ATF Announces New Category of NFA Weapon for Franklin Reformation.

They did...just like the bump stock.

As mentioned too many people wrote letters, although that is not what happened with the bump stocks and I haven't heard much as far as letter writing goes with the braces.

My opinion...the ATF didn't really like the idea of the bump stock, but didn't "really" have a way of "saying this isn't legal" after giving it the go...then along comes that ASSHAT in Vegas and they had their "out". I'm not say the two are related, I'm saying they (ATF) saw an opportunity and took it.

In the end...don't write letters to the ATF.
 
In the end...don't write letters to the ATF.
Click to expand...

Not if you're looking for them to change their mind about anything. And as far as their definitions and rulings are concerned, they CHANGE.

and, seldom for the good. Right now, "pistol braces" are legal. Will they always be? I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

At one time, stocked pistol were an NFA item. Then certain curio & relic guns were ok, with a repro stock. Then, later they weren't, and were only ok if the stock was original, too.

ALWAYS remember that when you poke the bear and wake him up, he's going to want to EAT SOMETHING!

Apparently Franklin Armory either doesn't know this, or doesn't care....
 
The thing is, the Reformation was impractical as a firearm anyway - particularly with pistol braces being a thing.
Click to expand...

Right! Given that we can go the AR pistol route now, the short barrels weapon boat sailed without the Franklin Reformation. At this point, does it have any sort of significant advantage over an AR pistol? I don't see any.
 
44 AMP....At one time, stocked pistol were an NFA item...
Click to expand...
Still are.





Then certain curio & relic guns were ok, with a repro stock. Then, later they weren't, and were only ok if the stock was original, too.
Click to expand...
True.



Apparently Franklin Armory either doesn't know this, or doesn't care....
Click to expand...
Franklin armory found someone at ATF to state that "rifling" must impart a spin to the projectile. As "rifling" isn't defined in the CFR or in any federal law....i wouldn't have hung my hat on it.

FA though they would make a "firearm" with straight lands and grooves, believing that would make the firearm not a rifle, not a handgun because both require rifling. And as ATF had told them "rifling must impart spin to the projectile". ATF initially told them "its just a firearm". Since it wasn't a rifle, or handgun it could not be a Short Barreled Rifle under the NFA.
And not being smoothbore.......it obviously couldn't be a shotgun either. and if not a shotgun, SBS wasn't in the picture either.

FA had stated a year or so back that they planned on producing ammunition specifically designed to fire through this Frankengun.

If ATF would have determined it to have been a "rifle" day one, no one would have been uttering a peep. Rifling is not defined in federal law or ATF regs, so whether its spiral or straight, imparts a spin or not, lands/grooves vs polygonal, etc.......ATF will find this determination a little difficult to defend.

Versus the ATF redefining of "machine gun" to include bump stocks. That wasn't a determination or ruling, but a redefining via their rulemaking authority under federal law.
 
Double Naught Spy ..... At this point, does it have any sort of significant advantage over an AR pistol? I don't see any.
Click to expand...
It never had ANY advantage over an AR pistol.
It was gunhype of the worst kind by a company struggling to make sales.
 
Some states have AWB's which specifically apply to rifles and pistols.

An "other" wouldn't necessarily be impacted by that, which some could find useful.
 
Only until it comes to the attention of the legislature and then as long as it takes for them to adjust their definitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top