Email from Q - ATF issues Cease & Desist for Honey Badger Pistol *UPDATE*
- Thread starter DXT_Shooter
- Start date
Not to long ago, IIRC, the ATF came out with a new way of measuring the OAL of "pistols" with folding or collapsible, non-fixed braces.
They changed the way that OAL was measured. Not sure if that applies here.
I was always surprised at the fact that a pistol with a brace that folded or changed LOP was not an SBR
They changed the way that OAL was measured. Not sure if that applies here.
I was always surprised at the fact that a pistol with a brace that folded or changed LOP was not an SBR
Maybe, maybe not. Either way the ATF has a little too much authority, and their constant changing of interpretations needs to be examined. Our legal system is based largely on precedent, so at least it maintains some degree of consistency among court rulings. I'd argue that the ATF has a history of abusing the Chevron ruling and that there's no clear pattern to their interpretations. Ergo, we need to fix this clusterfuck and set some parameters here.
Boy, are you ignorant on how agencies work. What you think is the way it should be. However, the way it IS, is that they make broad rulings in things that the politicians won't touch for fear of voter backlash. So they (politicians) have deniablity. The EPA is likely the very worst of the bunch.
Last edited:
does the brace actually pull apart like it's supposed to? Or is it somewhat solid? I thought that was another requirement so it can "fasten" over the forearm. If it's solid or more or less solid and the LOP is 13.5" then it's actually more of a stock than a brace...that's my guess not owning any guns at all; but seeing them at the gun store where I dream of a day when we get rid of silly tax stamp.
FWIW, I got the same email, and connected with ATF and SB-Tactical.
The take away here is that the ATF is looking, firearm by firearm for whether, taken as a whole, the firearm design, length, caliber, capacity, type of brace, etc. looks like a pistol or looks like an SBR. When I say "looks," it is more a matter of weighing the entirety of the firearm. Just a guess, but when you pick this firearm up, it is hard to imagine using it as a brace. Must have pretty thin arms. The back of the brace also begins to morph into a stock. Then it collapses, etc.
I am not agreeing, just stating what I was told. Personal opinion is that the ATF is being arbitrary, given that SB Tactical has received favorable opinions in the past, but that is for the brace. Q is getting scruitiny for the full package.
What this is NOT, is a complete assault on the brace and the AR pistol.
What I do not know is: Did Q, LLC send the firearm to the ATF Technical Branch and ask: "Is this a Pistol ?" As the ATF letter noted that the techncial branch has now opined that it is an SBR, perhaps they did not take that step. Some manufacturers do not like to ask questions and get the wrong answer. Some think I am wrong in saying and doing, but I err on the side of presenting a case and getting the answer up front. The reprecussions can be devastating on the back-end.
In this case, Q could be billed for lots of money in NFA fees for each rifle.
The take away here is that the ATF is looking, firearm by firearm for whether, taken as a whole, the firearm design, length, caliber, capacity, type of brace, etc. looks like a pistol or looks like an SBR. When I say "looks," it is more a matter of weighing the entirety of the firearm. Just a guess, but when you pick this firearm up, it is hard to imagine using it as a brace. Must have pretty thin arms. The back of the brace also begins to morph into a stock. Then it collapses, etc.
I am not agreeing, just stating what I was told. Personal opinion is that the ATF is being arbitrary, given that SB Tactical has received favorable opinions in the past, but that is for the brace. Q is getting scruitiny for the full package.
What this is NOT, is a complete assault on the brace and the AR pistol.
What I do not know is: Did Q, LLC send the firearm to the ATF Technical Branch and ask: "Is this a Pistol ?" As the ATF letter noted that the techncial branch has now opined that it is an SBR, perhaps they did not take that step. Some manufacturers do not like to ask questions and get the wrong answer. Some think I am wrong in saying and doing, but I err on the side of presenting a case and getting the answer up front. The reprecussions can be devastating on the back-end.
In this case, Q could be billed for lots of money in NFA fees for each rifle.
And that is the question. If you read the letter authored by Q's attorney, that is the crux of their issue with the opinion. There is no criteria outlined by which the ATF came to the conclusion that the AR pistol is a SBR.
Well, from a practical as well as functional standpoint, there are no differences between stocks and braces today. I have a few SBR's and never really got into the who brace thing, I have never been against them, and could see there place in certain jurisdictions based on local laws.
For Example,
SBR's are a no go. Pistol's make perfect sense.
Weird OAL requirment on rifles/SBR's, Pistols make perfect sense.
wierd hunting/poaching regulation that do no allow transportation of loaded rifles in vehicles. Pistols make perfect sense
Traveling back and for between different states, Pistols make more sense the SBR's
I am not at all surprised to see bureaucrats making bipolar decisions that contradict earlier rulings and constitutionality. Its what they do.
With that being said, I know LE does surf this as well as other forums, I really don't care what the ATF really proclaims as they really have no ability to enforce these changes on an individual level. The only thing they really have the power to do is to pull the license of those companies that do not adhere to the latest guidance.
we have been in the age of internet gun forums for 20 years, and have not any real enforcement of the NFA, Have we even seen federal gun charges pressed against the felons that have been caught with guns at the riots for the past 4 months? I would venture to say statistically... Not really
I am not advocating that anybody break the law, only that statistically, one faces a higher risk of being struck by lighting than having any of the ATF's rulings have a personal impact.
One could even make the argument that with the mainstream media supporting the concept of anarchy, does any of this stuff really matter.
For Example,
SBR's are a no go. Pistol's make perfect sense.
Weird OAL requirment on rifles/SBR's, Pistols make perfect sense.
wierd hunting/poaching regulation that do no allow transportation of loaded rifles in vehicles. Pistols make perfect sense
Traveling back and for between different states, Pistols make more sense the SBR's
I am not at all surprised to see bureaucrats making bipolar decisions that contradict earlier rulings and constitutionality. Its what they do.
With that being said, I know LE does surf this as well as other forums, I really don't care what the ATF really proclaims as they really have no ability to enforce these changes on an individual level. The only thing they really have the power to do is to pull the license of those companies that do not adhere to the latest guidance.
we have been in the age of internet gun forums for 20 years, and have not any real enforcement of the NFA, Have we even seen federal gun charges pressed against the felons that have been caught with guns at the riots for the past 4 months? I would venture to say statistically... Not really
I am not advocating that anybody break the law, only that statistically, one faces a higher risk of being struck by lighting than having any of the ATF's rulings have a personal impact.
One could even make the argument that with the mainstream media supporting the concept of anarchy, does any of this stuff really matter.
Goverment intervention and overreach?
Just take a look at the new Gas can. Ruined.
Def fluid. Moronic.
Removal of micro beads from cleaners and personal hygiene products.
Everything you see in life that used to work normally, and now is just cheap, stupid, and pointless. - Thats what they do.
Everything the lettered agencies touch become flappy, useless, deflated nippleless gender neutral dolphin crying ass hippy boobs. The gun rights cartoon about the cake is spot on.
Instead of covid checks, we should all get nfa item vouchers to stimulate the economy and crotch punch the progressive status quo. You know what i just realized? I've become army jerry. I'm buying a jerry can, and more ammo tomorrow in his honor and I suggest you all do the same.
Just take a look at the new Gas can. Ruined.
Def fluid. Moronic.
Removal of micro beads from cleaners and personal hygiene products.
Everything you see in life that used to work normally, and now is just cheap, stupid, and pointless. - Thats what they do.
Everything the lettered agencies touch become flappy, useless, deflated nippleless gender neutral dolphin crying ass hippy boobs. The gun rights cartoon about the cake is spot on.
Instead of covid checks, we should all get nfa item vouchers to stimulate the economy and crotch punch the progressive status quo. You know what i just realized? I've become army jerry. I'm buying a jerry can, and more ammo tomorrow in his honor and I suggest you all do the same.
DAMN STRAIGHT! One of the best posts in a long time. The gas can thing really hits a nerve with me, as does the DEF thing. But the line about "flappy, useless, deflated nippleless gender neutral dolphin crying ass hippy boobs" is inspired (and I'm not even sure what it all means).
I'm done with the ban shit. If you want it, you're gonna have to come and take it but I'm not giving anything up.
While some tend to think this the fabric of this country is un-stressable and cannot be torn, I'm not so optimistic about our history or the horrible shit that rises to apparently be our best and brightest in government... So either they're really the best we can do OR they're proof positive our system cannot be repaired, but either way it'd be stupid to throw all your laurels in with this bunch and hope for the best.
While some tend to think this the fabric of this country is un-stressable and cannot be torn, I'm not so optimistic about our history or the horrible shit that rises to apparently be our best and brightest in government... So either they're really the best we can do OR they're proof positive our system cannot be repaired, but either way it'd be stupid to throw all your laurels in with this bunch and hope for the best.
I don’t believe that for a second. It doesn’t really matter what Q and SB says, what matters is ATF’s intent with this jab they took. It wreaks of shit.
If they can win this ban regardless of whether it’s based off the “look”, arm hole size, the portion that COULD be used as a cheek piece, or the fact the HB was first a rifle design then they’re opening up the door to all sorts of interpretation on other braces.
ALL of them can have a point used to put your cheek on it. ALL of them somewhat resemble the overall styling of a stock. They all have different arm hole sizes so what’s too big and what’s to small? Plus the AR15 was originally designed as a rifle.
This is a giant can of worms and if they win I promise you they won’t stop there. This NEEDS to be overturned either in court or by order from higher up.
It’s a shame that our president hasn’t stepped up and done anything, considering the ATF is considered part of the executive branch and all. Will definitely cost him some votes if he doesn’t reverse the ATF’s nonsense.
You think a lifelong New York Democrat will come to save your gun rights? I like him, but hes an enemy of the 2nd in my book.
I don't think you are correct in saying he is the "enemy" of the 2A, more likely he just doesn't really care about it all that much for anyone but the "Elites," but will at least try to pay it lip service because he's been told some of his supporters care about it.
The Democrats on the other hand such as Joe Biden, ARE avowed and sworn enemies of the 2A, by their own proud pronouncements.
I assume the ATF has some sort of firearm training or qualifications. Do the teach their people to shot a pistol with one hand or two.
Here's what I learned today when my firearm dealer called me to notify me about this issue. Kevin Brittingham, the old owner of Q, inventor of the .300 BO when he owned AAC, never submitted the pistol brace to the ATF for approval. As he was asked to. So the ATF and Q have been going back and forth on this issue. It's a dick measuring contest. And we all know that the ATF has the power to do whatever the fuck they want whenever they want. Granted, Brittingham made a mistake by not submitting the brace for approval. But why in the hell does the purchaser have to pay for this shit!?!?!? Kind of like the current day chess game being played with the subtitle of "COVID19". The high and mighty are in a pissing contest and we have to deal with the consequences.
Attachments
Part of the treasury agency... IRS. They can create their own laws, interpret their own laws, judge their own laws as they see fit
I got a similar letter sent to my ffl after buying a black aces DT. Something about being a SBS or maybe AOW. I stuffed it in the safe and haven’t really looked into it yet bit it does have a forward grip and brace. I assume it’s the brace that caused the letter. Maybe it’s the side folding, forward grip 20 round magazine fed braced thing they are worried about but they don’t sell them anymore so they must have scared the original manufacture.
They are not supposed to be in charge. Congress is. They are there to administrate and enforce the laws (not rules) that exist. It is not legal for them to make new rules/laws without congressional approval. Congress needs to grow a pair of balls and take their rightful place in this country’s rule of law.
After watching a Colion Noir video's, it pretty much confirmed my initial thoughts that somebody somewhere randomly came up with why Q's stuff is a SBR.
What I would like to see happen at this point is since there is zero chance, to redress the agencies matters professionally, is for those that sell braced pistols, simply sell there weapons with end caps/buffer tube rather than braces since the even the NFA is unenforceable at the individual level and once they are in the wild, nobody cares, Just like 922r, interstate transport docs and engraving.
Pretty much treat it the same way that certain jurisdiction treat federal and supreme court decisions..
What I would like to see happen at this point is since there is zero chance, to redress the agencies matters professionally, is for those that sell braced pistols, simply sell there weapons with end caps/buffer tube rather than braces since the even the NFA is unenforceable at the individual level and once they are in the wild, nobody cares, Just like 922r, interstate transport docs and engraving.
Pretty much treat it the same way that certain jurisdiction treat federal and supreme court decisions..
Last edited:
The BatFags have been doing this stuff ever since they were given actual enforcement powers in 1968 time to rein them in.
Straight from the horses mouth. Does anyone else want to try to claim that this isn’t the ATF trying to open the door to come after ALL the braces?
I have a theory about this that there are really only 2 logical explanations for this opinion. How I got here:
First: I first read the ATF Letter and then the Q response letter, I thought aloud "something is really weird about this...the ATF knows their opinions are over-reach, but they've been very careful to tread carefully on these issues. They know one wrong ruling going to the courts could neuter their power."
Second: I watched the Colion Noir interview with Q, where he walked Colion through some specifics, like: they didn't make this public originally to try and work it out, and the ATF is now refusing to respond to Q in writing about the legal basis of the opinion. So I thought to myself: "OK, that's odd....it's almost like the ATF is worried about the opinion, and is trying to backtrack, if they're refusing to respond to it in writing".
Third: I just watched the Mr GunsNGear video on the topic, and he pointed out something I missed, the original opinion was issued by a Field Agent. Opinions like this usually don't get issued by Field Agents. They usually come from higher ups or HQ employees.
So my theory is that based on the above, there are two possible explanations:
1. ATF is testing the waters intentionally, and using an expendable employee that they can throw under the bus if they get their peepee slapped as a result. Explains the odd behavior and source of the opinion. Explains why the opinion has very little legal basis. Ahead of the election, maybe someone believes it will have an impact on the election, or maybe they just want to try it because they think it will get a reaction (or avoid reaction) from Trump because of the election.
2. The ATF Field Agent went rogue and intentionally issued the opinion (maybe also leaking the info to Gaetz at the same time), to get the ATF into a court case where the ATF has almost no legal basis (a great case to take to court), to try and curb the ATF power.
I think #1 is most likely. But #2 is what I'm praying is true. ATF has always been very careful not to go too far. They know they're on shaky ground and overreaching in these opinions, so they've been careful not to put themselves in a bad position. In this case, it will almost certainly end in ATF backtracking and saying "whoops our bad", or this is going to court. I don't see any judge ruling in favor of ATF here....there's literally no legal basis....would ATF be that dumb after all these years?
First: I first read the ATF Letter and then the Q response letter, I thought aloud "something is really weird about this...the ATF knows their opinions are over-reach, but they've been very careful to tread carefully on these issues. They know one wrong ruling going to the courts could neuter their power."
Second: I watched the Colion Noir interview with Q, where he walked Colion through some specifics, like: they didn't make this public originally to try and work it out, and the ATF is now refusing to respond to Q in writing about the legal basis of the opinion. So I thought to myself: "OK, that's odd....it's almost like the ATF is worried about the opinion, and is trying to backtrack, if they're refusing to respond to it in writing".
Third: I just watched the Mr GunsNGear video on the topic, and he pointed out something I missed, the original opinion was issued by a Field Agent. Opinions like this usually don't get issued by Field Agents. They usually come from higher ups or HQ employees.
So my theory is that based on the above, there are two possible explanations:
1. ATF is testing the waters intentionally, and using an expendable employee that they can throw under the bus if they get their peepee slapped as a result. Explains the odd behavior and source of the opinion. Explains why the opinion has very little legal basis. Ahead of the election, maybe someone believes it will have an impact on the election, or maybe they just want to try it because they think it will get a reaction (or avoid reaction) from Trump because of the election.
2. The ATF Field Agent went rogue and intentionally issued the opinion (maybe also leaking the info to Gaetz at the same time), to get the ATF into a court case where the ATF has almost no legal basis (a great case to take to court), to try and curb the ATF power.
I think #1 is most likely. But #2 is what I'm praying is true. ATF has always been very careful not to go too far. They know they're on shaky ground and overreaching in these opinions, so they've been careful not to put themselves in a bad position. In this case, it will almost certainly end in ATF backtracking and saying "whoops our bad", or this is going to court. I don't see any judge ruling in favor of ATF here....there's literally no legal basis....would ATF be that dumb after all these years?
All solid observations, but if it’s #2 that could really backfire if it’s found out and/or can be proven that it was his agenda.
I’m hopeful this goes to the supreme court and a judges ruling puts ATF in their place. The ideal situation would be a result abolishing the NFA but I think that’s pretty fucking optimistic. Even if the entire NFA is unconstitutional.
It’s also interesting to note that supposedly ATF needs to examine each individual gun with any given brace to make a decision and can’t just evaluate the brace....
BUT, they banned the bump sticks as a whole claiming it turns any AR into a machine gun....
BUT, they banned the bump sticks as a whole claiming it turns any AR into a machine gun....
I feel this is a harbinger of things to come if Biden wins. I’m hoping for mass non-compliance.
In some states it is, regardless if it is registered as an SBR under 26” it’s registered in those states as a pistol.
Have you seen how many folks are still "never Trump" because of the bump stock ban?
Or how many are claiming they are done with Trump if pistol braces go away?
Conservatives are kind of their own worst enemy, they are easily wound up by the opposition to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it seems. Especially if the Republicans have anything to do with it. Bump Stock ban could have been a huge win..... Nope totally made it into a big defeat.
They would be making the worst mistakes of their entire lives IMHO.
This Election is a MUST WIN for republicans and gun owners. If we don’t, you won’t have to concern yourself with Bump stocks or Pistol Braces! They should be thinking of the SCOTUS PICKS as they are the #1 most important thing long term along with bringing Jobs back to America!
I offer an alternative interpretation of this particular cease and desist order…
BLUF: The cease and desist order is not addressing SB Braces, but Q's design-intent for the use of the Honey Badger and Sugar Weasel.
CAUTION: If you are an Originalist, you must overlook the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment, and by extension overlook the fact that the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1964 are lawfully vacant.
…I'll give you a second to get yourself in that state of mind…
…Okay…
Here we go:
(1) By statutory definition (GCA68):
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
(2) By statutory definition (GCA6):
A rifle is defined, in part, as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
(3) The statute defines the nature of a rifle not-in-terms-of use, but in-terms-of-design-and-manufacture (‘made or remade’).
(4) Brace variants are (by conspicuous design features) intended to assist the shooter in using pistols one-handed. When a designer/redesigned or a maker/remake includes such a brace on a pistol, they have designed-and-made a pistol.
(5) "Designing and making" is different from using. When someone picks up a Glock XX shoots it two-handed, the GCA68 is silent. The Glock XX has not been designed or redesigned, made or remade. It was made as a pistol and remains a pistol. This is equally true of an AR-15 pistol that was designed and made to be used one-handed.
(6) Q is the designer and maker of the Honey Badger and the Sugar Weasel.
(7) The ATFE's cease and desist order specifically references the description of the firearms from Q's website.
(8) Q's website specifically compares the form and function of the Honey Badger to an MP5 configured as an SBR.
(9) Q's website specifically represents the Sugar Weasel as an alternative to the Honey Badger.
(10) The ATF is inferring their design intent not based on the physical characteristics of the parts involved, but how they were designed to be used by the designer and maker based on their comparison to the function of the MP5 SBR.
To the ATF (if you’re reading this): All pistols that I design, redesign, make or remake are intended for one-handed use. (If you could read my mind, you'd know that.)
BLUF: The cease and desist order is not addressing SB Braces, but Q's design-intent for the use of the Honey Badger and Sugar Weasel.
CAUTION: If you are an Originalist, you must overlook the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment, and by extension overlook the fact that the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1964 are lawfully vacant.
…I'll give you a second to get yourself in that state of mind…
…Okay…
Here we go:
(1) By statutory definition (GCA68):
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
- a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
- and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(2) By statutory definition (GCA6):
A rifle is defined, in part, as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
(3) The statute defines the nature of a rifle not-in-terms-of use, but in-terms-of-design-and-manufacture (‘made or remade’).
(4) Brace variants are (by conspicuous design features) intended to assist the shooter in using pistols one-handed. When a designer/redesigned or a maker/remake includes such a brace on a pistol, they have designed-and-made a pistol.
(5) "Designing and making" is different from using. When someone picks up a Glock XX shoots it two-handed, the GCA68 is silent. The Glock XX has not been designed or redesigned, made or remade. It was made as a pistol and remains a pistol. This is equally true of an AR-15 pistol that was designed and made to be used one-handed.
(6) Q is the designer and maker of the Honey Badger and the Sugar Weasel.
(7) The ATFE's cease and desist order specifically references the description of the firearms from Q's website.
(8) Q's website specifically compares the form and function of the Honey Badger to an MP5 configured as an SBR.
(9) Q's website specifically represents the Sugar Weasel as an alternative to the Honey Badger.
(10) The ATF is inferring their design intent not based on the physical characteristics of the parts involved, but how they were designed to be used by the designer and maker based on their comparison to the function of the MP5 SBR.
To the ATF (if you’re reading this): All pistols that I design, redesign, make or remake are intended for one-handed use. (If you could read my mind, you'd know that.)
"Ahead of the election..." That has connotations.
Considering the polls and the POTUS's condition, someone in the ATF may be trying to get ahead of the curve before the election?
Could it be the same mistake I made? In that what the ATF person thought was the 'pistol' version was actually the SBR version?
I will say, that while I understand the want or need for the shorter barrel, I have personally always maintained 16" or longer barrels so as not to put myself in that grey area. If anybody were to step up and ask if it was a short barrel, I can definitively say, "NO!" Again, my personal choice, not that I'm right about it. I would certainly like an SBR. But, I am not willing to jump through the hoops to get one, and deal with stupidity (regs) once I have it.
Considering the polls and the POTUS's condition, someone in the ATF may be trying to get ahead of the curve before the election?
Could it be the same mistake I made? In that what the ATF person thought was the 'pistol' version was actually the SBR version?
I will say, that while I understand the want or need for the shorter barrel, I have personally always maintained 16" or longer barrels so as not to put myself in that grey area. If anybody were to step up and ask if it was a short barrel, I can definitively say, "NO!" Again, my personal choice, not that I'm right about it. I would certainly like an SBR. But, I am not willing to jump through the hoops to get one, and deal with stupidity (regs) once I have it.
Q has pissed off more people inside and outside of the industry then I can count. When you put the company in that position everyone is looking for a way to get back I am sure..
I can see that being the case. Also, Q obviously didn’t send in samples to Tech Branch.. that probably rubbed the ATF wrong. The majority owner has been in quite a bit of trouble over the last few years and could add to it also.
DEF is an improvement over the DPF systems that tried to BURN the soot away.
I feel sorry for the people that paid big $$$ on Gunbroker and now may have a pistol that they may have to pay to get SBRed...myself included with my SW...and have to wait months or years if all of a sudden everyone that owns a pistol with a brace has to apply.
Excuse me now while I go
.
Excuse me now while I go
.
Ah, and therein lies the difference between "law" and "policy". The ATF cannot make law; however they can and often do make policy... which is what we're seeing here.
Similar threads
