ATF Announces Pistol Brace "Amnesty" Period: What It Means For You
- Thread starter Bigchillin83
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
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!
Member Benefits:
SVT Bansheeman
No more laughing dog
It's their right so my feelings dont matter.
BY strict reading of the constitution it doesn't exclude the felons as many already were bad in some for or fashion. The felony thing is something that our government put on as one beginning layer of removal.
I am OK with felons not having them, but I have been wrong on so many things in my life.. lol
Bigchillin83
Well-Known Member
Id like to see this guy try this trick himself and send a video of him shooting it to the ATF.
He's the InfoWars.com of firearms.
He's the InfoWars.com of firearms.
Bigchillin83
Well-Known Member
tennis balls have worked for years and way before braces were ever invented...... and was already clarified that you could shoot a glock or any other pistol with it against your shoulder legally (as silly and dumb as it would look lol) and the same with a ar pistol as long as it didnt have a stock on it, then it wouldnt be classified as a rifle/sbr, same as if you could shoot a shotgun or 16" rifle with one hand doesnt change the classification to a pistol/sbr/sbs...
Last edited:
I've seen the rubber pads for walking canes used before "to help then stand up instead off falling over when leaned against the wall."
Bigchillin83
Well-Known Member
right... lol they were to protect the buffer tube from damage
This opinion seems to go a little beyond braces. It seems like it makes the case that putting a stock on to a pistol would be constitutionally protected. If it's the case that adding a stock to a pistol makes it safer, what does shortening the barrel do for a rifle? And would there be a new classification, a stocked pistol? And are silencers a safety-improving modification to otherwise lawful bearable arms?
Really? I’ve watched a few of this guys videos. They always come off professional and well articulated to me. Maybe I’m the info wars type? Lol
I’d rather no firearm laws at all. Every last one is an infringement. Felons will do what felons do. Law abiding citizens are the only ones impacted from gun laws and the impacts are not positive.
I don’t know about all that, but I know it’s refreshing for a judge to render such an opinion.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
+1; the only thing you omitted was the forums/boards=)
Considering the fact that today you can be charged with a felony for expressing doubt in election results, I'm pro-felon w/a gun.
If someone is dangerous, they belong in jail.
If they've paid their debt to society, they should have their rights restored.
Used to be considered cruel to release a prisoner without providing them with a firearm in the Indian Territories.
Today Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans are all more dangerous than the Indian Territories of yesteryear.
If someone is dangerous, they belong in jail.
If they've paid their debt to society, they should have their rights restored.
Used to be considered cruel to release a prisoner without providing them with a firearm in the Indian Territories.
Today Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans are all more dangerous than the Indian Territories of yesteryear.
Last edited:
