Q Honey Badger Pistol now SBR according to the ATF
- Thread starter raimius
- Start date
- Status
Spats McGee
Administrator
We have a winner!
Jim Watson
New member
I saw a response from Q co. that they will not play that game and will not resume making the Honey Badger.
WeedWacker
New member
I think it's more they don't want to sink the capital into a fight that may or may not win since they have very little support from the big legal heavyweights.
Rangerrich99
New member
I need to buy one of these things asap. It's got my favorite safety's name on it.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Double Naught Spy said:
The ATF to reverse course and call it a NFA regulated weapon. That BATFE letter was a rather "liberal" interpretation of the regulation IMHO.
What is interesting to me about this board I guess is the deafening silence about what Biden will try to do and how the SCOTUS will come into play. Seems to me like the elephant in the room but maybe that's being moderated out?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Again, Q did not do their due diligence like Mossberg. They are now backtracking and submitting other products and trying to smooth things out with the use of different arm brace stocks that have been approved. Q knows they screwed up and got caught.
All this business about how they could "reverse their decision" has never been in question. For that matter, they may choose to interpret any of the laws in a different manner, not just arm braces and shotgun 'firearms' and cause problems for the rest of us gun owners. Nobody seems to concerned about that...speaking of elephants in the room.
WeedWacker
New member
Q shouldn't have to do their "due diligence" as has been stated. They used a brace that was constructed in a similar fashion to a brace that had a letter from the ATF. Logic (not reality, I know) should dictate that -- without set rules and guidance from the ATF -- a similar construction should fall into the same category as the approved stock. Complaints from the ATF were minor cosmetic differences that did nothing to change the actual function of the brace (smaller "ears" to wrap around the forearm) and a complete misapplication of their own regulation that was administrative in origin (length of pull less than 35.5" measured from the rearmost portion of the trigger straight back to the same plane as the end of the stock). The ATF has been tight lipped and refuses to come up with a set of specifications so to allow a company to function and invest significant capital into a product then pull the rug from under them is at best merely unfair and at worst malicious and possibly illegal overreach (which is the ATF as an entity, in my opinion, but the courts have yet to agree with this sentiment and likely never will).
Please see Colion's interview with SD Tactical over the arm brace and the ATF.
Please see Colion's interview with SD Tactical over the arm brace and the ATF.
Those are good points weedwacker but I’d like to point out that the anti’s new/old approach is to go after cosmetics as a prohibiting factor . Need not look any further then “assault rifle “ definitions . They include but are not limited to cosmetic features that have zero to do with the fundamentals of the firearm . With or with out these cosmetic features the firearms still operate the same . In many ways those same cosmetic features that some how turn a regular firearm into an assault rifle actually help the firearm be operated more safely .
I know by changing the configuration of my semi automatic center fire rifle from there definition of an assault rifle to one that is not . My rifle is now less safe because I no longer can easily reach the safety as originally designed .
This type of thing is what often happens when people try to fix things they don’t understand. They make things worse only to then need another regulation to fix the problem they created .
I know by changing the configuration of my semi automatic center fire rifle from there definition of an assault rifle to one that is not . My rifle is now less safe because I no longer can easily reach the safety as originally designed .
This type of thing is what often happens when people try to fix things they don’t understand. They make things worse only to then need another regulation to fix the problem they created .
Pure political discussion is not allowed in L&CR forum, or really in any of the others where posts must be gun-related.
it is not being "moderated out" here, simply because its not being done here, though if it is, it would be. And infractions for rule violations would result.
Lots and lots of other places on the internet for that discussion.
The other point is that discussing what Biden (or Trump, or the Easter Bunney) MIGHT do if elected is just so much pure speculation, and a waste of bandwidth. They're all on record with what they SAY they will do. What they actually do is another matter.
I would point out that SOME of the anti-gunners have "wised up" in that regard, look for them to bring their "new" definition to an election near you in the future...
The "new" definition I'm referring to is the "old" definition, of semi-automatic. As of the summer of 2019, EVERY semi automatic rifle in the state of Washington was legally redefined as a "semi automatic assault rifle"
The law doing this used the simple base defintion of semi auto, "uses the energy of the fired round to reload the action" NO attempt was made to name or list cosmetic features at all.
SO, ALL semi auto rifles are now "semi automatic assault rifles" no matter what features they have, or don't have.
Fixed magazine .22s are covered. Your Rem 742 deer gun is covered, along with the more usual "evil" looking guns like ARs and AKs. EVERY SINGLE SEMI AUTO RIFLE is now an "assault rifle" under that law.
The law is being challenged in court, due to other worse provisions in it, but so far, no ruling...
Oh, and just FYI, that law was DEFEATED several times in the legislature. It got passed by voter initiative and the under educated and lied to people in the I-5 corridor made it law for the entire state...
I am curious how Amy Coney Barrett looks at those types of things ? She says she likes to rule based on the text , While emphasizing she gives deference to duly elected legislatures because they are representing those that put ghem in office and the wording of the laws they produce . I have to assume based on all that , that she also takes into consideration The will of the voters themselves and what they vote into law
My thinking is that you have to start with the original text of the constitution then see if the legislature or the people themselves are keeping with that wording , at least I hope
My thinking is that you have to start with the original text of the constitution then see if the legislature or the people themselves are keeping with that wording , at least I hope
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
44 AMP said:
But what I am talking about IS gun related. Quite so.
44 AMP said:
I would suggest important speculation. Whistling past the graveyard?
44 AMP said:
My point exactly so looking at those scenarios might make sense? But hey it's your board yet I think you're being too restrictive. I get you don't want a bunch of extraneous non-gun related vitriol on the board but discussing what may happen in a Biden Dem controlled Congress regarding guns might make sense?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Why?Tennessee Gentleman said:
That's a serious question. As 44 AMP pointed out, it's all speculation. We can speculate 'til the cows come home, but we can't respond to speculation, except with more speculation. We can't mobilize to fight speculation. I have enough real problems on my plate every day of the week -- I don't need to speculate about what a Biden-Harris administration may try to do.
It's pretty much a given that it will be anti-gun. But we know that, so that's enough to inform who we vote for to be the next president. Beyond that, I see no value whatsoever in trying to guess what they might do if elected. "The devil is in the details." Until they get elected and put forth some proposed legislation, there's nothing more to discuss.
IMHO. YMMV.
The old Legal & Political forum was closed specifically because political rants became constant, uncivil and generally overwhelmed rational discussions.
The replacement was the current Law and Civil Rights forum which has very specific and narrow rules for political discussions. AND the strictest and most severe penalties on the site for violations of those rules.
Discussion of what either side MIGHT do, has a place in the universe, just not HERE in this forum.
The replacement was the current Law and Civil Rights forum which has very specific and narrow rules for political discussions. AND the strictest and most severe penalties on the site for violations of those rules.
Discussion of what either side MIGHT do, has a place in the universe, just not HERE in this forum.
dogtown tom
New member
Thank goodness for the deafening silence.
If I had a nickel for every "OMG! OMG! Biden!" posted on gun forums I'd be rich.
If you are wholly ignorant of where the Democratic Party stands on gun control for the last, oh FIVE DECADES, then mentioning it in a gun forum might be news. But it ain't news, it's noise. We know where Joe Biden stands because thats been his platform for decades.
Elephant? Are you serious? Anyone with half an ear, blurry vision and an IQ of 50 is likely well aware of the implications of this and any presidential election.
And bless the moderator that keeps this noise low.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I guess we're finished talking about the Honey Badger, then.
We're getting well off the topic of the thread, and into general poly ticks -- which, as has been mentioned, we don't do here.
We're getting well off the topic of the thread, and into general poly ticks -- which, as has been mentioned, we don't do here.
- Status