I'll concede as well. You're absolutely right man. No one needs to carry an AR pistol. It causes fear. They should make those illegal or at least make you get a tax stamp. After all, it's ludicrous to think it's anything more than an SBR AR rifle in disguise.
Methinks I smell sarcasm... 
Well, Doug Fiesen is barred from the Ok supreme court and is in major trouble in the legal profession, so I wouldn't be so quick about supporting his opinion.
https://newsok.com/article/5526689/oklahoma-supreme-court-bans-gun-lawyer
Oklahoma City “gun lawyer” Doug Friesen has been booted out of the legal profession for professional misconduct.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court disbarred Friesen, banning him from the practice of law and ordering that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Justices disciplined him for mishandling almost $100,000 of a settlement paid in a wrongful-death case.
"This court's responsibility in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the offending lawyer," Justice Douglas Combs wrote. "The purpose of discipline is to protect the public, preserve the integrity of the bar and deter similar misconduct."
Friesen had been hired in 2009 by Oscar and Alma Nevarez, the parents of an 11-year-old girl who was killed when a truck struck the minivan she was riding in. The Goodwell couple's wrongful-death case was settled in mediation in 2010 for $675,000.
Friesen kept $209,500 from the settlement as his legal fees in the case and kept another $3,062 for his costs. The parents put $350,000 of the settlement into bank accounts, and $15,000 went toward funeral expenses.
A dispute arose over the rest of the settlement — $97,438. Alma Nevarez said she thought Friesen was going to use that money to set up college funds for their other three children.
Friesen insisted there had just been a misunderstanding. He claimed he kept $97,438 as a second legal fee — payment for him to create five wills, four trusts and three annuities and to protect their $350,000 if the need should ever arise.
https://newsok.com/article/5466483/oklahoma-city-gun-lawyer-accused-of-professional-misconduct
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in October 2014 suspended Friesen from the practice of law after he was sentenced to 15 weekends in jail and six months on home detention for three misdemeanor tax offenses. That suspension was lifted in May.
At his 2014 sentencing in Oklahoma City federal court, Friesen also was ordered to pay $209,673 more in overdue taxes to the IRS. Friesen blamed his tax troubles on a former girlfriend who embezzled from the law firm to pay her medical bills.
Friesen has described himself online as “Your Gun Lawyer.” He has been involved in high-profile shooting cases.
There are reasons we have thousands of lawyers in the state. Our laws as well as laws in every state are subject to discussion and interpretation even though they are declared "laws".
Don't be so quick either to dismiss the, as you call them "armchair lawyers on OSA". In our discussions of lots of major legal issues, they have interpreted the legalities of the case and called them before the actual verdict and were spot on. There are some pretty intelligent folks on this forum, some are attorneys that don't let it be known, and you don't need to be disparaging or impugning their intelligence just because you think your right in your way of thinking. Others have opinions as well, and most are justified in them no matter what you think they should think in your bubble.
Your new here, and I've stayed out of this discussion pretty much. I've agreed and liked some of your opinions, and didn't care for others, but when you take it personal to impune a person that is former LEO (remember you said we shouldn't do that to the LEO community) and the forum membership in general, your stooping to a level that approaches trolling.
I think it's been a great discussion so far with give and take and have had great interest in the differing opinions. I'll step out for now.
My comment about “armchair quarterbacks” (not “armchair lawyers”) was directed specifically at those on OSA who are not lawyers and had no special knowledge of the case or the law, but who were quick back in 2012 to declare unequivocally that it was obvious and undeniable that carrying in a polling place was illegal, despite the fact that it was anything but obvious to all of the involved law enforcement and lawyers for both sides. My purpose was not to claim that I was right and no one else’s opinions on that case matter. It was to defend myself against repeated unjustified attacks on my intelligence in the form of people claiming I was an idiot or ignorant for not realizing how supposedly obvious it was that what I did was unlawful. I would have welcomed a thoughtful discussion of the legalities here on OSA, but unfortunately that’s not what happened, for the most part. There were a few people who attempted to point out how the law was ambiguous and that there were factual nuances that made understanding the application of the law tricky, but they were bitten just as viciously by the attention whore witch hunters as I had been.
But the main thing I want to be sure to address is that I fear you may have misunderstood me when I said…
“And of course, they know the law so much better than all those ignorant lawyers and law enforcement officers.”
I was being sarcastic in the use of the word “ignorant” in that sentence. I suppose it was a mistake to rely on sarcasm in a very serious forum post. My point was the opposite of what you seem to have understood. I was saying that it was lawyers and law enforcement who would have been the most reliable source of opinion on the law and its application to the facts of the case. And I was saying that based on the prevailing opinions expressed in that OSA thread back in 2012, the members here would have considered the lawyers and law enforcement who were actually involved in the case idiots because those lawyers and LEOs couldn’t see how supposedly obvious it was that I broke the law. I hold law enforcement officers and the skills of lawyers in high regard and would never disparage them as a group. This is why I’m posting yet again in this thread – because I want there to be no mistake about my respect for the members of this community. However, if some of the armchair quarterbacks that I spoke of happen to be lawyers or LEOs, I stand by my assertion that they were wrong to malign me.
If I could interject my conclusions from this thread...
There has been a lot of good discussion (with tempers flaring a little unfortunately, but much less than I usually see on other forums, on less serious topics).
I think what I am reading is...
One perspective says it is a right, and not only shouldn't be restricted but should be exercised...
But on the other hand, it's just a bad idea, and potentially threatens our rights.
The disagreement seems to be on how to best preserve the right to do so, should any of us deem it necessary under a specific circumstance.
That's probably an oversimplification... really what I'm trying to say is a lot of good points have been made from "both sides", and I've been soaking it all in. Given that we are ALL concerned with preserving our rights, I think it's a very relevant and important discussion for this forum. It's mostly been handled pretty well IMO.
There has been a lot of good discussion (with tempers flaring a little unfortunately, but much less than I usually see on other forums, on less serious topics).
I think what I am reading is...
One perspective says it is a right, and not only shouldn't be restricted but should be exercised...
But on the other hand, it's just a bad idea, and potentially threatens our rights.
The disagreement seems to be on how to best preserve the right to do so, should any of us deem it necessary under a specific circumstance.
That's probably an oversimplification... really what I'm trying to say is a lot of good points have been made from "both sides", and I've been soaking it all in. Given that we are ALL concerned with preserving our rights, I think it's a very relevant and important discussion for this forum. It's mostly been handled pretty well IMO.
As a retired police officer who has dealt with a number of polling place issues over the years my judgement and advice was 100% correct in 2012. Good luck in the future.
In 72 and think wackos like this RUIN possession of a firearm for the avg CC guy in the public eye.
I agree. As far as I can remember, you were respectful and expressed a reasonable opinion. Not everyone was. So thank you and thank you for your service.
It was your comments yesterday that were wrong. You have a right to your opinions, but don’t expect me not to defend myself if you want to call me the epitome of ignorance.
This has been interesting, from many angles. But we haven't mentioned another potential result. The AR pistol brace really is nothing more than a "loophole" to get around the SBR regs. And you know how the left likes loopholes.
