“We sure are a far cry from “shall not be infringed,” are we not?”
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “ATF recognizes that before issuance of this notice, there was a misunderstanding by some that a pistol assembled with any item purported to be a stabilizing brace still would be considered a ‘pistol’ regardless of other characteristics,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admits in its “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rulemaking proposal, posted and accepting comments now at Regulations.gov. “The objective factors discussed here make clear that while some stabilizing braces may lawfully be used on pistols without bringing the firearm within the purview of the NFA, that is not necessarily the case for every ‘pistol’ because some firearms are configured or have characteristics such that they meet the statutory definition of ‘rifle or shotgun’ (hereafter, ‘affected stabilizer-equipped firearms’).”
That any misunderstanding exists is solely on the Bureau.
The contradictory on again/off again back-and-forth over what is or is not considered whatever they want to call it is pretty much their M.O. One day you’re the satisfied owner of the lawfully-obtained property; the next, government diktat transmutes it into a forbidden liability, with life-destroying felony implications for anyone innocently caught up in a capricious bureaucratic net cast by people who either can’t make up their minds or have their minds made up for them by hidden, politically-motivated string pullers.
by
