Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

2
Great. A link to Q.
This guy perchance?
Image


Alas, no...
Ahh, maybe this fellow then...?
Image

Again, no....

So now my hopes are heightened! Could I again be visited by my dear friend Honey Badger who ...

Don't Give A Shit?

No such luck.

Word to the wise...
When ya don't want ATF&E coming after your ass, pulling your product, and perhaps chasing down every last one of your customers who accidentally and not on purpose bought your Not-SBR ...
Screenshot_2020-10-06-22-11-53_kindlephoto-355915654.png
you might want to rethink your marketing strategy...
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

4
Had to tell a fellow using the range I RSO for to stop using the brace on his pistol as a stock unless he had his paperwork. He started to get grumpy but I pointed out that, at any given time, we'll have feds training in our tactical room, and off duty cops shaking out the dust in preparation for their annual qualifying...

any of whom might decide to make his day.

Smart is being not stupid.
Subliterate Buffooery of the right...
Literate Ignorance of the left...
We Are So Screwed

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

7
ZenArcade wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:04 am ATF ISSUES CEASE & DESIST FOR HONEY BADGER PISTOL

https://www.liveqordie.com/wp-content/u ... inks-1.pdf

I’m sure other manufacturers (e.g CMMG) won’t be affected. /s
More of the ATF trying to justify its existence.

This reminds me of the pistol brace debacle in which the ATF issued a letter widely interpreted to suggest one could not shoulder a brace while firing
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-d ... nfa-stamp/ (within article)
and then later issued a letter stating the opposite
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-co ... .21.17.pdf.

But even after the first letter was issued, the ATF had issued guidance stating people were not violating its arbitrary rules simply by shouldering braces. Regardless, fudd RSOs have seized the opportunity to bother people for shouldering braces. I keep my letter in the case, but I also don't belong to a fudd club.

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

8
Yes, I also seemed to recall such a mythical letter (allowing the shouldering if arm braces) but decided to withhold my comment due to the mercurial nature of ATF officials in general. It would seem that letter would come in handy during a court trial so be sure to make multiple copies to hand to your attorney. And hopefully it will also help convince the judge to allow bail pending one’s actual trial.
Yup.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

9
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:57 am Couldn't one just put a 16" barrel on it instead? Wouldn't that make it NOT an SBR?
In the same way that one could wrap a plastic flap around an AR-15 “pistol grip” and have the rifle...

Ah, screw it. I’m too tired.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

11
Bisbee wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:03 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:57 am Couldn't one just put a 16" barrel on it instead? Wouldn't that make it NOT an SBR?
In the same way that one could wrap a plastic flap around an AR-15 “pistol grip” and have the rifle...

Ah, screw it. I’m too tired.
I dunno. NJ's pretty damn strict on that--fixed stock, 16" barrel, minimum (but a welded-on muzzle break counts as part of the length). Overall length of, I believe 29.5". And Cal rejects pistol grips.
"Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges."--George Carlin

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

13
Ammoland:
Rogue ATF Leadership Targets the Honey Badger & Gun Voters Before the Election
This case is different. Nine months ago, The Depart of Justice (DOJ) instructed the ATF’s industry side not to move on braces until all parties could agree on standards. Unlike bump stocks, multiple companies have sold millions of braces to Americans, and the industry was working with the ATF to develop the new regulations.

Since the ATF could not use their industry side to go after Q because of DOJ limitations, the agency decided to use its criminal arm to send a Cease & Desist Letter and accuse the company of selling unregistered SBRs. Sources inside the ATF tell AmmoLand that the investigation and subsequent letter was a result of how Q marketed the Honey Badger. After trying to resolve the issue with ATF, Q went public with a letter to their customers advising them of the ongoing situation and the legal jeopardy.
Sources also tell AmmoLand News that Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson, another career bureaucrat, has an ax-to-grind against pistol braces and belives they violate the NFA but doesn’t think that they have the political capital to make a move against the millions of accessories under a Trump presidency. Those inside ATF with knowledge of the situation told AmmoLand News that higher-ups at the ATF believe that they will have the political capital and cover to go after braces under an anti-gun Biden administration.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

15
AmmoLand New’s sources inside the agency say she is not loyal to the president.
Who would be just as likely to effectively ban braces by having the ATF reclassify them as Biden would.
The same unnamed sources...
A mark of garbage journalism widely used by media outlets people still hold dear.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

19
This is just ridiculous. Nothing will be resolved by such an action and failure to object to such measures is a failure of everything our positions stand for. Either we believe in our positions or we do not. If we do believe then contemplating future tax stamp options is a mistake and also reveals privilege. At some point, there will come a point where giving in means a total loss of a right. I do not like where that will lead and how that will adversely effect the ones with the least means. I recall our conversation on the pump stocks, it’s a gimmick, a gadget and it’s loss was not seen as significant. If the same is now done to a brace, then what is the next item that is deemed acceptable to restrict with a two hundred dollar tax stamp, a trigger group perhaps. No, it’s time to draw a line and demand that problems are addressed by their root causes and not by items some authoritarian billionaire and his elite cronies want taken away. Shame on us if we do not resist and demand better.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

20
the relevant distinctions here are whether a weapon actually performs as a semi- or full auto, and whether it is operable as a handgun or a rifle. bump stocks and arm braces are, and always were, an attempt to circumvent the law by mincing those distinctions. but that doesn't change the fact that the weapons so equipped perform as full-auto and as rifles.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

21
lurker wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:17 am the relevant distinctions here are whether a weapon actually performs as a semi- or full auto, and whether it is operable as a handgun or a rifle. bump stocks and arm braces are, and always were, an attempt to circumvent the law by mincing those distinctions. but that doesn't change the fact that the weapons so equipped perform as full-auto and as rifles.
There was always that one kid on the playground who seemed to relish finding every little way to get around actually playing by the rules of the game. The advertisement included in the second post in this thread shows that in this case "Q", the maker of Honey Badger pistols is still that kid.

Good move ATF. Give him a time out and take away his gold star.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

23
lurker wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:38 am that's why we're here, to point out that the vast majority of gun-control efforts are misdirected. they should be trying to address violence-prevention instead. but these guys are just trying to create a linguistic loophole with which to subvert existing law.
Bingo! Unfortunately there’s more money behind the groups like bloomie’s moms.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh

24
lurker wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:17 am the relevant distinctions here are whether a weapon actually performs as a semi- or full auto, and whether it is operable as a handgun or a rifle. bump stocks and arm braces are, and always were, an attempt to circumvent the law by mincing those distinctions. but that doesn't change the fact that the weapons so equipped perform as full-auto and as rifles.
It's an unjust law.

Just as the ATF doesn't have the political capital to outlaw braces right now, gun owners don't have the political capital to overturn the unjust NFA.

Braces are a (hopefully temporary) fix for that. I won't fault anyone for using them in any way that they see legally fit.

SBRs aren't any more dangerous than a 20" barreled rifle. In fact, muzzle velocity decreases with the shorter barrel so they would be less-lethal.

As for concealment, I find that a bit of a stretch, seeing as most criminals are going to use a handgun to commit crimes, not rifles of any sort, and the data solidly reflects that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron