Q Honey Badger Pistol now SBR according to the ATF

[raimius]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fp...ct-gun-owners/

Interesting to see what comes of this. The pistol brace has had a back-and-forth legal history with regards to how a user can legally use it, but until now, the ATF never classified a marketed pistol as an SBR. They still won't publish standards on how they reach their conclusion, and the whole issue reeks of arbitrary/extra-textual law enforcement.

[TruthTellers]

It makes no sense. Why is this firearm an SBR, but something like the Sig Copperhead (shorter barrel and OAL than the Q Honey Badger) is not an SBR? Did Q not grease the right palms or fail to send the ATF a Christmas Card last year?

I don't want to make accusations, but unless this is the start of a 180 by the ATF in regards to their stance on pistol braces there's no other explanation I can think of.

EDIT: I'd also like to know now if pistols modified to accept braces by the pistol's owner are now suspect. Does it make all rifled firearms with OAL's greater than 26 inches that are fitted with a brace SBR's now?

This is the reason why I didn't go crazy putting braces on pistols. My Charger pistol I can remove the brace and use the tube as a cheek weld as .22 has little recoil and the 9mm AR I have a laser on it that doesn't require it be shouldered to shoot for short distances.

It's also the reason I've found myself really, REALLY liking bullpup rifles, especially the RDB.

[zoo]

Somebody at ATF is jumping the gun before Biden gets in office.

[ghbucky]

Can someone break down this whole SBR thing and what the distinction is? I've never really followed it, but I'm getting the idea that if ATF considers it a pistol, its ok... but if you can fire it from the shoulder it is a SBR?

Is that right?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

Can someone break down this whole SBR thing and what the distinction is? I've never really followed it, but I'm getting the idea that if ATF considers it a pistol, its ok... but if you can fire it from the shoulder it is a SBR?

Is that right?

According to the Code of Federal Regulations:

• Pistol. A hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with, or permanently aligned with, the bore. 27 CFR 447.11
• Short-barreled rifle. A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches. 27 CFR 478.11

The first (pistol) is basically what we all think of when we think "pistol." Glock, 1911, revolvers, etc. Then there are the 'jumbo' pistols. Think AR pistols. At some point, however, they begin to bump right up against the concept of the SBR in terms of dimensions and performance.

[zoo]

Ghbuckey, realistically speaking, it is based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system. In other words, arbitrary and pulling measurements from out of a gubment official’s you know where.

My, my, we’re going to have some interesting times over the next couple of years.

[zoo]

Or I guess one could argue it is all about measuring LOP parallel with the barrel or diagonally.

[WeedWacker]

They got the blessing to regulate bump stocks (acessories) as changing the function of a firearm. It's not much of a stretch to use the same rationale applied to braces as changing a pistol into a SBR. Q is a smaller company and the ruling only applies to their products. If this is set into regulation then all other braces are up for the same treatment.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

They got the blessing to regulate bump stocks (acessories) as changing the function of a firearm. It's not much of a stretch to use the same rationale applied to braces as changing a pistol into a SBR. Q is a smaller company and the ruling only applies to their products. If this is set into regulation then all other braces are up for the same treatment.

Which is why I suggest that there's some favoritism in the ATF (corruption) that is now rearing its head in saying Q's braced pistol is an SBR, but most of Sig's braced pistols are not SBR's.

Sig's gotten real cozy with the gov't now, first the P320 becomes the military's new sidearm, now the ATF is ramming competitors braced pistols into the NFA hell known as the SBR.

That's really at a best case scenario, the worst case is the ATF is getting ready to retract the ruling on shouldering braces and frankly, they don't even have to do anything because if you know who gets elected an Executive Order can declare all braced pistols as SBR's.

[WeedWacker]

Here's a good interview and discussion.

https://youtu.be/jJEHb5H37Do

[zoo]

My suggestion would be that if you like getting out and shooting your AR rifles and pistols, hit the range and do it now before the next Presidential inauguration.

[zoo]

Be sure to smile and say cheese to the nice man taking pictures of you, your firearms, your car and license plates during your next trip to the range.

[44 AMP]

This is the sort of thing I anticipated when the whole "its a brace, not a stock" issue came up.

The ATF has a long history or making apparently arbitrary decisions going back and forth over what is, and isn't, and then is, again, an NFA item.

What hasn't helped our side is that even when we got a ruling stating a brace was ok, if not intended to be a stock, people in large numbers used then AS stocks and bragged about it.

Seems to me that certain folks have brought this upon us (again) and the particular arm being ruled on is a "trial balloon" or possibly the tip of the iceberg or the camel's nose under the tent wall....

[Onward Allusion]

Funny that a group of knowledgeable firearm enthusiasts is trying to figure out the ATF. It's akin to interpreting the IRS Tax Code.

[JohnKSa]

What's even "funnier" is that many gun enthusiasts, even knowing how difficult it can be to predict the BATF's actions, are willing to play around on the edge of legality, where shifting BATF opinions can change the boundaries, apparently on a whim, risking money, business viability, and, possibly even in the worst case, their freedom and gun rights.

[zoo]

John, in the defense of gun enthusiasts, it is pretty hard to tell where the "edge of legality" is when it comes to firearms these days. In a few months we could all be back to revolvers and lever actions.

[JohnKSa]

... it is pretty hard to tell where the "edge of legality" is when it comes to firearms these days.

That's exactly my point.

In spite of the fact that gun enthusiast are well aware that if you get near the edges it's hard to tell which side of the line you're on--AND that the line can shift suddenly--many seem more than willing to play around right at those edges, risking money, business viability, and, possibly even in the worst case, their freedom and gun rights.

I am NOT supporting the obviously abhorrent practice that apparently allows the BATF to move the legal boundaries (within limits) on their own recognizance.

I just think it's "funny" (not in the haha sense) that so many gun enthusiasts will complain about the shifting boundaries and yet they still apparently feel compelled to get as close to them as possible knowing that they can shift suddenly and that the consequences for ending up on the wrong side of the line can be severe.

Let me say it another way.

It is difficult to know exactly where the EDGES of legality are and, more importantly, where they may be tomorrow. But it's not at all difficult to stay legal. All that is necessary is not trying to constantly crowd the edges.

[zoo]

John, you mean “crowding the edge of legality” by having a magazine that holds more than ten rounds or a firearm that is semi automatic? Yes, that is how bad it is these days. My point was that unless one is into 200 year old gun technology, it IS NOT so easy to stay legal.

[44 AMP]

In a few months we could all be back to revolvers and lever actions.

Don't be so sure we will have revolvers. The "precedent" has already been set, in the 1994 AWB. Though that specific federal law has sunset, there are state laws with identical language that have not.

How does this affect revolvers? They aren't "assault weapons!" ...are they?

Unfortunately, they could be. The language of the AWB had a number of less publicized parts including a section that could be used to ban revolvers. The AWB listed the Stryker 12 and Streetsweeper shotguns as assault weapons, and included the language that those guns and any others "substantially similar to" them were covered (restricted/prohibited) items.

The Streetsweeper has a large "drum" that holds the rounds. The press and many not familiar with the gun think it is a magazine. It's not. It is a cylinder. The mechanism for the gun was directly (and intentionally) copied from that of a REVOLVER. The trigger works like a DA revolver and the cylinder loads/unloads like a single action revolver.

SO, There is a possibility that a case can be made that revolvers are "substantially similar to" the banned shotgun models, and for the anti's that will be more than enough for them to take away revolvers as well as semi autos.

[JohnKSa]

John, you mean “crowding the edge of legality” by having a magazine that holds more than ten rounds or a firearm that is semi automatic?

No, of course that's not what I mean. My post was made in the context of this thread and my comments have been explicitly focused on situations where the BATF has sufficient leeway to change the legality of an item purely on their own recognizance.

I'm talking about things like arm braces that look like shoulder stocks and work like shoulder stocks but that might be legal on a pistol depending on the BATF's current opinion and on some unknown parameters that aren't spelled out anywhere.

Yes, that is how bad it is these days.

No, that's not how bad it is. The BATF doesn't have the leeway to ban semi-automatic firearms or large capacity magazines, nor is that the context of this thread.

[Metal god]

FWIW this post is not directed specifically at the member I quoted , I'm just using the quote to jump start my point .

Ghbuckey, realistically speaking, it is based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system. In other words, arbitrary and pulling measurements from out of a gubment official’s you know where.

I completely disagree . This is just my opinion but this is on us . Why we feel the need to push everything as far as we can push it , I have no idea . Maybe because it's human nature or maybe because it's not us but rather a couple of us that push it so far the rest of us suffer .

IMHO , we know what the brace is and we act like (wink wink ) we don't . I see countless videos of guys shouldering there "pistols" . "We" all know what a pistol is and they can't be shouldered period if you plan to use them with any effectiveness .

Yet we always have that guy/s that have to play the word game and say yes it looks like a stock , can be used as a stock but it's a "brace" . Now I don't know if we've been beaten down so much by the anti's word games that we feel no choice but to play them back but I don't like it from either side .

Again IMHO if you can put it on your shoulder like a rifle while using an extended anything to brace it on said shoulder , It's a rifle period . You then can get into the barrel length or over all length .

The question IMO is why is the SBR a NFA item in the first place ? If you can have rifle calibers in a pistol and pistol calibers in a rifle , Why is there this regulated middle area ??? Lets fight the real fight rather then creating fights that not need be fought .

End rant I feel like this post was one of those things where I just betrayed my party maybe I can be convinced to rethink my opinion on this issue .

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Don't be so sure we will have revolvers. The "precedent" has already been set, in the 1994 AWB. Though that specific federal law has sunset, there are state laws with identical language that have not.

How does this affect revolvers? They aren't "assault weapons!" ...are they?

Unfortunately, they could be. The language of the AWB had a number of less publicized parts including a section that could be used to ban revolvers. The AWB listed the Stryker 12 and Streetsweeper shotguns as assault weapons, and included the language that those guns and any others "substantially similar to" them were covered (restricted/prohibited) items.

The Streetsweeper has a large "drum" that holds the rounds. The press and many not familiar with the gun think it is a magazine. It's not. It is a cylinder. The mechanism for the gun was directly (and intentionally) copied from that of a REVOLVER. The trigger works like a DA revolver and the cylinder loads/unloads like a single action revolver.

SO, There is a possibility that a case can be made that revolvers are "substantially similar to" the banned shotgun models, and for the anti's that will be more than enough for them to take away revolvers as well as semi autos.

You forget the "scary factor" tho, in that if it looks scary or the results of it are scary, it must be banned.

Even in England they're allowed to own cartridge converted percussion revolvers without some super strict license and England is as anti gun as it gets. Australia, also anti gun, lever actions rifles and shotguns are still commonplace.

Let's also not forget the number of people in NY and Connecticut who, when demanded by law to register their AR's, estimates were that over 90% of owners didn't register them.

If 90% of a group of people don't comply, it's not practical or possible to enforce such laws and the US isn't going to go from where we are now to Australia overnight.

Besides, the Stryker 12 was banned more along it not meeting a sporting purpose and if we ever fall far enough to where revolvers have no sporting purpose... then we're doomed.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Metal god

The question IMO is why is the SBR a NFA item in the first place ? If you can have rifle calibers in a pistol and pistol calibers in a rifle , Why is there this regulated middle area ??? Lets fight the real fight rather then creating fights that not need be fought .

I don't disagree, I've been saying this about all short barrel rifles/shotguns and suppressors for years now in that they are no more dangerous or deadly than any other gun and if a determined person wants to commit a crime and use a gun in the process of the crime, what's stopping him from taking a hacksaw to a rifle or shotgun to shorten it?

We were very close in 2017 to getting changes made to the NFA and the weakling Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, along with the NRA, failed to capitalize. They should have rammed it thru Congress, but they didn't because they thought it made them look bad and they'd lose big in 2018.

They lost big anyway.

About the only saving throw for shouldering pistol braces is SCOTUS because it was tried decades ago to get the NFA overturned and that didn't happen, so we're stuck with antiquated, ineffective, and unjustified gun laws for eternity.

Or until Congress gets its act together.

[imp]

When these braces began a few years ago, I remember that manufacturers like SB and KAK had submitted their designs to the BATFE for approval, and gained letters of approval for their braces that were designed for stabilization for shooting large pistols, rather than being purposely designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Has the specific brace on the Q Honey Badger been submitted as an individual part and approved? I have a feeling that the BATFE is more concerned with the specific brace in question, which is very stock-like, rather than the concept as a whole.

[imp]

Nevermind, I see that it has been approved. Guess the alphabet boys are really playing slowly.