Page 73 of 83 FirstFirst ... 23637172737475 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 824

Thread: Advice on weaponry

  1. #721
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.thetrace.org/2017/04/per...ncealed-carry/

    Peruta v. California: The Supreme Court’s Next Big Gun Case?
    The Justices are deciding whether to hear a case that could determine whether there's a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public spaces.

    BY NORA BIETTE-TIMMONS AND OLIVIA LI
    April 13, 2017

    Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.

    Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.

    Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.

    Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.

    On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California, which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago. The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist, but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.

    What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

    Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon. How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta.

    Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms?

    Yes, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to protect oneself with a firearm. But the facts of that case were about having a firearm in the home: The Washington, D.C., gun ordinance underlying that 2008 case banned some types of guns and required firearms kept in personal residences to be disassembled and unloaded. And residences were the explicit focus of the majority decision in Heller, in which Scalia argued that the Second Amendment “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

    So, in other words, the Supreme Court has so far said that policymakers can still set their own standards for allowing people to carry guns in public?

    Heller seems to leave room for that, especially when it comes to concealed weapons. Here’s the relevant section from the decision:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.
    What’s taken the Supreme Court so long to resolve the question of whether there’s a right to carry in public?

    Well, for starters, the court only grants cert (that is, agrees to hear arguments and rule on a case) to a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives. And in the years since Heller, it’s likely that the justices haven’t felt like they’ve seen a good case on this particular question of carrying guns in public. If the justices decide that Peruta is not the suit to determine if the right to carry a gun extends outside the home, there’s at least one other upcoming case on the issue — Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia — that the court could agree to hear.

    Is this case more likely to be granted cert now that Gorsuch is on the court?

    “As a matter of basic arithmetic, yes,” says Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke University who part of Washington, D.C.’s legal team in the Heller case. “It’s easier to get four votes when you’ve got nine justices.” But Blocher also notes that even with Scalia’s former seat now filled, petitioners in gun cases face another obstacle to getting their cases heard. “Replacing him with Gorsuch doesn’t really up the odds that much. Besides Scalia, [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito are the only ones who have supported a cert grant since Heller.”

    In order for Peruta to be granted cert, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito would need a fourth justice — most likely Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts — to also agree that the case should go forward for a full hearing.

    What do gun-rights lawyers cite as the constitutional basis for carrying guns in public?

    We put this one to Dave Kopel, a leading pro-gun legal scholar.

    Heller describes in detail what the words in the Second Amendment mean. What are “arms?” What is “keep?” What is “bear?” Some people have said “bear” is a technical term that only means carrying arms while serving in the militia. Heller says no, “bear” means to carry arms in general.
    In addition, Kopel argues, when the court used Heller to lay out how guns can be regulated, it was de facto emphasizing that the right to bear arms extends to carrying them in public.

    They say it’s okay to ban guns for convicted felons and the mentally ill. That’s an exception that tells you there’s a right, in general, to keep and bear arms. The fact that you need to name the exception tells you what the rule is. Likewise, Heller says conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns are okay. That tells you that selling guns, in general, is a constitutional right. The other exception they state is that it’s okay to ban the carrying of guns in “sensitive places” such as “schools and government buildings.” Well, again, that tells you there’s a right to carry guns in general, but you can make certain limits in spaces that are sensitive. If there wasn’t a right to carry outside your home, you wouldn’t need exceptions.
    Given that Gorsuch is an uber-originalist, will he find evidence for a right to carry in public in the text of the Second Amendment?

    Maybe — but Blocher notes that originalist interpretations of the Second Amendment can also cut either way. Scalia’s famous Heller opinion certainly used an originalist argument — but so did the dissenting justices who argued that the right to bear arms did not extend outside the “militia” context described in the Bill of Rights.

    The lower court opinion affirming San Diego County’s decision to reject Peruta’s permit application was also heavily originalist. In that opinion, Judge William Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited sources from the 13th century, the Revolutionary War, and Reconstruction to illustrate that the right to bear arms does not necessarily include the right to bear arms in public.

    Let’s go back to California, where this particular case started. How does the state handle issuing concealed carry permits?

    Like most states, each county sheriff’s office is responsible for issuing concealed weapons permits. California is a “may issue” state, which means that its sheriffs have broad discretion over who gets a permit.

    In San Diego County, the sheriff may issue a permit if an applicant meets these criteria:

    - The applicant is of good moral character
    - The applicant demonstrates good cause for the issuance of the license
    - The applicant presents proof of residency within San Diego County

    Are there alternatives to a “may issue” system for concealed carry permits?

    You’re on to it: Indeed, the majority of states follow “shall issue” permitting schemes. That means if an applicant meets the criteria for a permit, the issuing authority must grant them a permit. Put simply, “shall issue” states remove discretion from law enforcement.

    So what is Peruta arguing in this case?

    That San Diego County’s “good cause” requirements are too strict because they basically preclude the ability to carry a gun in public. The county’s specific provision defines “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

    So what would happen to the “good cause” requirements if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Peruta?

    States and municipalities that have “good cause” permitting requirements would have to make sure those stipulations aren’t too restrictive. A decision in favor of Peruta wouldn’t necessarily mean that states could no longer place any restrictions on concealed gun carry, however. “The question is not the absolute one of whether states are going to allow public carry,” Blocher said. Because, in practice, every state already does.

    Why didn’t Peruta go about Southern California while armed, and just not conceal his firearm?

    Because California doesn’t allow open carry. Peruta is saying he’s stuck between a rock (the good cause requirement) and a hard place (the ban on open carry).

    So why isn’t he filing suit against California’s open carry rule?

    He hasn’t said, but here’s a fair guess: He probably thinks he has a better shot at changing a rule in his county — the “good cause” restrictions — than he does changing a statewide law.

  2. Likes D-Dub, Uwe liked this post
  3. #722
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-so-since-1983

    Trump to Speak at NRA Forum, First President to Do So Since 1983

    by Toluse Olorunnipa
    April 14, 2017, 7:08 PM EDT

    President Donald Trump will speak at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention on April 28, becoming the first U.S. president to address the gun-rights group since Ronald Reagan in 1983.

    “The NRA is honored to have the president address our annual meeting at the leadership forum,” said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the NRA. “We’re excited to once again have a president who respects the Second Amendment.”

    The NRA endorsed Trump’s bid for president last May, after the then-candidate addressed the group’s annual forum in Louisville, Kentucky. Trump pledged at the time to “save our Second Amendment” and appoint judges which would support expansive gun rights.

    His return visit to speak to the group’s 2017 Leadership Forum in Atlanta is likely to appeal to Trump’s base at a time when he has received criticism for reversing himself on promises to his most ardent supporters. At the same time, Trump’s speech to the influential lobby could repel Democrats and moderates who have been chafing under his presidency and have blocked some of his proposals from advancing in Congress.

    The visit is scheduled for April 28, the last day of government funding under the current spending bill. If Congress doesn’t pass a new spending measure by that day, the government faces a partial shutdown.

    Applauding Gorsuch

    While Trump has not yet signed significant legislation or executive orders on gun rights, his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was hailed by the NRA. Gorsuch took the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last year and was part of a 5-4 majority in the pivotal D.C. v. Heller case. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

    The previous two Republican presidents -- George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush -- didn’t address the group during their presidencies. The younger Bush sent his vice president, Dick Cheney, to address the NRA’s convention in 2004 as he was seeking re-election. The elder Bush wrote a letter terminating his membership from the group in 1995 after an NRA fundraising letter described some federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.”

    The White House confirmed Trump’s speaking plan, but didn’t offer additional comments.

    Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, is an advocate of assault-weapon restrictions and serves on the advisory board of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group.

  4. Likes Uwe liked this post
  5. #723
    Administrator Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had a pretty good night at the range.

    First 5 shots of the night were with my S&W Victory .22LR pistol freehand with iron sights at 25 yards with CCI Standard Velocity:



    Next up was my Marlin Camp 9 Carbine with iron sights (I just installed a lower-profile see-through channel type of Picatinny rail so I can barely make out the top of the rear sight but it works:



    Next, the Kel-Tec Sub-2000 using the stock iron sights:



    Lastly, because I am goofy and enjoy this sort of thing, I loaded up one single Mec-Gar SW59-type 17 round magazine and fired 5 shots with my S&W 910 "Truck Gun" pistol (squares drawn around those holes, about 4 inches center to center) then popped the mag out and put it into the Kel-Tec for 5 shots (triangles drawn around those holes, about 2 inches center to center) then popped the mag out and put it in the Marlin and fired 5 shots (circles drawl around those, about 2.5 inches center to center). That left me with an empty mag but a chambered round in the S&W 910 and in the Kel-Tec so I shot each of those as the "bonus". Also I forgot the S&W has that dumb mag safety so I squeezed the dead trigger a few times before inserting and empty mag so I could fire.


  6. #724
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like




    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/2...dangerous-isis

    Former University Professor Suggests the NRA Is 'More Dangerous' Than ISIS

    Apr 22, 2017 // 7:25am
    As seen on Fox & Friends Weekend

    A former University of Missouri journalism professor is suggesting that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is more dangerous than ISIS.

    George Kennedy, former managing editor at the Columbia Missourian newspaper and professor emeritus at the university's prestigious journalism school, brought up the comparison in a column published Thursday by the Missourian.

    "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a terrorist organization founded in 1999, headquartered in Syria and feared around the world. The NRA was founded in [1871], headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and is feared by politicians across America," Kennedy wrote.

    He continued: "What makes the Islamic State so feared it its willingness to kill in pursuit of its goal of creating a fundamentalist caliphate."

    "What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone."

    Kennedy's column sparked outrage among Second Amendment advocates and gun owners. One of them, David Webb, joined "Fox & Friends Weekend" this morning to sound off.

    Webb accused Kennedy of setting up a "false premise," in which he compares the number of people killed by ISIS to the number killed by gun violence.

    "Here's what I'm saying to America: Don't get drawn in to it," Webb said. "It's not relative one to the other."

    He added that Kennedy was also wrong when he claimed that ISIS has only killed nine Americans, noting that he conveniently left out those killed in ISIS-inspired terror attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino.

    "The NRA advocates for proper training, proper laws, proper law enforcement and obeying the laws as they exist under the Second Amendment," Webb said. "They're not for the wild, wild West, as they like to put it out there in these little elitist theories."

  7. #725
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    I bet that RT's tech support line has not ever received a call like this before.....

    http://taskandpurpose.com/m-107-fire...tomer-service/

    A Marine’s M107 Sniper Rifle Failed During A Firefight — So He Called Customer Service

    By JARED KELLER
    April 23, 2017

    The Barrett M107 .50-caliber long-range sniper rifle is a firearm made for the modern war on terrorism. Officially adopted by the U.S. Army in 2002 and boasting a 2,000-meter range, a suppressor-ready muzzle brake, and recoil-minimizing design, the semi-automatic offers “greater range and lethality against personnel and materiel targets than other sniper systems in the U.S. inventory,” in an assessment by Military.com.

    While Barrett’s reputation of “flawless reliability” has made the M107 the sniper weapon of choice, the rifle is just like any other essential tool: It often breaks when you need it most. And that’s apparently what happened to one Marine Corps unit pinned down in a firefight, according to one of Barrett’s longtime armorers.

    Don Cook, a Marine veteran who’s been maintaining M107s for more than two decades, told National Geographic in 2011 that he one day received a call to Barrett’s workshop from a harried young Marine. During maintenance of the unit’s M107, the Marine had bent the ears of the rifle’s lower receiver; the next day, after engaging the enemy, they discovered the rifle wouldn’t fire consistently.

    Despite the unit’s lack of tools (and time), Cook knew exactly what to do. The armorer instructed the Marines to use the bottom of the carrier to bend the ears back down. Within 45 seconds, the weapon was firing properly. “Thank you very much,” Cook says they told him, then he heard a dial tone. They had a firefight to get back to.

    “It’s probably one of the biggest highlights of my life, to be able to help a Marine unit during a firefight,” Cook told National Geographic.

    Watch him recount the incident himself in this excerpt from Sniper Inc, the National Geographic documentary about the Barrett family and the story of the M107 (the story begins at 9:26).



  8. Likes D-Dub, Andy liked this post
  9. #726
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...lass-citizens/

    Second Amendment -- Or Second-Class Citizens?

    APR 24, 2017 @ 07:30 AM
    George Leef , CONTRIBUTOR
    I write on the damage big government does, especially to education.

    In our “blue” states, many politicians have a deep animosity toward private ownership of firearms. (Yes, you also find some like that in “red” states, but they seldom have the political clout to do much damage to our Second Amendment rights.)

    California is the prime example of a state where the dominant political class abhors guns and does all it can to hamper individuals who own and carry them. A recent action of the state legislature makes that point and has led to a lawsuit that will be heard later this year by the Ninth Circuit.

    Among the state’s many useless and symbolic laws is its “gun free school zone” law, which would do nothing to stop a determined killer from storming into a school and shooting students, teachers, and anyone else. But the state wrote an exception into that law for retired law enforcement officials and citizens who held a concealed carry permit. Those individuals could bring their weapons with them onto school grounds.

    But in 2015, the anti-gun forces in California wanted to eliminate that exception and pushed a bill in the state legislature. That bill provoked a storm of lobbying by interest groups. The ones that were successful were those favoring police and government workers. They managed to get the bill changed so that the retired peace officer exception was retained. Regular civilians who have concealed carry permits, however, had no such clout in the legislature and the bill was signed into law removing only their exception.

    Who cares?

    One person who does is Dr. Ulises Garcia. Dr. Garcia applied for and obtained a concealed carry permit several years ago after a former patient had made threats against him. As a result of the change in the gun free school zone law, he can no longer carry his weapon if he attends school functions with his children. For no good reason, he has been deprived of his rights. Indeed, he is now in violation of the law if he should come within 1000 feet of a school with his gun.

    Dr. Garcia and a number of other plaintiffs filed suit against this discriminatory law in federal court. Their argument is that the state’s different treatment of two groups of citizens (retired peace officers and others who have concealed carry permits) is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.

    When their case, Garcia, et al v. Becerra, was heard in federal district court, Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed its Equal Protection argument that the law had been “enacted for the improper purpose of favoring a politically powerful group and to disfavor a politically unpopular one.” Judge O’Connell waived away that claim in a single paragraph, stating “The legislative history of the Act here does not indicate that the California Legislature was trying to prejudice civilian firearm owners when it retained the Retired Peace Officers Exemption Absent evidence of explicit legislative intent to cause harm to civilian gun owners, Plaintiffs cannot establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause….”

    So Americans can’t win an Equal Protection suit unless they’re able to find statements in the legislative history of discriminatory intent?! If that were the law, then such suits would never succeed for the obvious reason that politicians are too cagey to declare that they intend to help certain groups and damage others in their official deliberations.

    Fortunately, a ton of legal precedent says that courts must look deeper than the legislative history of a bill when faced with a denial of equal protection claim. The Garcia case has come to the attention of the Cato Institute’s crack legal team, which has submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit, seeking a reversal of Judge O’Connell’s breezy decision.

    In their brief, Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry point out that Supreme Court precedents going back to the 19th Century establish that courts must not look at the words politicians choose to utter, but to their actual, often covert, motives.

    Consider, e.g., the case Ho Ah Kow v. Hunan, an 1879 circuit court decision written by Justice Stephen Field. (In those days, Supreme Court justices still had to “ride circuit” and hear cases in the judicial circuit to which they are assigned.) San Francisco had passed a city ordinance stating that any male taken into police custody would have his hair cut to a one-inch length. Two facts stood out to Justice Field: this ordinance would have almost no impact on prisoners other than Chinese men, who often wore their hair in a ponytail and it served no sanitary or disciplinary purpose.

    Field struck down the law as a violation of equal protection, motivated by nothing more than animus against the Chinese. He wrote, “When we take our seats on the bench we are not struck with blindness, and forbidden to know as judges what we see as men.”

    In the 20th Century, the Supreme Court often struck down laws where an improper motive to single out some group for unequal treatment could be inferred from the effects of the law. In Rogers v. Lodge, for instance, the Court struck down a voting procedure in Georgia that it found to be targeted at black voters. Quoting from the Cato brief, “Despite no ‘smoking gun’ in the legislative record the Court reiterated Davis’s ‘totality of the relevant facts’ approach and engaged in a detailed historical analysis of Georgia’s voting laws. This history proved to be determinative, because, as the Court made clear, ‘evidence of historical discrimination is irrelevant to drawing an inference of purposeful discrimination.’”

    If judges look only at the legislative history of a challenged law, that, write Shapiro and Berry “dangerously narrows the universe of evidence they must examine to determine legislative motivation.”

    That’s correct, but I’m pretty sure that the judge would have looked diligently for improper legislative motives had the group in question not been civilian gun owners, but instead a favored political group such as prisoners of a certain ethnicity or voters of a certain race. Californians who exercise their Second Amendment rights are treated as second-class citizens.

    Now we will see if the infamous Ninth Circuit chooses to follow Supreme Court precedent, rule that it is not sufficient for a judge to toss out an equal protection case after only a look at the legislative history, and send the case back for further deliberations. If so, Judge O’Connell should ponder if there is any reason why people like Dr. Garcia, who has a concealed carry permit for a good reason, should be prevented from bringing his weapon on school grounds while retired peace officers (a category including employees of the California Department of Fish and Game) who are not likely to be subject to such dangers are allowed to.

    Or will the Ninth Circuit engage in its customary habit of results-oriented judging and turn a blind eye to the plain fact that civilian concealed carry holders have been denied equal protection of the law simply because they are a disfavored group with no clout in the state legislature?

  10. Likes D-Dub, Uwe liked this post
  11. #727
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/27/...st-shot-needs/

    The AR Pistol Brace Approval May Give The Gun Industry Just The Shot It Needs

    America’s top firearms enforcement agency approved a gun accessory it formerly banned. This could have major implications for industry and even undercut more than 80 years of gun control.

    By Christian Lowe
    APRIL 27, 2017

    In an obscure ruling penned in an eight-paragraph letter to a little-known gun parts maker, America’s top firearms law enforcement agency reversed an earlier decision on the legal use of a gun accessory that could have major implications for industry and may even undercut more than 80 years of gun control.

    Developed by military veteran Alex Bosco to help his wounded warrior friend shoot heavier handguns more easily at the local firing range, the SB-Tactical pistol stabilizing brace was largely considered a curiosity by most of the shooting public when it was released in 2013.

    Intended for use on so-called AR-15 pistols — which look and function like a standard AR-15 rifle, but have barrels shorter than 16 inches and do not include a shoulder stock — the SB-Tactical brace wrapped around a user’s arm so the shooter could fire the nose-heavy pistol more comfortably and accurately one-handed. The brace is made of a flexible plastic, attaches to the back end of an AR pistol, and looks a lot like a stock.





    Then Gun Enthusiasts Began Customizing
    That’s where the problems started cropping up. Relegated to the deepest recesses of the gun-nut public, AR pistols were mostly considered difficult to operate and impractical to own. They inhabited a loophole in the 1934 National Firearms Act that imposed heavy taxes and registration of any rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. So-called “short barreled rifles” were considered the nefarious tools of gangsters at the time, and in response to the Prohibition crime wave, Congress essentially banned SBRs from civilian ownership.

    But a pistol doesn’t fall into the purview of the restrictive National Firearms Act, so a gun that functions like a rifle but doesn’t have a stock and is “intended” to be shot using one hand was considered kosher under the law.

    Fast-forward 70 years, and the popularity and sheer adaptability of the AR-15 rifle posed a dilemma. The rifle’s “buffer tube” — which houses a spring and weight to help cycle the bolt during a shot — extends out beyond the butt end of the gun, making for an uncomfortable but serviceable part to press against a shooter’s shoulder. That still wasn’t enough to make the AR pistol much more than a range toy.

    When the SB-Tactical brace was released, however, with a letter from the gun-law-enforcing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms saying the device didn’t turn a pistol into a rifle, the gun world went nuts. Now these AR pistols could be outfitted with a brace that functioned like a stock in a pinch and the ATF said it was all above-board. It wasn’t long before firearms enthusiasts were flocking to gun stores buying AR pistols and slapping on an SB-Tactical brace for a poor-man’s — and legal — pseudo short-barreled rifle.

    When the ATF saw the hijinks, it issued a letter in 2015 that punched the industry in the gut, ruling that “misusing” the brace by putting it against your shoulder “remade” the pistol into a rifle and was therefore subject to the NFA’s draconian rules. Gun store owners shelved their pistols and shooters were scared to take their guns to the range for fear of becoming an instant felon.

    But on April 25, the ATF — after a concerted effort from gun owners and SB-Tactical — has “clarified” its 2015 ruling and said as long as the brace is installed as intended and isn’t modified in any way, putting it against a shoulder doesn’t miraculously turn it into a heavily-regulated SBR.

    This Affects You Even If You Don’t Use This Equipment
    Most everyday gun owners might ask, so what? I don’t have one of these weird guns, so what does this have to do with me?

    First off, the ruling could prove a shot in the arm to a firearms industry struggling after the election of President Donald Trump. With a full-throated endorsement from the NRA and a pro-gun campaign agenda, Trump’s embrace of gun rights has had the unintended consequence of depressing gun sales. The Obama-era panic buying is history, and that’s left a glut of “Hillary 2016” inventory sitting on shelves gathering dust — particularly AR-style rifles, which had been in the Clinton crosshairs for years.

    The new stabilizing brace ruling could stir up more interest in ARs from gun buyers who might now see the pistol version as a viable option. The ATF doesn’t allow owners to convert a rifle into a pistol, but there are plenty of pistols and other AR parts manufacturers out there who could really use a business boost.

    But the biggest, and perhaps most significant, effect of the ruling could be the undermining of the National Firearms Act. The technology of today has forced the feds to tie themselves in knots trying to write rules that comport to a gun law written when the Thompson submachine gun was the biggest threat and revolvers ruled the handgun world.

    What is a pistol? What is a rifle? Why does a stock make a pistol a rifle? Why does a vertical foregrip make a pistol an “Any Other Weapon” under ATF rules? It’s because the laws intended to ban what was around at the time, and times have changed a lot since then.

    These days gun owners know there’s zero difference whatsoever between a 10-inch-barreled AR-15 with a padded buffer tube and one with a true buttstock. Both do the exact same thing to a target, but one costs an extra $200 in taxes and a nine-month wait for registration, and the other does not. With new technology like the pistol brace challenging the boundaries of nearly century-old gun laws every year, it’s only a matter of time before the NFA dies a lonely death of bureaucratic irrelevance.

    Christian Lowe is the editorial director with military media company We Are The Mighty and the former editor of Shooting Sports Retailer magazine.

  12. Likes D-Dub, Uwe liked this post
  13. #728
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is it a shotgun (Business Insider article) or a pump-action rifle (taskandpurpose.com article)?????


    The new Kalashnikov Concern KSZ-223 semi-automatic shotgun. (Kalashnikov Concern)

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...shotgun-2017-5

    http://taskandpurpose.com/kalashnikov-shotgun-ksz-223/

  14. #729
    Benevolent Dictator Uwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    14,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by vreihen View Post
    Is it a shotgun (Business Insider article) or a pump-action rifle (taskandpurpose.com article)?????
    Clearly a pump-action rifle. But I'm not sure why anyone would want a pump-action rifle chambered in .223 that weighs nearly 10 pounds.
    Ceterum censeo, delenda est Daesh.

  15. Likes Eric liked this post
  16. #730
    Verified VCDS User vreihen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
    Posts
    3,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Uwe View Post
    But I'm not sure why anyone would want a pump-action rifle chambered in .223 that weighs nearly 10 pounds.
    The second article explains that it was a one-off run for a Russian competition shooting team, and I imagine that's their event rules.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •