Q Honey Badger Pistol now SBR according to the ATF

[44 AMP]

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.

My point was missed. WHY the Stryker 12 & Streetsweeper were banned doesn't matter to my point, what matters is the "sleeper" language in the law. Of course they're not going to go after revolvers.. right now. They are going for the "scary" semi autos, FIRST, however, consider what will be likely after that.

When crime doesn't go away, or if it actually increases, THEN the will be able to point to the law say "its substantially similar to" and "the law has been on the books for years, and you never objected before!"

Like pistol stocks and braces, its a matter of when they think they have the political muscle to change the rules and get away with it.

For a long time the ATF said if you put a stock on a pistol it was an NFA item. You couldn't even own both a stock and a pistol it could be attached to, even if you never put them together. Just having both was (and still is) enough to be an NFA item.

Then the ATF said it was ok to put a stock on certain Curio & Relic pistols. And some of us said "yay!" and did so, often with new(ish) made reproduction stocks. They were not NFA and life was good.

Then after a few years, the ATF changed their minds and said it was only a non-NFA item if it was an original period stock, and a reproduction stock broke the law.

Most, if not nearly all the old milsurp pistol stocks, such as for the Luger and Broomhandle Mauser and Browning Hi Power are NOT marked with any date and often nothing more than a letter code, if that. So there was really no proof positive that a piece of wood and a metal fitting were made 70 years ago (and be legal) or 35 years ago (and NOT be legal).

In our current era, every new firearm design must undergo ATF review and approval before it can be sold in the United States. (or in some cases, made in the US)

ANY and every stock or brace on the market new has been approved by the ATF in order to BE on the market.

So, what is going on now? Is the ATF rescinding the prior approval of the brace?
Similar to what they did with actual stocks?

Tough to say, but I know what it looks like....

[JohnKSa]

...what matters is the "sleeper" language in the law.

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.

IMO that is a complete non-issue.

Given that handguns are a completely different basic category of firearms under federal law, it would take such a tremendous stretch to say that any handgun is "substantially similar" to a semiautomatic shotgun that by the time we get to the point where that stretch can be justified, it won't make any difference at all what any gun law says anymore.

[Onward Allusion]

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 .

THAT was the point of my snarky post #14. We all act like any of the regulations make sense (like we do the tax code) but in reality, it's more like - "BECAUSE WE SAID SO...and if you don't comply, you get 24x7 room & board"....CONTROL...

Does putting a foregrip on a pistol make it any more deadly? Is a shotgun with a 16" barrel any more deadly than one with a 18.5 barrel. It's all arbitrary. Many of the laws on the books are there to give those in charge the support they need to toss your butt in prison because you did something else illegal and they don't have enough evidence to toss you in prison otherwise.

We all need to do a better job of getting our reps to work for us and stop the insanity.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Given that handguns are a completely different basic category of firearms under federal law, it would take such a tremendous stretch to say that any handgun is "substantially similar" to a semiautomatic shotgun that by the time we get to the point where that stretch can be justified, it won't make any difference at all what any gun law says anymore.

In a sane world you would be correct, but we are talking about the BATFE. Remember, the BATFE classified a shoelace as a machine gun.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp...e-gun-2004.jpg

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...g-machine-gun/

[DaleA]

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?

This^.

Not being able to put a stock on a handgun and not being able to just go out and buy a suppressor are two things that I consider absurd, nonsensical and down right stupid and unproductive.

Also, the "social contract" I've always assumed we have with our government is that we agree to obey the law and they write laws that are clear, understandable, easy to comprehend, specific (goodness, go to a thesaurus and find more if you want).

My point is you should be able to read a law and know instantly if you are breaking it or not.

As for "regulations" made by folks who were NOT elected by the people but still have the force of law behind them...don't get me started.

[JohnKSa]

In a sane world you would be correct, but we are talking about the BATFE. Remember, the BATFE classified a shoelace as a machine gun.

That's an entirely different scenario. That ruling is perfectly consistent with the way the law is written, even though the result seems laughable. The law in that situation talks purely about functionality and parts that create that functionality while the law about the banned shotguns talks about substantial similarity.

Concern about the possibility of a law being impressively twisted to mean something it clearly wasn't meant to mean can't be supported by citing a ruling which, though silly, adheres to a straightforward interpretation of the written statute.

[44 AMP]

it would take such a tremendous stretch to say that any handgun is "substantially similar" to a semiautomatic shotgun

Emphasis added..

The law in that situation talks purely about functionality and parts that create that functionality while the law about the banned shotguns talks about substantial similarity.

Substantial similarity of the functionality and the parts that create that functionality.

The addition of the word "semiautomatic" changes the matter and avoids the point I was trying to make.

The banned shotgun's I'm talking about are not semi autos, their mechanisms are functionally identical to a revolver. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that the same "shoelace" logic could be applied, which, if supported, would put revolvers on the list because they are "subatantially similar to" in the function of their action, despite all the other differences between them and the revolving shotguns which are on the list by name.

This particular point is currently moot, on a Federal level, at least since the AWB sunset, however, it WAS there, in Federal law, which means it could be there again, someday. And it might still be there in some State laws that copied the Fed AWB direct, minus the sunset provision.

Point is, despite what the law is, what the ATF regulates TODAY might be different tomorrow, without the due process of actually having Congress vote to change the law.

And that is a bit of a problem, isn't it...

[JohnKSa]

No, it doesn't.

Given that handguns are a completely different basic category of firearms under federal law, it would take such a tremendous stretch to say that any handgun is "substantially similar" to a semiautomatic shotgun that by the time we get to the point where that stretch can be justified, it won't make any difference at all what any gun law says anymore.

The point is that handguns and shotguns are an entirely different category under federal law. Omitting the word "semiautomatic" has no effect on the validity of the statement because the main focus is the "complete difference in categorization", not specific features of either the handgun or the shotgun.

Substantial similarity of the functionality and the parts that create that functionality.

The point was that the shoelace was categorized because it met the functional definition in the law. Therefore, whether we agree with the categorization or not, it's not reasonable to use it as an example of how two things that are categorized completely differently might be somehow construed to be "substantially similar".

Point is, despite what the law is, what the ATF regulates TODAY might be different tomorrow, without the due process of actually having Congress vote to change the law.

That is correct--but ONLY within certain limits. The BATF can redefine arm braces to be shoulder stocks (or vice versa), or change their opinion on the legality of reproduction (vs. vintage) shoulder stocks on certain pistols, but only because that's playing around at the boundaries where opinions matter and the written law leaves obvious room for interpretation. But that doesn't mean they can go in and make changes where the law is clear and opinions really don't matter.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the current situation is satisfactory--it is not. Laws should be clear and judges and juries should interpret them, not bureaucracies. But it doesn't make sense to try to make the case that the BATF has the power to actually change the substance of the law using the "evidence" that they can issue, change and enforce opinions in areas where people have clearly, and intentionally pushed the boundaries of the law into the realm of opinion and ambiguity.

I'm not saying that there is no problem--there is--but it's not anywhere near the level that we need to be concerned with BATF coming after handguns using laws that are clearly written for certain shotguns on the basis that certain types of handguns are "substantially similar" to the shotguns the law was written for.

[zoo]

Face it, John. All you care about is hunting and target shooting.

No, that's not how bad it is.

Yes, John. That is how bad it is. I understand you have a hard time relating to the self-defense folks but being able to accept that AR pistols aren't the leap you think they are is more indicative of your own preferences rather than anyone else's. You are a target and hunting guy, we get it.

You and your bolt actions are ok, I'm sure. The rest of us are just plain crazy I guess.

JohnKSA, do you really have that much room to look down your nose at those of us who enjoy AR Pistols?

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.

Oh, but Biden and Harris do. And they WILL. And YES. THIS is the context of this thread. Wake up, John. This is what we are looking at. Trump decided to act like an idiot and this what we are going to end up with, a friggen Biden/Harris ticket.

All semi automatics are going to be banned under these people. Stop picking on those of us who thought AR pistols were pretty cool!

[TXAZ]

I'm not sure the sky is falling, we saw a not-dissimilar event with the Clinton administration in the 90's.
But there is cause for concern, not just the ATF, but every other federal agency that can 'with the stroke of a pen', can make any segment of the US population felons overnight.

This is a much, much bigger issue than just the ATF.

[JohnKSa]

Face it, John. All you care about is hunting and target shooting.

Um. No.

I understand you have a hard time relating to the self-defense folks but being able to accept that AR pistols aren't the leap you think they are is more indicative of your own preferences rather than anyone else's. You are a target and hunting guy, we get it.

So the only way someone could possibly disagree with you is to be anti-gun/anti-assault-weapon/anti-AR pistol, or whatever it is you mistakenly believe I am?

You and your bolt actions are ok, I'm sure. The rest of us are just plain crazy I guess.

The majority of my guns, rifles and handguns alike are semi-autos.

JohnKSA, do you really have that much room to look down your nose at those of us who enjoy AR Pistols?

I don't look down on you for enjoying your AR pistol. I didn't really look down on you for anything you started spouting nonsense about me because you either don't like the facts I've been pointing out or haven't understood what I've been saying.

Oh, but Biden and Harris do. And they WILL. And YES. THIS is the context of this thread. Wake up, John. This is what we are looking at. Trump decided to act like an idiot and this what we are going to end up with, a friggen Biden/Harris ticket.

I have no doubt that Biden/Harris are anti-gun and will do what they can to ban any firearms they can. I haven't said anything about that. I have no doubt that if the anti-gunners take Congress they will do what they can to ban any firearms they can.

You will notice that nothing I've said in this thread has had anything to do about Biden/Harris or Congress passing new legislation. What I've been talking about--what you even quoted me as saying is about what the BATF can/can't do on their own recognizance. That means what they can do without changes to the law by Congress or without direction by executive action. That's it.

All semi automatics are going to be banned under these people. Stop picking on those of us who thought AR pistols were pretty cool!

I agree. If they can they will ban them. They've stated that they want to. That's got nothing to do with what I've been talking about. I've been talking about what leeway the BATF has to change enforcement ON THEIR OWN, not about the enaction of new bans by Congress or the impact of executive actions.

And I'm not picking on anyone, least of all people who think AR pistols are cool.

The fact that I disagree with you on the amount of free rein that the BATF has to enact new bans doesn't meant that I'm your enemy or that all my views are antithetical to your own.

[HiBC]

There were comments made about shooters who "push the edge".
Maybe some do,but I don't think that accurately describes folks who say "Whats this AR Pistol thing?"

From building hot rods,to sailboats,or innovated housing,or building codes in general, homebuilt aircraft,or home brewing beer,its the nature of many people to study rules and specs,then design and build their expression of whatever is in good faith compliance to those parameters.
Look at what has been done with 1911 Unlimited race guns vs carry optic vs box stock rules.

We optimize to the specs we are given.

As the BATF released their 2017 guideline letter, they created a lawful class of AR pistols.

My opinion isn't worth anything,but,IMO,folks who start an enterprise making lawful products and folks who build AR pistols in compliance with BATF guidelines should be grandfathered in and protected from harrassment.

The laws must work both ways. They may limit what we can do,but they also need to protect what we can do within those limits. Arbitrarily changing the law and seizure or prosecution is tyranny.

The Supreme Law of the Land was written to limit Government and Protect the Citizen's Liberty.

Currently "Domestic terrorist organizations" ,whether declared or not,place the citizen in a position where they may be attacked by multiple ,organized,trained attackers.(A pack of hyenas)

Also,currently that citizen being attacked might call 911 for help,and get absolutely no response.

There is no reason to believe this crazy violence will be over with the election. It may get worse.

And the threats have been made people in rural areas will have this chaos coming to their homes.

I can avoid demonstrations,but people have this stuff come down the street into their yards.

Whether you,or a bureaucrat,or a talking head think the AR pistol is a good choice for my SD under these conditions is irrelevant. If I think it meets my needs,then I should be able to choose .
"The Right of the People to Keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

[JohnKSa]

There were comments made about shooters who "push the edge".
Maybe some do,but I don't think that accurately describes folks who say "Whats this AR Pistol thing?"

If you're talking about my comments, they need to be taken in context and read as they were written, not "interpreted".

1. They weren't about "AR Pistols".

2. They were specifically observations about the dissonance of people fully realizing (and complaining) about the historical shifts in BATF opinions and their sometimes catastrophic effects, and yet still choosing to "live" right in the region where past shifts have happened and future shifts are obviously likely.

3. I never said people shouldn't crowd the edges, I only pointed out that if they are concerned with maintaining legality with a certainty, they can do so easily by avoiding the areas where BATF opinion obviously has leeway to change the legality in an instant.

Ok, I might as well state a few of my positions plainly since it's apparent that others are going to try to do it for me if I don't.

1. Here's the first thing I've said on this thread about AR pistols. I don't have any AR pistols. Not because I think they are somehow "wrong" or "scary" or because I think people would look down their nose at me if I got one. Not because I think they should be illegal or restricted. It's just that a) so far I haven't come up with any use for an AR pistol, b) I haven't been interested enough in getting one to spend the money, c) as an engineer it sort of hurts me to shoot rifle cartridges in short barrels, d) I already have other compact semi-automatic, magazine-fed firearms that I'm happy with, and e) I'm running out of places to store the guns I do have.

I understand that other people do want them enough to buy them and do find them useful and that's fine. I think they should be allowed to buy/own/possess them if they want to. Maybe one day I'll decide I want one or find a use for one and if I do I'll get one. There are just too many other guns I want more than an AR pistol right now.

2. I don't screw around with things like bump stocks and arm braces. Not because I think they are somehow "wrong" or "scary" or because I think they should be illegal, but because I can't afford to take the risk that the BATF will come out with a new opinion that puts me on the wrong side of the law.

For example, if I end up buying an AR pistol down the road, I won't put an arm brace on it. If I want to shoot it from the shoulder, I will do it the hard way and SBR it just so I have SOLID paperwork saying I'm legal. That's in spite of the fact that I despise the NFA--I would do it because I want something in my hand saying I'm legal that can't change on the whims of BATF opinion.

That said, different people assess risk differently. Some people's situations allow them to take more risks. That's just where I draw the line given my current situation, and I'm ok with people who feel comfortable walking closer to the edge.

My opinion isn't worth anything,but,IMO,folks who start an enterprise making lawful products and folks who build AR pistols in compliance with BATF guidelines should be grandfathered in and protected from harrassment.

I agree 100%. That's why I called it "abhorrent" that the BATF is apparently allowed to move the legal boundaries (within limits) on their own recognizance.

[Double Naught Spy]

3. I never said people shouldn't crowd the edges, I only pointed out that if they are concerned with maintaining legality with a certainty, they can do so easily by avoiding the areas where BATF opinion obviously has leeway to change the legality in an instant.

In Q's case, it was a matter of poor risk assessment and avoidance which has now jeopardized the company's financial position. They went into production on a product that didn't quite meet standards with an accessory not approved previously by the ATF (hence why they are backtracking and asking if previously approved stocks can be added to customer-owned guns) and tried to be cutting edge super duper cool without getting their own ATF approval on the guns and now have put every one of their Honey Badger owners in a bad position with the ATF.

Had they simply gone through the process with the ATF, they would have been later in releasing this gun, but the problem would have been caught before production or would have been approved and they would be GTG, but they didn't do that.

Imagine now a class action lawsuit by the purported thousands of Honey Badge owners against Q for selling them illegal firearms.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Mossberg Shockwave owners. Get ready!

FWIW, I brought up Biden's gun agenda and asked about possible SCOTUS implications but no one seemed to want to talk about it much. We'll see

[Snuffy308]

I see that GOA is knee deep in the fight to confront the arbitrary ruling that ATF made concerning the Honey Badger pistol brace. Has NRA made any effort to confront ATF on this topic? I’ve followed the issue closely but have heard only crickets from NRA. You NRA members have an answer for this discrepancy?

[Metal god]

There were comments made about shooters who "push the edge".
Maybe some do

If you're talking about my comments, they need to be taken in context and read as they were written, not "interpreted".

Maybe you but likely my post because I used that wording . I don't disagree and is why I said "maybe it's just human nature " . I however also believe when it comes to guns and the constant new regulations , at least here in CA . Sometimes we have no choice but to push the definitions . However this "brace" thing doesn't seem to much different then the "oil filters" or "sentiment filters" one can buy for $60 that look a lot like a firearm accessory that tends to cost $1k and needs a $200 tax stamp .

I'm not saying I like the laws outlawing these things but one must expect to get slapped back once in awhile when you push right up to that line . Just because you give something a name doesn't mean it can't mean something else as well . You see this in CA where flash hiders are considered a feature that turns your modern sporting rifle (MSR) into an assault rifle .There are guys trying to market muzzle devices that reduce the flash signature and thinking calling it a muzzle thingy or what ever makes it legal . It very well may be legal but this just makes the anti's try twice as hard next time to ban even more . And when you're in a state like CA with a super majority of anti law makers . It seems they have all the time in the world to think up new anti gun laws .

Don't get me wrong , I get what you all are saying and in fact agree . Someone once said following the law to the letter is not a loop hole and that's always stuck with me . I do still feel some push harder then need be but maybe that's good IDK .

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Snuffy308

I see that GOA is knee deep in the fight to confront the arbitrary ruling that ATF made concerning the Honey Badger pistol brace. Has NRA made any effort to confront ATF on this topic? I’ve followed the issue closely but have heard only crickets from NRA. You NRA members have an answer for this discrepancy?

The NRA is too busy fighting for its life in New York and trying to figure a way to get Wayne & Co. out of their positions of power and are finding out they can't.

And this isn't a legislative issue, so I doubt the ILA is doing anything either.

All the NRA members who aren't also GOA members and have braced pistols should put their money where their mouth is and send GOA $20. They're actually trying to fight this, the NRA just begs for more money and never delivers.

[44 AMP]

I'm ok with people walking on the edge and pushing the envelope, after all they can be the test case if they want to be...

HOWEVER, what bugs me is those folks who do "go to the edge" and then ADVERTIZE the fact on the Internet and other social media things.

Doing the 21st century equivalent of sticking out your tongue with your thumbs in your ears wiggling your fingers and chanting "neener neener look what I did, you can't get me!!!" isn't only childish, its barking STUPID.

To those folks, I say, enjoy your toys, and sit down and SHUT UP about it!

Poking the bear rarely ends well, and pointing out to the anti gun factions specifically where their rules fall short of their goals simply gives aid and comfort to the enemy. GO ahead and tell the antis where the "loopholes" are, you got yours, right? shortsighted and selfish...

Well, guess what, when they get shown what they missed, they take steps to close that "loophole" and THAT can and does affect the rest of us.

"ghost guns", bump stocks, pistol braces, what ever it is that is in a "grey area" and so presumed legal keep your mouth shut about it, or they WILL turn that grey into black and white, and not to our benefit.

Here's a bit of trivia from the past, do you know WHY flash suppressors put the rifle on the "assault weapon" list?? The reason given back when these things were first being argued over was impressive (in its stupidity).

Seems that the flash suppressor size allows the rifle to use a certain (NATO standard??) rifle grenade. Which as everyone knows were sold coast to coast at every 7-11....

[Aguila Blanca]

Doing the 21st century equivalent of sticking out your tongue with your thumbs in your ears wiggling your fingers and chanting "neener neener look what I did, you can't get me!!!" isn't only childish, its barking STUPID.

To those folks, I say, enjoy your toys, and sit down and SHUT UP about it!

I couldn't have said it any better than that.

[cslinger]

Seems that the flash suppressor size allows the rifle to use a certain (NATO standard??) rifle grenade. Which as everyone knows were sold coast to coast at every 7-11...

Interesting and honestly, begrudgingly more sensible then the arguments from many of the politicians that I heard around this being that it hides the flash so the shooter cannot be seen. Ummmhuhhh, have you even been off to the side or oblique front of a gun firing using a flash suppressor.............apparently not.

[44 AMP]

Remember that "politicians" include those people who think that a barrel heat shield is "the shoulder thing that goes up..." etc.

Most have little or no experience with firearms, and rely on TV, movies and what their friends (who also don't know what they are talking about) tell them.

Anyone who has been there and done that knows that a flash hider and flash suppressor (yes, there IS a difference) are made to "Hide" or "suppress" the flash from the shooter's viewpoint. Anyone to the side and everyone downrange sees the flash.

Now the one I've never been able to follow the so called logic about is the bayonet lug. Apparently those had to be banned to prevent the rash of drive by bayonettings that would certainly have happened had they not done so...

(sarcasm intentional)

[Metal god]

The bayonet lug I thought was also used to secure the Undermount grenade launcher ??? Not that there was a whole rash of grenade launching going on

[44 AMP]

The bayonet lug I thought was also used to secure the Undermount grenade launcher ???

NO, not on the M16. The forward mount for the M203 grenade launcher mounts on the M16 barrel behind the front sight assembly, the bottom of which is the bayonet lug on that rifle. The bayonet lug on that rifle has zero effect on mounting the grenade launcher on the gun. None if its there. none if its not.

Now, mounting the grenade launcher means you have problems attaching the bayonet because the grenade launcher barrel is in the way, but that's got nothing to do with mounting the launcher on the rifle.

And, then there's all those lugs on M1 Garands and M1 carbines and the M1As that never had any underbarrel grenade launcher...

no that argument just doesn't hold, any more than any of the rest of their reasons. The only one that makes sense is the one they would never admit to, the simple desire to remove all military appearing features whether they had any civilian utility or not.

[TruthTellers]

It's interesting that the "military features" only apply to semi auto rifles and not bolt actions or single shots. Like, I guess a bayonet on an M1903 is fine, but put it on an AR and that's crossing a line.

It also makes me wonder why short barrel laws apply to all rifles when a break action or a bolt action are the least used guns in crime. It would only make more sense to have the SBR laws apply to semi auto firearms only.

The answer is obvious, but I can see why some would have an argument for regulating short barrel semi autos, but they have no argument based in logic or reason for saying a Thompson Center Encore with a stock and a 10 inch barrel is so dangerous the owner needs to pay $200 and register the thing with a gov't agency and wait 4 months to get approved to take possession of the gun.