So the aft had ruled consistently that attaching something to a pistol that could possibly be used as a stock is acceptable as long as you do not intend to use it as a stock. Would it be possible that someone could screw with the atf and have them rule that you can attach a rifle stock to an AR pistol as long as the user doesn't "intend" to use it as a stock?
>>29793523
No, attaching a stock would lead a reasonable man to believe you intend to use it as a stock.
>>29793523
>screw with the atf
>>29793536
In the same way the kak and sig braces aren't stocks?
We all can agree that the sbr and sbs laws are shit. And if the atf made a shit ruling and went back on it and it went to court it could very well change how the laws work and how the atf arbitrarily changes definitions.
>>29793586
Yeah, if you wanna bet your dog's life on it be my guest, but don't fuck over everyone else with your attempt at setting a precedent, because it probably won't go well.
>>29793615
Wouldn't a test case of something like a kak or sig brace being shouldered be a huge case for gun owners? It could very well turn over the sbr and sbs laws as most hope Helen case will open the MG registry
>>29793523
This all sounds fucking retarded anyway.
>"You can put the thing on it as long as you don't actually use the thing."
It's a fucking stock, what else can you do with it other than melee shit? Like fucking seriously?
>>29793777
No its about intent. If you don't intend to do something but under a circumstance you do you can be legally in the clear.
>>29793943
Oh.
>>29793586
Except the ATF DID go back on it and say you couldn't shoulder then
>>29794021
Right and I know ignorance of the law doesn't justify breaking it but would ignorance of the whimsical change of hearts of the atf might fair differently should a test case go to court.
