Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Well lets break this up a little for better understanding, and to explain my reasoning...
This describes what is being covered, the rifle with its rear features /attachments
This explains what they are looking at, the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
This part covers ruling the brace/attachment as meant to be used from the shoulder, "provided" the later listed factors indicate this.
and this is a listing of the other factors.
What is not explained in the given text is whether these other factors are a Pass/Fail thing or what the determining points are.
So, we need to look at each of those factors and see if we can figure out what they might use as the basis for their decisions, unless/until we can get that information from the ATF. Until we know exactly what the ATF is using for their parameters its just speculation. Some things seem pretty obvious, but remember who (the govt) is setting the goal posts.
|
Let me rephrase what i am trying to get at. They are not just regulating what many term to be "stabilizing braces". Anything that attaches to the rear of the rifle providing surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder appears to be included. Although they appear to attempt to exempt something necessary for function of the rifle. This is why i am considering how many of the "factors" the item must meet. An AR-15 pistol with it's original length buffer in place might meet one of the factors, but not others. No way would i send it in to ATF for a determination, but that's just me.
Basically i am agreeing with you, but over 25 years dealing with state statute/code language, rewrites and application of codes makes me suspicious of anything the state agency wonks wrote. And what happened when they went beyond "interpreting" and changed definitions/meanings in codes/statutes in their interpretations without going through the legislature.
And it matters not what i think about pistols with braces, what matters more to me is the manner in which they are doing it. Especially provided their previous history in the matter. "e,g." From actual experience, changing a definition in a law changes the law and is a function of our elected representatives who make the laws.
p.s. no matter the intent, it matters more what the ruling actually says in "plain english"