Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
02-01-2015, 05:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2015, 05:15 PM by doubleCheese.)
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.
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.