Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
And now they go after pistol braces
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BigDon" data-source="post: 2054100" data-attributes="member: 107254"><p>Then there is the issue with "Pistol" marked lowers. As I understand it, lowers so marked have had the extra pistol excise tax paid by the manufacturer of record. If you put a 'buttstock' on it, it became a Class III SBR. If you put a brace on it, it's still a pistol. It looks like the real grey area is a non-pistol-marked Lower (usually marked 'Caliber Multi' that hasn't had the added excise tax paid. ATF opened this can of worms themselves when they said a brace on any lower was a 'Pistol'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigDon, post: 2054100, member: 107254"] Then there is the issue with “Pistol” marked lowers. As I understand it, lowers so marked have had the extra pistol excise tax paid by the manufacturer of record. If you put a ‘buttstock’ on it, it became a Class III SBR. If you put a brace on it, it’s still a pistol. It looks like the real grey area is a non-pistol-marked Lower (usually marked ‘Caliber Multi’ that hasn’t had the added excise tax paid. ATF opened this can of worms themselves when they said a brace on any lower was a ‘Pistol’. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Politics Of Hunting & Guns (NOT General Politics)
And now they go after pistol braces
Top