Quote:
|
So was the pistol brace and we see how well the atf ruled on that.
|
SO???
Apples and watermelons in a manner of speaking.
The wrist brace I'm referring to does NOT attach to the gun. In fact, it never even touches the gun. So, its NOT "part of the firearm". The ATF does not have jurisdiction over it. It is neither Alcohol, Tobacco, nor a Firearm. The NFA (and ALL other gun control laws DO NOT APPLY. Gun control laws don't apply to the wrist brace any more than they apply to the watch you're wearing, or the shoes you have on.
Now the clever and overreaching folks in GOVT might TRY and claim it is a firearm "accessory" but I doubt any such claim would pass review in court. Its a brace, yes, but its not something that is part of a gun, and its not something that ONLY braces a gun, it braces your ARM, to steady it no matter what you have in your hand. Could be a pistol, sure. Could be a CAMERA, or a set of Binoculars (or today, your phone!) if you wanted to you could make something like it out of wood and leather.
The "braces" that the ATF has now ruled are stocks, were attached to the firearm, MAKING THEM PART OF THE FIREARM, so the ATF had legal standing to rule on them.
An "arm brace" that doesn't attach to or hold the firearm in any way won't be popular with the kids playing "run dodge and jump" games with AR pistols, because it would be more cumbersome and much slower to use than a brace attached to the pistol, but it would be 100% legal and unregulated under current existing LAW.
I can't see any stretch of logic that would allow something that is not part of a gun, does not, and cannot be attached to a gun to be ruled a gunstock by the ATF, or anybody else.
Which, of course doesn't mean some anti gun OCD possessed idi..er..person won't TRY. I just don't see how they could succeed, even if they were a political figure or worked for the DOJ, or the Press, I just don't see such an argument prevailing.