Q Honey Badger Pistol now SBR according to the ATF

[Metal god]

FWIW this post is not directed specifically at the member I quoted , I'm just using the quote to jump start my point .

Ghbuckey, realistically speaking, it is based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system. In other words, arbitrary and pulling measurements from out of a gubment official’s you know where.

I completely disagree . This is just my opinion but this is on us . Why we feel the need to push everything as far as we can push it , I have no idea . Maybe because it's human nature or maybe because it's not us but rather a couple of us that push it so far the rest of us suffer .

IMHO , we know what the brace is and we act like (wink wink ) we don't . I see countless videos of guys shouldering there "pistols" . "We" all know what a pistol is and they can't be shouldered period if you plan to use them with any effectiveness .

Yet we always have that guy/s that have to play the word game and say yes it looks like a stock , can be used as a stock but it's a "brace" . Now I don't know if we've been beaten down so much by the anti's word games that we feel no choice but to play them back but I don't like it from either side .

Again IMHO if you can put it on your shoulder like a rifle while using an extended anything to brace it on said shoulder , It's a rifle period . You then can get into the barrel length or over all length .

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 .

End rant I feel like this post was one of those things where I just betrayed my party maybe I can be convinced to rethink my opinion on this issue .

 

[TruthTellers]

Don't be so sure we will have revolvers. The "precedent" has already been set, in the 1994 AWB. Though that specific federal law has sunset, there are state laws with identical language that have not.

How does this affect revolvers? They aren't "assault weapons!" ...are they?

Unfortunately, they could be. The language of the AWB had a number of less publicized parts including a section that could be used to ban revolvers. 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.

The Streetsweeper has a large "drum" that holds the rounds. The press and many not familiar with the gun think it is a magazine. It's not. It is a cylinder. The mechanism for the gun was directly (and intentionally) copied from that of a REVOLVER. The trigger works like a DA revolver and the cylinder loads/unloads like a single action revolver.

SO, There is a possibility that a case can be made that revolvers are "substantially similar to" the banned shotgun models, and for the anti's that will be more than enough for them to take away revolvers as well as semi autos.

You forget the "scary factor" tho, in that if it looks scary or the results of it are scary, it must be banned.

Even in England they're allowed to own cartridge converted percussion revolvers without some super strict license and England is as anti gun as it gets. Australia, also anti gun, lever actions rifles and shotguns are still commonplace.

Let's also not forget the number of people in NY and Connecticut who, when demanded by law to register their AR's, estimates were that over 90% of owners didn't register them.

If 90% of a group of people don't comply, it's not practical or possible to enforce such laws and the US isn't going to go from where we are now to Australia overnight.

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.

 

[TruthTellers]

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 .

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?

We were very close in 2017 to getting changes made to the NFA and the weakling Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, along with the NRA, failed to capitalize. They should have rammed it thru Congress, but they didn't because they thought it made them look bad and they'd lose big in 2018.

They lost big anyway.

About the only saving throw for shouldering pistol braces is SCOTUS because it was tried decades ago to get the NFA overturned and that didn't happen, so we're stuck with antiquated, ineffective, and unjustified gun laws for eternity.

Or until Congress gets its act together.

 

[imp]

When these braces began a few years ago, I remember that manufacturers like SB and KAK had submitted their designs to the BATFE for approval, and gained letters of approval for their braces that were designed for stabilization for shooting large pistols, rather than being purposely designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Has the specific brace on the Q Honey Badger been submitted as an individual part and approved? I have a feeling that the BATFE is more concerned with the specific brace in question, which is very stock-like, rather than the concept as a whole.

 

[imp]

Nevermind, I see that it has been approved. Guess the alphabet boys are really playing slowly.

 

[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]

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-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2004.jpg

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-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