- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:30 am to AlxTgr
quote:
this is a Congress problem, not an agency problem.
Along with the EPA's drama
Congress is feckless now.
This post was edited on 3/20/26 at 8:30 am
Posted on 3/20/26 at 9:51 am to finchmeister08
Good ole “Finchmeister”, TD’s resident ATF confidential informant spreading statist nonsense again.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 9:55 am to JohnnyReb1861
quote:
Good ole “Finchmeister”, TD’s resident ATF confidential informant spreading statist nonsense again.
quote:
JohnnyReb1861
Member since Mar 2026
1 post
ETA: i can only assume, based on your comment, your tone, and attitude, that you've drilled that third hole and have installed an auto-sear.
"free men don't ask for permission", right?
This post was edited on 3/20/26 at 10:03 am
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:01 pm to HeadSlash
How could chevron be applied here?
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:10 pm to Junky
quote:Not very well due to the existing law enacted by Congress. That law is the villain here.
How could chevron be applied here?
Posted on 3/20/26 at 11:18 pm to finchmeister08
Posted on 3/21/26 at 12:49 am to JohnnyReb1861
I’m really not understanding your logic. In what way am I coming off as a fed? All I didn was “report the news”. And the news is all over the internet now.
Someone that created their account today just to take a jab at me comes off more as a troll than anyone wanting to actually contribute to the discussion at hand. You talk as if you’ve known me for awhile, yet, created your account today… seems like an alt to me.
Someone that created their account today just to take a jab at me comes off more as a troll than anyone wanting to actually contribute to the discussion at hand. You talk as if you’ve known me for awhile, yet, created your account today… seems like an alt to me.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 7:51 am to cgrand
quote:
I mean…that’s common sense isn’t it?
Understand your point but to officially come out with clarification in a letter that its ok to shoulder a brace pistol, 1,000,000’s are sold and product flooded the market, then move the goalposts should require them to eat it. No take backs
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:18 am to finchmeister08
Typical spineless sheeple…attack meaningless points like me just signing up vs the issue of you being a bootlicker.
Been reading this site for 3 years…you’re consistently a “sky is falling” adherent to the nanny state. Clues matter and you’re either an ATF agent or a snitch for them.
Been reading this site for 3 years…you’re consistently a “sky is falling” adherent to the nanny state. Clues matter and you’re either an ATF agent or a snitch for them.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 9:19 am
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:33 am to JohnnyReb1861
quote:
Typical spineless sheeple…attack meaningless points like me just signing up vs the issue of you being a bootlicker.
None of this is true.
quote:
Been reading this site for 3 years…you’re consistently a “sky is falling” adherent to the nanny state. Clues matter and you’re either an ATF agent or a snitch for them.
None of this is either.
You either suck at reading comprehension, an idiot, or a troll. I’m thinking all 3.
If you’ve been reading anything I post here, for “3 years”, you’d know I’ve been promoting FRTs and super safeties. But your stupid arse would probably think I’m “entrapping people for the federal government” for future arrests.
I was the one that brought the $0 NFA tax in the Big Beautiful Bill to everyone’s attention last year.
That’s some fricking retard logic you have there, “buddy”. But go a head “free-man”, tell me how I’m a bootlicking confidential informant for the ATF.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 9:46 am to finchmeister08
quote:
I was the one that brought the $0 NFA tax in the Big Beautiful Bill to everyone’s attention last year.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 10:18 am to JohnnyReb1861
quote:
JohnnyReb1861
This guy is the perfect example of “how to win friends and influence people” on his 1st post ever.
Congrats.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 10:27 am to bbvdd
It’s an alt that’s trying to derail the topic of the thread. That’s it.
Why? Cause he’s retarded.
Eta: he’s the type that would upvote his own post and smell his own farts.
Why? Cause he’s retarded.
Eta: he’s the type that would upvote his own post and smell his own farts.
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 10:29 am
Posted on 3/21/26 at 10:37 am to rattlebucket
quote:obviously that’s an issue. But the common sense part applies there too…”pistols” that include a brace that can be shouldered and fired are and always have been a clear attempt to circumvent and/or end run the SBR laws that have been in force for many decades. And I agree that SBR restrictions are dumb and serve no purpose. I cost me $400 and 2 years wait time to legally SBR and suppress my Uzi carbine. And the barrel only cost $30
then move the goalposts
Buyer beware, as always. This was always going to be a moving target because the market to circumvent NFA laws is a moving target. And the reason all those “pistols” were sold is because they could be shouldered without paying the tax stamp fee
This post was edited on 3/21/26 at 10:39 am
Posted on 3/21/26 at 5:16 pm to cgrand
Washington Gun Law just did a good video on it. Basically, like I mentioned before, if you’re caught with the firearm and the ATF evaluates that firearm, you’re going to be at the mercy of the NFA and GCA definitions of a rifle and SBR.
Vertical grip = shouldered weapon = rifle/SBR
LPVO = shouldered weapon = rifle/SBR
Never undone the Velcro straps? Good luck explaining why.
Man, WGL must work for the ATF…
Just don’t be stupid, folks. We all build our firearms so we can enjoy them and use them in a time of need. Don’t put yourself in a situation that’s going to provide confusion, uncertainty, or doubt.
Don’t be the case study.
Vertical grip = shouldered weapon = rifle/SBR
LPVO = shouldered weapon = rifle/SBR
Never undone the Velcro straps? Good luck explaining why.
Man, WGL must work for the ATF…
Just don’t be stupid, folks. We all build our firearms so we can enjoy them and use them in a time of need. Don’t put yourself in a situation that’s going to provide confusion, uncertainty, or doubt.
Don’t be the case study.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 5:48 pm to finchmeister08
I would like to hear just one serious argument as to the efficacy of, for example, an AR “pistol” fired from a stance without the brace vs a standard semi auto handgun, besides mag capacity. Because I’ve never seen one. The “pistol” solves no problem that I am aware of except the tax stamp problem as it pertains to an SBR, because with a brace it is an SBR.
I know I’m in the minority on this and that’s fine. But this is something that never should have been allowed in the first place as long as the SBR restrictions remain on the books.
I know I’m in the minority on this and that’s fine. But this is something that never should have been allowed in the first place as long as the SBR restrictions remain on the books.
Posted on 3/21/26 at 7:33 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
from what i'm reading online, the statutory definition of a rifle includes the phrase, "...intended to be fired from the shoulder..." [emphasis added]
if you build a firearm with a pistol brace with the intent to shoulder it, it's an SBR.
And the ATF FTB said:
quote:
“For the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR:
FTB classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While the usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criterion for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.
FTB has previously determined (see FTB # 99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories, such as the SIG Stability Brace, have not been classified by FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. However, FTB cannot recommend using a weapon (or weapon accessory) in a manner not intended by the manufacturer.”
Posted on 3/21/26 at 7:46 pm to Clames
Just out of curiosity, when was this said?
Posted on 3/21/26 at 10:21 pm to finchmeister08
I think at some point during the whole pistol brace rules change debacle, and I think this was a reiteration of a previous position so it's well documented that the ATF would be contradicting their own held standard if they suddenly started including "intent" here.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News