Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 2 of 33 Posts

· Proud GA2A/GCO Life Member
8,506 Posts
prosecutors and sentencing judge aren't going to be lenient on you if your attitude is "screw you, ATF, you can't prove my exploitation of your loophole is illegal."
Unless you work for the government. In which case exploitation of legal loopholes, and even outright ignoring the law, is SOP.

· Proud GA2A/GCO Life Member
8,506 Posts
The "off topic" forum is available to sound off about how much contempt you have for the government.
Vacuous micro-rants are also off topic. And yet you posted one anyway. Now back to the brace....

"5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace: Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or
stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled
shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and
therefore its attachment to a handgun did not constitute the making of a short-barreled
rifle or "any other firearm" under the National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification
subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter,
however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock,
such use would constitute a "redesign" that would result in classification of the
brace/handgun combination as an NFA firearm (i.e., the "use" would be a "redesign"
and making of a short-barreled rifle). ATF has not made another NFA determination
where a shooter's use alone was deemed be a "redesign" of the product/firearm
resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among
firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended
use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and
concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating
that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer -
without additional proof or redesign - may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.

While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push
the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a
relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms
with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with
future requests based upon the firearm's individual characteristics. "

Federal Firearms Regulations
Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations
White Paper (Not for public distribution)
Ronald Turk Associate Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
20 Jan 2017
1 - 2 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.