View Single Post
Old January 8, 2023, 04:22 PM   #76
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,153
Machine guns are defined, making it relatively easy to argue that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun and that the ATF can’t change an existing definition. Are stocks clearly defined in such a way that shows a brace does not meet the definition of a stock and that the inclusion of them does not create a SBR? If the only legal standing for a brace is that it was approved in the past by an ATF decision, not Congressional legislation, then it seems to me like the ATF reversing that definition has more legal standing than the ATF trying to argue bump stocks are machine guns. I do know that common usage factors into this.
TunnelRat is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03621 seconds with 8 queries