02-01-2015, 04:25 PM
02-01-2015, 04:27 PM
02-01-2015, 05:13 PM
Outside of this specific story, I previously read about the change in the ATF's position about the use of the brace/stock on pistols. The ATF is now stating that they no longer consider the use of that brace to be legal. That’s accurate right? I understand that shortening the barrel on a rifle can make it easier to conceal but adding a stock to a pistol would make it harder to conceal. In my mind, the original state of the firearm should be a major consideration. Am I missing something here? Why wouldn’t we allow the use of an accessory that could make a firearm more accurate?
I’ve wondered the same thing about other accessories that used to be covered by the assault weapons ban. I don’t ask this as a rhetorical question. It may be a silly question considering I'm asking about the position of a Federal agency but I really don’t understand the justification.
I’ve wondered the same thing about other accessories that used to be covered by the assault weapons ban. I don’t ask this as a rhetorical question. It may be a silly question considering I'm asking about the position of a Federal agency but I really don’t understand the justification.
02-01-2015, 05:32 PM
It goes back to the '20s and '30s when gangsters and bank robbers, like Bonnie and Clyde, were modifying their weapons into what they called "whipit guns". They would take a weapon, such as a surplus BAR or 12 gauge shotgun, and cut down the barrels and stocks to make them fit better under a jacket. They would then attach a leather strap to form a loop that would go over their shoulder enabling the gun to hang there, under the jacket or coat, until they had to "whip it out". This led to the passage of the NFA. This again proves that criminals won't be affected by such laws, as it did not stop the production of "whipit guns". The NFA needs to go the way of the dodo.