Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[ZX9RCAM]

How so? RDS on pistols is becoming commonplace...

View attachment 379206

I'm well aware, and even made reference to them in post #816.

ETA: And own 2 with them myself.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Remember there are two types of red dot sights, prismatic and reflex. The ones in Mike’s post above are reflex sights and eye relief isn’t an issue.

Prismatic red dots are like the M68 and short eye relief is generally required.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Remember there are two types of red dot sights, prismatic and reflex. The ones in Mike’s post above are reflex sights and eye relief isn’t an issue.

Prismatic red dots are like the M68 and short eye relief is generally required.

Well, I was only ever talking about that type.

ETA: So, you are saying they are not an issue on an AR pistol?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Well, I was only ever talking about that type.

ETA: So, you are saying they are not an issue on an AR pistol?

I have zero clue how ATF is going to decide on the various factors because they’ve said they will only rule on something submitted to them and that ruling only applies for that specific make/model/configuration.

That’s the problem with this final rule; it’s entirely subjective. And that’s a big no-no for a regulatory rule.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Thanks.
Now it's clear...

 

[Vaquero]

 

[majormadmax]

Key point...

(iii) Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;

 

[ZX9RCAM]

And evidently reflex red dot sights don't require being fired from the shoulder.

 

[oldag]

And evidently reflex red dot sights don't require being fired from the shoulder.

Are you trying to use logic in regard to the ATF??

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Are you trying to use logic in regard to the ATF??

Not smart enough for that, I'm just attempting to regurgitate Todd's info.

 

[billtool]

Man, I haven't been keeping track of any of this nonsense. Guess I need to get my head in the game.

 

[gll]

From the beginning of the ATF's release of the rule, my simple understanding of what would constitute a prohibited sight on a pistol (a sight that would make a pistol an SBR) is basically any sight with a short eye relief, i.e. rifle iron sights (particularly aperture), short eye relief RDS (like prismatics), rifle scopes, and whatever else I didn't think of... that would require the pistol to be shoudered to render a sight picture.

Any RDS, pistol sights, long eye relief pistol scope, or notch and post type sights that would allow a sight picture with an extended arm would be OK as sights, but that still wouldn't make the gun a pistol if the other criteria for a pistol were not met.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

What is the other criteria?

 

[Vaquero]

This is the same .gov that can't tell a male from a female.
But they are telling us the difference between a rifle and a pistol.

BS

 

[benenglish]

And evidently reflex red dot sights don't require being fired from the shoulder.

This is why I was so confused when the ATF first signaled that the sights installed would have some impact on their determinations.

The two that come to immediately to mind that "force" shooting from the shoulder are aperture sights and plain-Jane optical scopes. I've fired both from arms length. Pistol scopes with long eye relief have been around since at least the 1960s. Even Smith & Wesson has occasionally put aperture rear sights on their revolvers since at least 1935 on the Registered Magnum. Many, many competition pistols use aperture sights, depending on the particular shooting game. In my sport, I preferred them for decades from ~1980 forward, at least until my eyes weren't good enough to use them.

While I'm sure there's some technology with which I am unfamiliar, as far as I can tell no type of sight requires being fired from the shoulder.

And that means any reference to sights in making an SBR determination is utter bollocks.

It's almost like the people trying to regulate a thing just don't have all that much personal familiarity with that thing. Not that anything like that could ever happen in this enlightened age, right?

This is the same .gov that can't tell a male from a female.
But they are telling us the difference between a rifle and a pistol.

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking.

 

[candcallen]

From the beginning of the ATF's release of the rule, my simple understanding of what would constitute a prohibited sight on a pistol (a sight that would make a pistol an SBR) is basically any sight with a short eye relief, i.e. rifle iron sights (particularly aperture), short eye relief RDS (like prismatics), rifle scopes, and whatever else I didn't think of... that would require the pistol to be shoudered to render a sight picture.

Any RDS, pistol sights, long eye relief pistol scope, or notch and post type sights that would allow a sight picture with an extended arm would be OK as sights, but that still wouldn't make the gun a pistol if the other criteria for a pistol were not met.

So these sights make a pistol a sbr?

This purposefully subjective vagueness will be one reason for the rules undoing

 

[toddnjoyce]

This is why I was so confused when the ATF first signaled that the sights installed would have some impact on their determinations.

The two that come to immediately to mind that "force" shooting from the shoulder are aperture sights and plain-Jane optical scopes...

Scout scopes and other long eye relief scopes came to mind for me as another splitting of the hairs. That’s when I decided ATF has built a rule in which anything can now be declared a rifle.

 

[benenglish]

So these sights make a pistol a sbr?

I forgot about those. Thanks for another example.

purposefully subjective vagueness

Yeah, that's what bothers me. Of course...

ATF has built a rule in which anything can now be declared a rifle.

...it's beginning to look a lot like this insanity was put into the rule knowingly and deliberately.

 

[candcallen]

Scout scopes and other long eye relief scopes came to mind for me as another splitting of the hairs. That’s when I decided ATF has built a rule in which anything can now be declared a rifle.

And, as such, more easily included in future assault weapons ban.

 

[oldag]

I forgot about those. Thanks for another example.

Yeah, that's what bothers me. Of course...

...it's beginning to look a lot like this insanity was put into the rule knowingly and deliberately.

Beginning???