Pistol braces

[red442joe]

I tried to find info on putting a brace any pistol NOT, N O T, nnnnnnnnotttttttt an AR.
My google-fu is weak.

Joe

 

[StLPro2A]

If it has a pistol grip or arm brace, then yes. A traditional rifle stock makes it a short barrel rifle.

"It doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law." - Kevin Jamison, ESQ, KC, MO.

"One of the notable aspects of the democratic process is that one need not know anything about a subject in order to pass laws about it." - the late Marine Col Jeff Cooper.

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump

 

[StLPro2A]

Just to add to the confusion... The lower receiver must've never been made into a rifle. Once a rifle, always a rifle. Only a receiver that started as a pistol lower can be used as a pistol lower. If the lower started as a rifle and you put into pistol configuration it's an SBR. But you can make a pistol lower into a rifle.

Them thar "oncey rifles" are way more dangerous than a "forever pistola" with a bracy thingy.....cause pile'o'shittans said so......

"It doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law." - Kevin Jamison, ESQ, KC, MO.

"One of the notable aspects of the democratic process is that one need not know anything about a subject in order to pass laws about it." - the late Marine Col Jeff Cooper.

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump

 

[boocat71]

They can start with the EPA!!!!

I thought the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA for using rules as law.

 

[boocat71]

Think it was West Virginia vs the EPA.

 

[Perplexed]

Think it was West Virginia vs the EPA.

It was. The SC ruled against EPA using Chevron deference to stray from their assigned lane. The same ruling can be used against the ATF or any other executive agency exceeding their authorized bounds.

 

[delta6]

It was. The SC ruled against EPA using Chevron deference to stray from their assigned lane. The same ruling can be used against the ATF or any other executive agency exceeding their authorized bounds.

This ruling had a very narrow scope (In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA cannot set the existing source standard based on generation shifting, but otherwise affirmed the agency's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at new and existing power plants), so it did not overturn Chevron. The two cases that could overturn Chevron I believe were heard late last year or early this year and the ruling is expected in July.

 

[Perplexed]

This ruling had a very narrow scope (In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA cannot set the existing source standard based on generation shifting, but otherwise affirmed the agency's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at new and existing power plants), so it did not overturn Chevron. The two cases that could overturn Chevron I believe were heard late last year or early this year and the ruling is expected in July.

You’re right, Chevron was not overturned wholesale. But EPA, as you mentioned, was told to dial it back. In other words, stay in the lane.