AR15 pistol thread

[UWone77]

We have a very "gun friendly" Sheriff, in a conservative state, but a couple of years ago, I was talking to some deputies at a local indoor range, who according to them, the Sheriff was getting just about sick of seeing people flaunting their Sig braces by shouldering them to "double" as an SBR. Usually goof balls who gathered around acting cool like they were smoking "secretly" in the bathroom at school, knowing all well that everyone knew what they were doing but making a spectacle out of themselves anyway. If you regularly deal with NFA stuff anyway, and don't or won't mind all that goes with it, why not just build a pistol in the first place? Going over the "off topic" cliff now, but sometimes I think we're our own worst enemies.

FT

Well, I guess it's a good thing the Sheriff doesn't regulate NFA items.

Besides the ATF has already ruled that shouldering a brace does not change the classification. Shoulder away!

[FortTom]

No, he doesn't (regulate) NFA items, but he does have the power of arrest. He also gets a say on who gets a concealed carry permit. All of that, and given the ATF has ruled that way was not really the point, it's pushing the very boundaries of the law, to the point that it gets the attention of our friends, much less our enemies. (the "anti's).

FT

[Battle Cock]

No, he doesn't (regulate) NFA items, but he does have the power of arrest. He also gets a say on who gets a concealed carry permit. All of that, and given the ATF has ruled that way was not really the point, it's pushing the very boundaries of the law, to the point that it gets the attention of our friends, much less our enemies. (the "anti's).

FT

Pushing the boundaries of the law is kind of the point. In large part, pistol braces are making SBR laws obsolete. There isn’t much functional difference between shouldering many of the new braces and shouldering their stock counterparts but we still don’t have blood flowing in the streets because of it. (Or, whatever the original ban justification was.)

[UWone77]

If the Sheriff made an arrest on that, (not sure what the laws are in KY) but here, I'd just be wondering what new guns I'd be purchasing with the settlement. There is no specific law here that says you cannot shoulder a pistol. As obscure as this issue is in the general firearms arena, I'm sure no other state has a law specifically banning this.

We also live in a Shall Issue state, the only say the Sheriff here has for concealed permits is... Yes.

[Former11B]

No, he doesn't (regulate) NFA items, but he does have the power of arrest. He also gets a say on who gets a concealed carry permit. All of that, and given the ATF has ruled that way was not really the point, it's pushing the very boundaries of the law, to the point that it gets the attention of our friends, much less our enemies. (the "anti's).

FT

Having to tiptoe around an elected official like that is bogus. However, not all states are like that. Here in SC, our permits go to the State Law Enforcement Division.

Looking good. What mount is that? I have a couple Comps that would benefit from that streamlined look.

It’s actually the factory OEM mount it came with

[Jerry R]

[Big_Tom]

SBRG4
by Tango Charlie, on Flickr

[Battle Cock]

Not bad for a mobile camera and edit.

[Aragorn]

Not bad for a mobile camera and edit.

Is that rawhide?

[fledge]

Explain the story behind the “kittycorn”.

[Battle Cock]

Is that rawhide?

It’s leather but it does look a bit like rawhide.

And there are a lot of different reasons for the rainbow unicorn kitty. I love guns, I love cats, and I try not to use my firearms as a reason to take myself seriously.

There’s also a general idea online that customizing your guns will get you convicted of... something, if you ever have a DGU with one, so I like to pose the question about how badly the rainbow unicorn kitty would hurt legal defense. It’s sort of the antithesis to the punisher logo.

[Joelski]

It’s leather but it does look a bit like rawhide.

And there are a lot of different reasons for the rainbow unicorn kitty. I love guns, I love cats, and I try not to use my firearms as a reason to take myself seriously.

There’s also a general idea online that customizing your guns will get you convicted of... something, if you ever have a DGU with one, so I like to pose the question about how badly the rainbow unicorn kitty would hurt legal defense. It’s sort of the antithesis to the punisher logo.

RT a recent topic elsewhere. The port door seems to be quite a source of righteousness, be it for the comment printed on it, the fact that it was a duty weapon, or whatever else. Personal items are fine, IMO, but something used in the course of one's work should have some restraint, again, IMO.

Thoughts?

[Battle Cock]

RT a recent topic elsewhere. The port door seems to be quite a source of righteousness, be it for the comment printed on it, the fact that it was a duty weapon, or whatever else. Personal items are fine, IMO, but something used in the course of one's work should have some restraint, again, IMO.

Thoughts?

Liability is virtually a non existent issue when it comes to thematic design choices on a firearm. The officer with the you’re effed inscription on his dust cover definitely made a dumbass decision to put inflammatory rhetoric on his duty weapon, but it was ruled legally inadmissible and he got a not guilty verdict. His consequences in that situation, even as bad and questionable as it was boiled down to personal and social consequences. Not legal ones.

You won’t see me putting racist or inflammatory remarks or imagery on my guns for the same reason you won’t see me wearing them on my chest. Those are poor social decisions independent of any firearms issue. Beyond that, there’s zero case law indicating that such adornment has ever changed the ruling of a good shoot to a bad shoot, which is the more important issue.

[Joelski]

Yep.

Liability is virtually a non existent issue when it comes to thematic design choices on a firearm. The officer with the you’re effed inscription on his dust cover definitely made a dumbass decision to put inflammatory rhetoric on his duty weapon, but it was ruled legally inadmissible and he got a not guilty verdict. His consequences in that situation, even as bad and questionable as it was boiled down to personal and social consequences. Not legal ones.

You won’t see me putting racist or inflammatory remarks or imagery on my guns for the same reason you won’t see me wearing them on my chest. Those are poor social decisions independent of any firearms issue. Beyond that, there’s zero case law indicating that such adornment has ever changed the ruling of a good shoot to a bad shoot, which is the more important issue.

[mustangfreek]

How do u like the brace BC?