ATF Rules Honey Badger Pistol is an SBR

[oldag]

I wonder why they picked the Honey badger to rule as an SBR. What makes it different from an AR556 pistol or 300 BO pistol with the SBA brace? This is not good.

I suspect the below comment from that page is correct:

The “Honey Badger” has a “custom made pistol brace” different than other SB Tactical braces. It seems that the bats are using this insignificant difference to re-con-screw “the intent” of its use to become a “shoulder stock” rather than an “arm brace”. This is purely speculation as no one really knows what goes on inside a bat’s brain.

 

[Shady]

my understanding is if it has a length of pull over 13" then it is no longer a brace.

I may be misremembering the 13" so check before you cut down your LOP.

 

[oldag]

https://gunowners.org/na10072020/?u...6fee390&utm_source=Email&utm_term=Take Action

GOA contact Trump webpage

 

[oldag]

my understanding is if it has a length of pull over 13" then it is no longer a brace.

I may be misremembering the 13" so check before you cut down your LOP.

And if I recall correctly, the ATF has never codified the LOP limit.

 

[Shady]

And if I recall correctly, the ATF has never codified the LOP limit.

this is the letter sent to shockwave

 

[etmo]

Infringement is still infringement. We need to unite against this.

GOA has a page up now where you can send Trump an email asking him to stomp on the ATF about this.

ATF is definitely in the wrong here, and I would run this up to SCOTUS in a heartbeat (except by the time you got there, ATF could easily moot the case). If Barrett is seated as a Justice, and we assume she is a Scalia disciple, well, Scalia wrote the opinion in FCC v Fox Television, which is a famous case on the requirements put on an agency -- what it must and must not do -- when changing it's mind about its regulations.

The case makes clear than if an agency changes its mind on a position, it is required by law to articulate a reasoned explanation as to why. Also, there is an additional burden placed on any agency changing its position on any matter where it has "engendered serious reliance interests" that the explanation must be detailed. Obv pistol braces, being the only thing between a pistol owner and a violation of the NFA, create a serious reliance interest, so not only would a reasoned explanation be required before any change of position, a detailed, reasoned explanation would be required.

Qs lawyers have it right on this one, the NFA has overstepped here. That does not mean they will "win" -- pistol braces are still extremely thin ice and as many note above, you are playing with fire if you own one -- but for the moment, they are owed an explanation.

 

[Txhillbilly]

While we all agree that the BATFE rules/laws suck, Companies and gun owner's have always tried to walk in the "Grey" areas of the laws.
Then we whine and cry foul when they rule against us.

The brace was designed for "Handicapped" shooter's, yet thousand's of non-handicapped shooter's buy them, and most of them use the brace as a shoulder fired weapon.

Just man up and pay the tax for a SBR, then you won't have to worry about how the BATFE rules on things.
I hate paying for tax stamps, but I've done it 7 times in order to have the toy's that I like to play with.

I don't have or want any kid's, but I still have to pay School taxes every year.
How is that fair?

 

[etmo]

While we all agree that the BATFE rules/laws suck, Companies and gun owner's have always tried to walk in the "Grey" areas of the laws.
Then we whine and cry foul when they rule against us.

The brace was designed for "Handicapped" shooter's, yet thousand's of non-handicapped shooter's buy them, and most of them use the brace as a shoulder fired weapon.

Just man up and pay the tax for a SBR, then you won't have to worry about how the BATFE rules on things.
I hate paying for tax stamps, but I've done it 7 times in order to have the toy's that I like to play with.

I don't have or want any kid's, but I still have to pay School taxes every year.
How is that fair?

A lot of that makes sense, but there are a few missing bits and pieces which might change the tone of your post.

1) Even if we assume that braces were designed for handicapped people, that doesn't mean non-handicapped shouldn't also benefit from them. If millions of non-handicapped people happen to enjoy braces, there's nothing wrong with that, and more to the point, nothing illegal.

2) You say just pay the tax, but you should check your privilege. Tens of millions of Americans live in states where NFA items are completely illegal -- CA, the most populous state in America, is one example.

3) Not crying foul because they ruled against us, crying foul because they didn't obey the law. Why should we be forced to obey the law if the ATF is not?

 

[PeoplePhobic]

I do think it's kind of messed up how the ATF seems to get to make their own "determinations" about stuff. It's sort of like they get to make up their own laws and then enforce them.

 

[Txhillbilly]

A lot of that makes sense, but there are a few missing bits and pieces which might change the tone of your post.

1) Even if we assume that braces were designed for handicapped people, that doesn't mean non-handicapped shouldn't also benefit from them. If millions of non-handicapped people happen to enjoy braces, there's nothing wrong with that, and more to the point, nothing illegal.

2) You say just pay the tax, but you should check your privilege. Tens of millions of Americans live in states where NFA items are completely illegal -- CA, the most populous state in America, is one example.

3) Not crying foul because they ruled against us, crying foul because they didn't obey the law. Why should we be forced to obey the law if the ATF is not?

1. There's nothing wrong with anyone owning a pistol brace, IMO. But, Very few use it as intended.

2. My simple answer to that is move to a state that allows NFA items, or vote for changes in your states Legislature.

3. Don't have an answer. I doubt that anything will change in my lifetime when it comes to the Left and all the alphabet agencies making up rules as they go.

 

[pronstar]

Well this sucks, my Ghetto Blaster pistola is the same design as the Honey Badger.

ETA: It also appears the Q Honey Badger rifle uses the exact same proprietary brace as the pistol does. That may not be helping Q. But the Sugar Weasel uses an off the shelf SBA3 which ATF recently reversed their opinion on, too.

The Honey Badger piston and rifle use a different brace/stock design

Pic is from article here:

Gun Review: Honey Badger by Q (SBR and Pistol) - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ I found Q’s Honey Badger extremely photogenic, for some reason, so there are nearly more photos than words in this review. Of course, it doesn’t help that there are fewer words than usual*. That’s because the Honey Badger is precisely as you’d expect and hope it is...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[toddnjoyce]

Well this sucks, my Ghetto Blaster pistola is the same design as the Honey Badger.




The Honey Badger piston and rifle use a different brace/stock design

Pic is from article here:

Gun Review: Honey Badger by Q (SBR and Pistol) - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ I found Q’s Honey Badger extremely photogenic, for some reason, so there are nearly more photos than words in this review. Of course, it doesn’t help that there are fewer words than usual*. That’s because the Honey Badger is precisely as you’d expect and hope it is...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

From the article above:

“The rails, too-short cheek rest, and abbreviated receiver extension are identical between pistol and rifle.”

Better view:

 

[smittyb]

Link to send a letter to the DOJ asking to stop this nonsense.

Contact Officials | Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition

www.fracaction.org

 

[smittyb]

Link to sign LSGR’s petition to stop the nonsense.

ATF PETITION | Lone Star Gun Rights

www.lsgr.live

 

[pronstar]

From the article above:

“The rails, too-short cheek rest, and abbreviated receiver extension are identical between pistol and rifle.”

Better view:

You’d think the ability to actually attach it to your forearm would play a role...

These “clarification rulings” do nothing but further muddy the waters. Typical .gov...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[oldag]

this is the letter sent to shockwave

View attachment 229510

Interesting, but that is verbal with gray areas. Not codified.

 

[toddnjoyce]

You’d think the ability to actually attach it to your forearm would play a role...

These “clarification rulings” do nothing but further muddy the waters. Typical .gov...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One would think so, but seeing as how the SBA3 was separately rules not a brace, that might be a contributing factor.

 

[Dred]

One would think so, but seeing as how the SBA3 was separately rules not a brace, that might be a contributing factor.

Ok ... second time this has been posted on this thread. Link?

It is still being sold as a brace at shops I consider highly reputable, e.g. Primary Arms. And I heard it may have been a target in late spring but silence since.

I believe SBA3 is a brace. I have one I need to pull if I missed a ruling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[tonelar]

even out if my 7.5” bbl AR, .223 is pretty mild.

I can shoulder a foam wrapped pistol tube w zero discomfort.

 

[smittyb]

Ok ... second time this has been posted on this thread. Link?

It is still being sold as a brace at shops I consider highly reputable, e.g. Primary Arms. And I heard it may have been a target in late spring but silence since.

I believe SBA3 is a brace. I have one I need to pull if I missed a ruling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I believe it is all speculation based on Rep. Gaetz’s letter which, it turns out, was talking about Q.