Jump to content
Lawnmower2021

ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, leo-польд said:

Again - we all know who is our governor and what is he trying to do. No surprise is here to me, I am glad it is stopped also surprised some clowns are still not happy about. We don't need any law besides 2nd amendment, read it again.

Maybe it's a language difference, but I don't think we're in disagreement.

Murphy is a political hack who only cares about his own power and career aspirations.  I think we're ALL glad that some of the legislation is TEMPORARILY restrained (not stopped).

Agree that people should be very happy with the progress made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

Maybe it's a language difference, but I don't think we're in disagreement.

Murphy is a political hack who only cares about his own power and career aspirations.  I think we're ALL glad that some of the legislation is TEMPORARILY restrained (not stopped).

Agree that people should be very happy with the progress made.

 

Murphy is also temporary, as well as Biden etc. We all know it is temporary but it s most likely permanent and no sign of worry otherwise for now. Also no point on holding for getting permits because of this unless you are anti gunner or liberal. Remaining what is allowed after TRO is enough as for me and matching pretty much all my friends current restrictions from the free states. That is my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

Maybe it's a language difference, but I don't think we're in disagreement.

Murphy is a political hack who only cares about his own power and career aspirations.  I think we're ALL glad that some of the legislation is TEMPORARILY restrained (not stopped).

Agree that people should be very happy with the progress made.

 

BTW, just posted:

gov.uscourts.njd.506033.51.0.pdf?fbclid=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2023 at 4:41 PM, oldguysrule649 said:

For those of you with Troy A4 Other firearms:  recommend you follow the Facebook page of Techops International, the distributor of the Troy A4 Other here in NJ.  A link to their Facebook page is below.  I spoke with one of their representatives this afternoon regarding the implications of the ATF Brace rule.  I don't think the ATF Rule has been posted into the Federal Register yet.  So things are still subject to change and are in a state of flux.   

However, with that said, Techops and Troy themselves are in close collaboration concerning the brace rule and its various potential impacts.   I came away feeling quite reassured that they will be offering us various modification options/kits that will enable us to retain our Others and remain legal.   I don't want to elaborate and speak for them.  Let's see what they officially communicate over the coming  days and weeks. 

https://www.facebook.com/techopsintl

Further to my above post.  TechOps International posted an update yesterday explaining how to make your Troy A4 compliant.  (Hint: just remove the brace.)  or optionally convert it into a rifle.   See link below. 

https://www.facebook.com/techopsintl/videos/1176474603234920

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Further to my above post.  TechOps International posted an update yesterday explaining how to make your Troy A4 compliant.  (Hint: just remove the brace.)  or optionally convert it into a rifle.   See link below. 

https://www.facebook.com/techopsintl/videos/1176474603234920

Thanks for that post. I don't have a Troy A4, but I have something else subject to this whole farce. Removing the stabilizing brace does make the firearm compliant. I have heard nothing to the contrary on this.

But I believe this gentleman is wrong when he says of the brace "you can still have it, it just can't be installed". If you have a stabilizing brace in your possession (at least at the same site as the pistol), I believe that amounts to constructive intent and is a no-no.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

wonder if troy will be providing a letter to this affect?

I would not hold my breath.  If the various lawsuits are not successful, I anticipate we will have received some true legal guidance from ANRPC, CNJFO, Evan Nappen, et al by the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2023 at 10:50 AM, oldguysrule649 said:

I should clarify that regarding my earlier mention of Pistol Storage Device(https://pistolmountedsolutions.com/), it requires that your buffer tube be completely round. I confirmed this with the company.   I.e. the buffer tube used on a Troy A4 with an SBA3 brace has a raised ridge along the bottom which precludes its use without swapping out the buffer tube. 

I do acknowledge that mention of this device may be a mute point depending on the legal analysis of the new rule and applicability to Others.  Just wanted to make folks aware of this option should it prove viable.  (And yes, kinda like putting lipstick on a pig.)

Just a heads up for those that may be interested in the PSD device.  Out of curiosity, I "took one for the team", spent the $80 plus shipping and purchased one.   I am in the process of assessing it and mounting it to my existing Troy buffer tube.  I do have an inquiry for the company.  When I hear back from them, will update you here with additional info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Just a heads up for those that may be interested in the PSD device.  Out of curiosity, I "took one for the team", spent the $80 plus shipping and purchased one.   I am in the process of assessing it and mounting it to my existing Troy buffer tube.  I do have an inquiry for the company.  When I hear back from them, will update you here with additional info.

post up some pics when done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ESB said:

Do not mount it so that it is flush with the end of the buffer tube.  That would add additional surface area to be shouldered.  ;) 

I agree. The immediate issue I see is that is it longer than the Troy buffer tube(which btw I have come to learn is a “carbine length” buffer tube). 

Even with the PSD positioned all the way forward against the back of the castle nut, it still extends about half an inch past the rear of the buffer tube. Thus could be construed as a device that increases LOP and provides surface area which is not essential to the operation of the firearm. 
 

Am writing to the company to get their perspective before I take a hacksaw to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PK90 said:

That'll work after that. :facepalm:

Facepalm?  Ok, I will rephrase that.

"I will use an appropriate tool to remove 0.5 inch of material from the front of the PSD enabling it to not extend beyond the rear of the buffer tube; thus not extending LOP nor providing surface area with which to shoulder the firearm"..

Better?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Facepalm?  Ok, I will rephrase that.

"I will use an appropriate tool to remove 0.5 inch of material from the front of the PSD enabling it to not extend beyond the rear of the buffer tube; thus not extending LOP nor providing surface area with which to shoulder the firearm"..

Better?

 

I thought you were shortening the "buffer tube".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 45Doll said:

I was just thinking: what's the difference between a short barreled rifle and a long barreled pistol?

This is exactly the problem and it's ridiculous, as is the idea that you're "modifying" a pistol with something immaterial to its function. They should just remove SBR from the NFA. Pistols are harder to buy than rifles (eg. age, permits, etc.) so nobody's getting around anything by "turning it into a rifle."

If the argument is that SBRs are concealable, well, so is a Desert Eagle.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

This is exactly the problem and it's ridiculous, as is the idea that you're "modifying" a pistol with something immaterial to its function. They should just remove SBR from the NFA. Pistols are harder to buy than rifles (eg. age, permits, etc.) so nobody's getting around anything by "turning it into a rifle."

If the argument is that SBRs are concealable, well, so is a Desert Eagle.

Agree. 
 

SBRs and suppressors should not be NFA items 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SAF has filed for a TRO in Connecticut challenging the Brace Rules impact on Ct owners of AOWs and Others.

See below.   Am left wondering if the need a NJ specific lawsuit like this.

SAF FILES FOR EMERGENCY TRO IN CHALLENGE OF CONN. GUN LAW

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging a Connecticut gun control law have filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because a new rule published by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on firearms designation places thousands of Constitution State citizens in serious legal jeopardy.

 

SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton.

 

“When ATF published its new rule, redesignating a class of firearms known as ‘any other firearm’ or simply ‘others’ as either ‘rifles’ or ‘short barreled rifles’ depending on the barrel length, all of those guns suddenly fell within the state’s definition of an assault weapon,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This immediately put thousands of owners of previously-classified ‘other’ firearms in harm’s way legally because now their possession is a felony.”

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...