Gun Zone Deals

Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Byrd666

    Flyin' 'round in circles........somewhere
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 24, 2012
    7,977
    96
    Hill County
    Oh Look! A group therapy session for folks who got their feelings hurt over the inference of what a cuck is. Feeling better now? Need a group hug? Self-fulfilling prophecy right here, but hey if the shoe fits...

    Really liked the virtue signaling of how you would have written some tough, but were too skeered to get banned. See the irony eh?

    Favorite though has to go to those who block me but still find a way to read my posts and comment on them! I know there are more of you out there.

    And it was nice of Alyssa Milano to show up!
    Son, you really meed to grow up some.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Is an RDS legal on an AR pistol with no brace?
    Yeah, I understand what you're asking about. I don't know the answer.

    I do know, however, that the notion that any government agency would consider the sights installed on a pistol to be, in any way, relevant to the statutory definition of a handgun is gobsmacking to me. That really set me off when I first read about it, several revisions ago.

    It's just completely irrelevant. Pistol, rifle, or shotgun, the sights can usually be changed in minutes from none to open to aperture to occluded eye to red dot to laser to scope to...whatever. All of that's completely irrelevant.

    For the ATF to want to consider sights in any part of their determination of whether an object is a handgun or an SBR is infuriating overreach.
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,735
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    Yeah, I understand what you're asking about. I don't know the answer.

    I do know, however, that the notion that any government agency would consider the sights installed on a pistol to be, in any way, relevant to the statutory definition of a handgun is gobsmacking to me. That really set me off when I first read about it, several revisions ago.

    It's just completely irrelevant. Pistol, rifle, or shotgun, the sights can usually be changed in minutes from none to open to aperture to occluded eye to red dot to laser to scope to...whatever. All of that's completely irrelevant.

    For the ATF to want to consider sights in any part of their determination of whether an object is a handgun or an SBR is infuriating overreach.
    Thanks.
    I thought I remembered reading that adding an RDS wasn't kosher.
    Evidently it was old news.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Why would you think there is any scenario it could be illegal?
    Earlier in the process, the ATF was trying to say that the sights installed could be part of the determination of whether something was a handgun or an SBR.

    I remember when I first heard about that, I popped off. Lemme look...yeah, my post is here.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    Texas
    Earlier in the process, the ATF was trying to say that the sights installed could be part of the determination of whether something was a handgun or an SBR.

    I remember when I first heard about that, I popped off. Lemme look...yeah, my post is here.

    thx

    I missed that, but in reading your post I see the attempted link between long eye relief scopes and rifles.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Earlier in the process, the ATF was trying to say that the sights installed could be part of the determination of whether something was a handgun or an SBR.

    I remember when I first heard about that, I popped off. Lemme look...yeah, my post is here.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger.

    27 CFR 479.11
    (2) When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:

    (i) Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;

    (ii) Whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
    (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;
    (iv) Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

    (v) The manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and

    (vi) Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Are you saying that an RDS sight needs to be fired from the shoulder?

    I've never shouldered a pistol with an RDS.

    I’m not saying anything except the code allows ATF to consider the sights in determining if something is a rifle.

    There are some red dot sights, like an M68, that have a fairly short eye relief that would require the weapons to be shouldered to be effectively used. There are others that don’t have that same limitation.
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,735
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    I’m not saying anything except the code allows ATF to consider the sights in determining if something is a rifle.

    There are some red dot sights, like an M68, that have a fairly short eye relief that would require the weapons to be shouldered to be effectively used. There are others that don’t have that same limitation.

    There's the rub....
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    Thanks.
    I thought I remembered reading that adding an RDS wasn't kosher.
    Evidently it was old news.

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

    1679532573884.png
     
    • Like
    Reactions: gll

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    I’m not saying anything except the code allows ATF to consider the sights in determining if something is a rifle

    Thank you for providing your usual, perfectly on point, impeccably sourced, deeply depressing observation on the instant subject.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger.

    Why, I would never!

    :)
     
    Top Bottom