as I can tell, has been one of the primary and defining criteria the ATF has been using on the topic... until now.
And that, is the best shot I've got, for writing and submitting your opinion request the ATF either withdraw, or at the least auto-grandfather. Make no mistake - "pistol" owners are so going to loose this fight. The best shot you have now is to try and get route to being grandfathered, or at least getting a free NFA stamp option. And I would suggest writing your letters with that in mind.
I can't cut and paste a pdf:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17928[/ATTACH]
Anywhere else?
Imagine this scene in a traffic court and see how it flies over:
Judge: Mr. Engineer, where you travelling at 81 mph at mile marker 210.4 on highway 71 on the evening of May 14, 2021 and are you aware that it is a 65 mph zone
Plaintiff: Yes, but you Honor, I always go 81 mph there and so does everyone else. I've never been pulled over there and been given a ticket before and neither has anyone else.
Let's go Brandon!