May 10, 2019, 01:50 PM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: April 4, 2010
Location: Madison, MS
Posts: 34
|
That's what it says verbatim.
Look it up yourself: NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) There isn't any interpretation involved. |
May 10, 2019, 02:00 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Arm braces came almost 80 years after the NFA and aren’t mentioned anywhere in the US Code nor in the Code of Federal Regulations. So why are you citing the NFA and US Code?
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
May 11, 2019, 03:05 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
The question of whether a brace constitutes a "redesign" from the definitions of rifles or shotguns (e.g. "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder") has been addressed by the ATF. In their letter to SB Tactical's lawyer, the ATF indicated that a properly installed brace, which has not been altered, may be fired from other positions without necessarily "redesigning" it into an NFA item.
|
May 11, 2019, 07:56 PM | #29 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Aside from that ridiculous non sequitur, 26 USC 5845(e) says verbatim: Quote:
|
||
May 16, 2019, 11:44 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
Gun laws esp written to entrap users and req a lawyer to interpet--all for their own good.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|