ATF files cease and desist letter with the maker of Honey Badger.

Kraut783

Kraut783

SOF Support
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
3,659
Location
Dallas Metro Area
Hope this doesn't go further....

FPC Statement on ATF’s Cease and Desist to Q, LLC Regarding the Honey Badger Pistol’s Status as a Purported Short Barrel Rifle

"After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol, the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) concluded that “the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA). Yet, ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “designed” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR."
 
Kraut783 said:
Hope this doesn't go further....

FPC Statement on ATF’s Cease and Desist to Q, LLC Regarding the Honey Badger Pistol’s Status as a Purported Short Barrel Rifle

"After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol, the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) concluded that “the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA). Yet, ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “designed” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR."
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the "Pistol".
Their proprietary "brace" seems to be more of a collapsible stock then a pistol brace.
Sadly, I don't see this decision being reversed.
 
Oh, I agree.....manufactures have been pushing the envelope. It doesn't help that every idiot with a YouTube account shoots it like an SBR for the world to see. Maybe, ATF will waive the $200 tax stamp fee to SBR existing "pistols" with braces.
 
Didn’t watch the video, but supposedly one of the factors is the distance from the middle of the trigger to the rear most part of the brace is 13.5”, which is considered industry standard “length of pull” for a rifle. Less than that and it’s a pistol. That’s one of the reasons they are going after Q.
 
Kraut783 said:
Oh, I agree.....manufactures have been pushing the envelope. It doesn't help that every idiot with a YouTube account shoots it like an SBR for the world to see. Maybe, ATF will waive the $200 tax stamp fee to SBR existing "pistols" with braces.
Click to expand...
That does nothing about all the restrictions on SBRs like differing state laws, interstate travel, firearms trusts, and all the other NFA Division psychosis.
 
Ranger Psych said:
The thing is, stampy stampy stuff is cool. But not as cool as building a bed mounted repeating rebar ballista. That doesn't take a stamp.

Depending on rebar length and proximity to... well, anything behind a target, it brings pegging to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

So much wrong and so much right with this post and they aren't always different things...
 
Kraut783 said:
Good breakdown.

Click to expand...

Watched that last week [?]. I guess I don't get it overall. The "Brace" is not proprietary to Advanced Armament Corporation's subcorp of Q LLC DBA Live Q Or Die.

The Brace is is use by multiple manufacturers of AR-pistols. So why is the Honey Badger the only one being fucked with. And from my perspective, almost all "Braces" look like telescoping stocks. Let's be honest here.

Now, do I think the whole idea of the ATF's over-regulation of SBR's is bullshit? Yes.
 
The "brace" was a really loop hole the ATF grudgingly allowed...people took it an ran, and abused the crap out of. My only interest in this start of possible cracking down on braces is personal...I have two firearms with braces.

And the only reason I have these two, and have not SBR'd them, is simple. I wanted a "truck" gun I could travel with on the road without restrictions. If I SBR'd them I would have to file a form 5320.20 every time I went across state lines. Suppressors don't have that restriction.
 

Similar threads

Dame
ATF Proposes Rules on "Stabilizing Braces"
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
Kraut783
Kraut783
KBar666
Way of the Sniper
Replies
6
Views
4K
KBar666
KBar666
Diamondback 2/2
Bashing of the M4
2 3
Replies
54
Views
11K
arizonaguide
A
Back
Top