Q Honey Badger Pistol now SBR according to the ATF

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pistol brace issue

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?
 
There were comments made about shooters who "push the edge".
Maybe some do
Click to expand...

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

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 .
 
Snuffy308 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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....:rolleyes::D
 
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!
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it any better than that.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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

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...:rolleyes:

(sarcasm intentional)
 
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
 
The bayonet lug I thought was also used to secure the Undermount grenade launcher ???
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Correct , what appears to be the excepted wording by the anti's is . ( a semi automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine ) and any one of these features - pistol grip , flash hider , forward grip , barrel shroud ?:confused:? and others .

EDIT , this part deleted
 
Last edited:
Ready for what? Mossberg did their due diligence, unlike Q, and got the ATF to sign off on their product.
Click to expand...
...so did Slidefire, and now their products are non-registrable "machine guns."
 
Ready for what?

I'd say be ready for the ATF to change their mind about what is, and isn't a regulated item.

And not just Shockwave owners, all of us. Even if you don't have the affected item, we are all affected by their ability to arbitrarily change rulings, definitions and enforcement.

This is NOT A NEW THING, people...

If you have a pistol with a brace on it, be prepared for that brace to be declared a stock, and as a stock, it becomes and NFA item.

It may happen tomorrow, or next week or 6 years from now, or it may never happen, but be prepared IF it does.

Because under the current system as allowed to operate they can change their minds any time, and as often as they feel like, or so it seems, to me.
 
44 AMP said:
Ready for what?

I'd say be ready for the ATF to change their mind about what is, and isn't a regulated item.

And not just Shockwave owners, all of us. Even if you don't have the affected item, we are all affected by their ability to arbitrarily change rulings, definitions and enforcement.

This is NOT A NEW THING, people...

If you have a pistol with a brace on it, be prepared for that brace to be declared a stock, and as a stock, it becomes and NFA item.

It may happen tomorrow, or next week or 6 years from now, or it may never happen, but be prepared IF it does.

Because under the current system as allowed to operate they can change their minds any time, and as often as they feel like, or so it seems, to me.
Click to expand...
Which is why the legality of allowing the ATF to declare bump stocks as machine guns is such a huge deal because if the ATF can declare a semi automatic gun a machine gun due to a device that makes it shoot faster, then they can declare all semi automatic guns as readily convertible machine guns.

Nobody listen to me tho, I was saying it would be better to have the then REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS pass a law adding them to the NFA (and in return removing suppressors) so the ATF wouldn't be given authority to make decisions because they can and will making rulings that greatly restrict gun rights.
 
...so did Slidefire, and now their products are non-registrable "machine guns."
Click to expand...

And that wasn't by the ATF, was it. That was by bipartisan political hacks and President Trump.

Ready for what?

I'd say be ready for the ATF to change their mind about what is, and isn't a regulated item.

And not just Shockwave owners, all of us. Even if you don't have the affected item, we are all affected by their ability to arbitrarily change rulings, definitions and enforcement.

This is NOT A NEW THING, people...
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a new thing. However, the Mossberg example was poor because UNLIKE Q, Mossberg did do their due diligence and made sure things were legal. Q just went into production and sales with a product not meeting ATF specs.

This isn't a matter of the ATF changing their mind. This is a matter of Q cutting corners and screwing customers as a result.
 
Double Naught, the ATF changed their interpretation under pressure from the President. They still did it.

It is not just a matter of getting the ATF's OK. They can and do change their opinions without us having recourse or advanced notice. This is particularly problematic when their flip-flop can suddenly put us at risk of numerous 10 year prison sentences for something we were told was perfectly legal!
 
Good correction on Trump. Yep, they may. There is no evidence as of yet that this has happened on Q's brace. The ATF isn't after all braces, right? The did go after all bump stocks, however, but they aren't going after all braces.
 
Has anybody heard any updates on this I keep seeing rumblings everywhere that the ATF is backing off , is that accurate ?
 
There an article from the Washington examiner I read via citizen free press today that states a "delay", 60 days. No telling what's next though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top