• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Assault Weapons Ban 2019

Dr.Sid said:
It's commonly done. You take AR or AK without stock, with short barrel, and you call it a pistol. Then you add brace, and you have 'legal' short barrel semiauto rifle and you don't need SBR stamp.
I think this point is aimed specifically at this.
Click to expand...
Just adding the arm brace does not make it a legal SBR. You also need the tax stamp.
https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download

The ATF is of the opinion that holding the arm brace against the shoulder constitutes a "redesign" of the firearm. The ATF says the arm brace is legal without a stamp as long as it is used as intended; as am arm brace.

The arm brace is for the moment entirely legal and I think a very effective way of improving the hold of the awkward at-15 pistol. The SBR version of the at-15 is a ton better than any at-15 pistol in my opinion.
 
Ranb said:
I'm not aware that this is why they exist. I think someone just built their own at-15 handgun one day and it caught on a tiny bit with others.

I personally know some people who bought an at-15 pistol and then registered it as a short barreled rifle. They used it occasionally as a pistol while waiting 3-12 months for ATF approval of the tax stamp application so they could attach the shoulder stock and have a real rifle.

The Sig Arm Brace was as far as I can tell a legitimate accessory invented by a disabled man who wanted better control over his ar-15 pistol. The ATF at first agreed that an ar-15 equipped with the brace had no limitations on it's use (in the hand or on the shoulder) but later changed their minds and said using it as a shoulder stock made it an SBR requiring a tax stamp.

Personally I think the AR-15 pistol is as stupid as the Can-Am Spyder and the Polaris Slingshot. :)
Click to expand...
Oh, I had generally heard those referred to as submachine guns or machine pistols in the pas. Thank you.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I commented on the intent of the writer of the law. Ranb asked what part of the bill I think accomplishes that. But I don't think the bill accomplishes it. Further, I don't think the intent of the law's writer matters.
Click to expand...

I cannot figure out just what it is are trying to say, so do us both a favor and try to write postings that are clear.
 
Such a bill probably won't pass, and if it does it will be challenged, and anyway there are far too many weapons out there to make any difference. As someone above said, the gun manufacturers are probably upping their sales forecasts.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Olympic Arms brought out the OA-93 AR-15 pistol in 1993.
Click to expand...
I forgot about that one. It is different in that there isn't a buffer tube in back. Still just as unwieldy as the others though. I think I recall that Bushmaster made waves with their first .223 pistol (or 7.62x39?) and the affect it had on importing steel core (AP) ammo; people were upset.
 
Last time Feinstein proposed a ban it went nowhere. 14 DEMOCRAT Senators said they would never be re-elected of they supported it. She is just grand-standing for the folks back home in the most anti-gun state ever.
 
casebro said:
Last time Feinstein proposed a ban it went nowhere. 14 DEMOCRAT Senators said they would never be re-elected of they supported it. She is just grand-standing for the folks back home in the most anti-gun state ever.
Click to expand...

This, as usual.
 
Looks like another planned manipulation to scare enough of the gun-lovers into another spending spree and to cause more divisiveness amongst the middle and lower classes of gun-owners and non-gun-owners.
 
This thread is why it's better to go after magazine size. With an assault weapons ban, you just end up playing whack-a-mole with loopholes.
 
Indeed .. is there even clearly stated reason why barrel shroud, collapsible stock, flash hider etc. are regulated ? Or even study they play any effect ?
Mags sure are far from perfect, as they are cheap and easy to stockpile, but it's something.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Indeed .. is there even clearly stated reason why
Click to expand...
Probably not a clearly stated reason, no.

barrel shroud,
Click to expand...
So you can grasp the barrel with your off hand and go full auto like they do in 'Nam.

collapsible stock,
Click to expand...
So you can fold the gun up and hide it under your trench coat.

flash hider
Click to expand...
So that the muzzle flash doesn't give you away when you start your killing spree.

etc. are regulated ? Or even study they play any effect ?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the various militaries and gun manufacturers of the world have done quite a few studies on ergonomics, feature sets, optimal configurations and trade-offs, etc. Fabrique National (FN) must have done some serious ergonomic studies when designing the P90. Tavor and the Israeli army probably put a lot of study into the design of the TAR.

But I doubt the lobbyists and politicians behind the "assault weapon" rules are making sensible references to any actual studies.

Mags sure are far from perfect, as they are cheap and easy to stockpile, but it's something.
Click to expand...
In a "we must do something; this is something; we must do this!" kind of way, sure.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
I forgot about that one. It is different in that there isn't a buffer tube in back
Click to expand...

Why does having a recoil spring intended originally to be in a stock vs moving it to somewhere else make such a big deal in this class of handguns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom