Recent 2A news regarding AR pistols

[Belsnickel]

I tried to find an article on this that wasn't from a gun blog, but it's an interesting topic so I'll type it out.

There is a company called Q that produces a firearm called the Honey Badger.



Now, if you think this is a rifle, you would be wrong. With a barrel at 7 inches, this would be a short-barreled rifle (SBR) because any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is classified as such. However, this is not intended to be shoulder mounted. What looks like a stock is a "stabilizing brace" that is designed to strap to your arm to stabilize the weapon so it can be used as a pistol. There has been a lot of back and forth on this and the ATF has never been a fan of these things. There was a time when shouldering it made it an SBR, but holding it as designed was fine. Then the ATF backed off of that. The issue is that while this looks like it is intended to be shouldered, intent is very difficult to prove.

Well, two months ago, Q was sent a cease-and-desist from the ATF regarding this firearm saying that it is an SBR. This has sent shockwaves throughout the firearm community as it is a whole new regulatory position from the agency and they didn't go through any of the typical public input.

Anyway, just some interesting stuff going on. I know not everyone here will know about AR pistols and how that all works. Personally, I'm against the NFA classification of SBRs, but I also think the whole "stabilizing brace" work around was a crock. I think I've seen one used as "intended" one time, ever. Every other time they have been shouldered. As a process guy, though, the ATF pulling this out of their collective asses is a highly concerning situation.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I tried to find an article on this that wasn't from a gun blog, but it's an interesting topic so I'll type it out.

There is a company called Q that produces a firearm called the Honey Badger.



Now, if you think this is a rifle, you would be wrong. With a barrel at 7 inches, this would be a short-barreled rifle (SBR) because any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is classified as such. However, this is not intended to be shoulder mounted. What looks like a stock is a "stabilizing brace" that is designed to strap to your arm to stabilize the weapon so it can be used as a pistol. There has been a lot of back and forth on this and the ATF has never been a fan of these things. There was a time when shouldering it made it an SBR, but holding it as designed was fine. Then the ATF backed off of that. The issue is that while this looks like it is intended to be shouldered, intent is very difficult to prove.

Well, two months ago, Q was sent a cease-and-desist from the ATF regarding this firearm saying that it is an SBR. This has sent shockwaves throughout the firearm community as it is a whole new regulatory position from the agency and they didn't go through any of the typical public input.

Anyway, just some interesting stuff going on. I know not everyone here will know about AR pistols and how that all works. Personally, I'm against the NFA classification of SBRs, but I also think the whole "stabilizing brace" work around was a crock. I think I've seen one used as "intended" one time, ever. Every other time they have been shouldered. As a process guy, though, the ATF pulling this out of their collective asses is a highly concerning situation.

I'll be honest. I thought it was a made up gun for Call of Duty. 

[Mickeypoo]

(10-07-2020, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I tried to find an article on this that wasn't from a gun blog, but it's an interesting topic so I'll type it out.

There is a company called Q that produces a firearm called the Honey Badger.



Now, if you think this is a rifle, you would be wrong. With a barrel at 7 inches, this would be a short-barreled rifle (SBR) because any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is classified as such. However, this is not intended to be shoulder mounted. What looks like a stock is a "stabilizing brace" that is designed to strap to your arm to stabilize the weapon so it can be used as a pistol. There has been a lot of back and forth on this and the ATF has never been a fan of these things. There was a time when shouldering it made it an SBR, but holding it as designed was fine. Then the ATF backed off of that. The issue is that while this looks like it is intended to be shouldered, intent is very difficult to prove.

Well, two months ago, Q was sent a cease-and-desist from the ATF regarding this firearm saying that it is an SBR. This has sent shockwaves throughout the firearm community as it is a whole new regulatory position from the agency and they didn't go through any of the typical public input.

Anyway, just some interesting stuff going on. I know not everyone here will know about AR pistols and how that all works. Personally, I'm against the NFA classification of SBRs, but I also think the whole "stabilizing brace" work around was a crock. I think I've seen one used as "intended" one time, ever. Every other time they have been shouldered. As a process guy, though, the ATF pulling this out of their collective asses is a highly concerning situation.

Can you help me understand why it matters if it has a stabilizing brace or not?  What exactly is the issue with this type of gun?

It looks badass and I would buy one!  lol.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I tried to find an article on this that wasn't from a gun blog, but it's an interesting topic so I'll type it out.

There is a company called Q that produces a firearm called the Honey Badger.



Now, if you think this is a rifle, you would be wrong. With a barrel at 7 inches, this would be a short-barreled rifle (SBR) because any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is classified as such. However, this is not intended to be shoulder mounted. What looks like a stock is a "stabilizing brace" that is designed to strap to your arm to stabilize the weapon so it can be used as a pistol. There has been a lot of back and forth on this and the ATF has never been a fan of these things. There was a time when shouldering it made it an SBR, but holding it as designed was fine. Then the ATF backed off of that. The issue is that while this looks like it is intended to be shouldered, intent is very difficult to prove.

Well, two months ago, Q was sent a cease-and-desist from the ATF regarding this firearm saying that it is an SBR. This has sent shockwaves throughout the firearm community as it is a whole new regulatory position from the agency and they didn't go through any of the typical public input.

Anyway, just some interesting stuff going on. I know not everyone here will know about AR pistols and how that all works. Personally, I'm against the NFA classification of SBRs, but I also think the whole "stabilizing brace" work around was a crock. I think I've seen one used as "intended" one time, ever. Every other time they have been shouldered. As a process guy, though, the ATF pulling this out of their collective asses is a highly concerning situation.

I thought about making a thread on this, but concluded it would be dismissed by some as more 2A nonsense from SSF.  As you say the whole initial classification.  However, I think your description is a bit off.  An SBR can have a stock, and most often do.  It's the AR "pistol" that has the stabilizing brace that's ostensibly meant to be strapped to your forearm.  The ridiculous part of this is that the minute to you put this "stabilizing brace" to your shoulder you've just committed a felony as your firearm is considered a pistol and not an SBR because you didn't get your tax stamp to be allowed to have an SBR.

All that being said, you've hit on something that has annoyed the piss out of the firearms industry, and gun owners, for years about the ATF, they're capricious and mercurial in terms of firearms classifications.  This feature makes this firearm a "destructive device" and therefore verboten.  This feature does not change your firearm to an AOW (any other weapon).  Your shotgun cannot have a barrel shorter than 18.5" or you go bye bye.  Don't even get me started on effing 922r import restrictions.  Quite honestly, all this classification nonsense needs to go.  It's intensely confusing and subject to change at will.  It can turn law abiding citizens into felons overnight through zero fault of their own, all while real criminals are getting fewer and fewer punitive consequences.

Solution, let law abiding citizens have what they want.  If you feel a certain class of firearms needs to be restricted, pass a law regarding that class of firearms and see if it passes Constitutional scrutiny.  Otherwise leave it alone.  The whole tax stamp concept is outdated as hell as well, but that's a different conversation.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I thought about making a thread on this, but concluded it would be dismissed by some as more 2A nonsense from SSF.  As you say the whole initial classification.  However, I think your description is a bit off.  An SBR can have a stock, and most often do.  It's the AR "pistol" that has the stabilizing brace that's ostensibly meant to be strapped to your forearm.  The ridiculous part of this is that the minute to you put this "stabilizing brace" to your shoulder you've just committed a felony as your firearm is considered a pistol and not an SBR because you didn't get your tax stamp to be allowed to have an SBR.

I may not have been very clear in my explanation, but this is what I was trying to say. Essentially, this weapon with a stock is an SBR and with a "stabilizing brace" it is a "pistol." One rquires a stamp, the other doesn't.

(10-07-2020, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All that being said, you've hit on something that has annoyed the piss out of the firearms industry, and gun owners, for years about the ATF, they're capricious and mercurial in terms of firearms classifications.  This feature makes this firearm a "destructive device" and therefore verboten.  This feature does not change your firearm to an AOW (any other weapon).  Your shotgun cannot have a barrel shorter than 18.5" or you go bye bye.  Don't even get me started on effing 922r import restrictions.  Quite honestly, all this classification nonsense needs to go.  It's intensely confusing and subject to change at will.  It can turn law abiding citizens into felons overnight through zero fault of their own, all while real criminals are getting fewer and fewer punitive consequences.

Solution, let law abiding citizens have what they want.  If you feel a certain class of firearms needs to be restricted, pass a law regarding that class of firearms and see if it passes Constitutional scrutiny.  Otherwise leave it alone.  The whole tax stamp concept is outdated as hell as well, but that's a different conversation.

I don't own any firearms that the ATF gets in a tizzy about, but even I find it all annoying. I agree with you about the tax stamp. We need to get rid of it because all it does it increase the price of these items and make it less attainable for the common people. Same thing for machine guns. But that's a whole long discussion about how gun control laws help perpetuate class inequity and oppress the prole...I mean citizenry.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 12:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Can you help me understand why it matters if it has a stabilizing brace or not?  What exactly is the issue with this type of gun?

It looks badass and I would buy one!  lol.

SSF covered this a little better, but the tl;dr version it: if a firearm that is not a shotgun has a barrel under 16" and a stock on it, then it is a short-barreled rifle and is taxed and regulated by the ATF. If it has a "stabilizing brace" then it is classified as a pistol and therefore is exempt from the tax stamp.

Further into the weeds on this: the law requires additional paperwork and a tax stamp for certain "destructive devices." These include machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles (SBRs). If you have such a weapon and do not have the tax stamp from the ATF, then it's off to the federal pen for you. The worst part about this law, to me anyway, is that the scrutiny for these stamps is not any more than the background check for buying any firearm (at least in my state, anyway), but it costs additional money and takes a hell of a long time, meaning it is nothing more than a regulatory hurdle that makes these items less affordable for the working and middle classes.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-07-2020, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: SSF covered this a little better, but the tl;dr version it: if a firearm that is not a shotgun has a barrel under 16" and a stock on it, then it is a short-barreled rifle and is taxed and regulated by the ATF. If it has a "stabilizing brace" then it is classified as a pistol and therefore is exempt from the tax stamp.

Further into the weeds on this: the law requires additional paperwork and a tax stamp for certain "destructive devices." These include machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles (SBRs). If you have such a weapon and do not have the tax stamp from the ATF, then it's off to the federal pen for you. The worst part about this law, to me anyway, is that the scrutiny for these stamps is not any more than the background check for buying any firearm (at least in my state, anyway), but it costs additional money and takes a hell of a long time, meaning it is nothing more than a regulatory hurdle that makes these items less affordable for the working and middle classes.

Thanks for the info.

[masonbengals fan]

Interesting thread...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 01:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: SSF covered this a little better, but the tl;dr version it: if a firearm that is not a shotgun has a barrel under 16" and a stock on it, then it is a short-barreled rifle and is taxed and regulated by the ATF. If it has a "stabilizing brace" then it is classified as a pistol and therefore is exempt from the tax stamp.

Further into the weeds on this: the law requires additional paperwork and a tax stamp for certain "destructive devices." These include machine guns, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles (SBRs). If you have such a weapon and do not have the tax stamp from the ATF, then it's off to the federal pen for you. The worst part about this law, to me anyway, is that the scrutiny for these stamps is not any more than the background check for buying any firearm (at least in my state, anyway), but it costs additional money and takes a hell of a long time, meaning it is nothing more than a regulatory hurdle that makes these items less affordable for the working and middle classes.

Bel is not even remotely exaggerating as to how long your SBR or suppressor tax stamp will take to acquire.  It can be close to a year.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel is not even remotely exaggerating as to how long your SBR or suppressor tax stamp will take to acquire.  It can be close to a year.  

Yeah, and since it's federal it doesn't matter where you are. Even folks in Texas have to have their suppressors in ATF jail for that long. One reason I am up on this is because I've looked into all this because a suppressor is actually something that can be of value in hunting, but it's a little too cost prohibitive for me right now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, and since it's federal it doesn't matter where you are. Even folks in Texas have to have their suppressors in ATF jail for that long. One reason I am up on this is because I've looked into all this because a suppressor is actually something that can be of value in hunting, but it's a little too cost prohibitive for me right now.

Not only for hunting, but it's easier on your hearing as well.  Also, contrary to popular belief a suppressor in no ways renders the firearm silent.  I know you know this, just an FYI for others reading the thread.  The suppressor itself doesn't cost much at all.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-07-2020, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not only for hunting, but it's easier on your hearing as well.  Also, contrary to popular belief a suppressor in no ways renders the firearm silent.  I know you know this, just an FYI for others reading the thread.  The suppressor itself doesn't cost much at all.

SSF, I think you're mistaken. I am pretty sure if they let everyone have silencers then everywhere would be subject to silent gun battles:






It would be chaos.

[fredtoast]

As you all know I am in favor of gun regulations, but this type of stuff is silly and accomplishes nothing.

It is like letting people sell plutonium but only if it is in an orange box.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 04:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: SSF, I think you're mistaken. I am pretty sure if they let everyone have silencers then everywhere would be subject to silent gun battles:






It would be chaos.

We had a case in which some gang members use a suppressed weapon.  Only problem was they didn't use subsonic ammunition which defeats the whole point.  Needless to say they pulled some heavy time.  Just an FYI to everyone, it's extremely rare to encounter suppressed weapons in the hands of criminals.  That's the only one I've dealt with personally in close to twenty years on the job.

[*bfine32*]

I own a revolver that shoots shotgun shells.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I own a revolver that shoots shotgun shells.

The Judge?

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2020, 07:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Judge?

Yes. My niece has the S&W equivalent The Governor 

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 05:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Just an FYI to everyone, it's extremely rare to encounter suppressed weapons in the hands of criminals.  That's the only one I've dealt with personally in close to twenty years on the job.

Proof that criminals who use suppressors are more likely to get way with their crimes.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes. My niece has the S&W equivalent The Governor 

A friend of mine got one as his snake gun. Runs into one little rattlesnake on his property and he needs to carry a .410 around for protection.

With my uncle's passing in August, I ended up inheriting his collection. Within the past year I went from having one firearm in my home to 13 between my uncle and my father (and one purchase). I mean, some were mine, already, but they just moved to my house because of circumstances.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 07:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Judge?

(10-07-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes. My niece has the S&W equivalent The Governor 

(10-07-2020, 07:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A friend of mine got one as his snake gun. Runs into one little rattlesnake on his property and he needs to carry a .410 around for protection.

With my uncle's passing in August, I ended up inheriting his collection. Within the past year I went from having one firearm in my home to 13 between my uncle and my father (and one purchase). I mean, some were mine, already, but they just moved to my house because of circumstances.

Heh, you guys have run into the gunowner snobbery holy grail of sins.  Those .45 long colt/.410 revolvers are almost universally held in disdain by the "serious" gun owning community.