NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Everything Semi and Automatic is discussed here. Can be Military or civilian.
AK's, AR's, FN, VZ, FAL, and so on. (Post WWII)

Preservation forum, please no altered military surplus handguns or discussions on altering in this forum (On Military firearms only). Please read the rules at the top of each forum.
User avatar
Longcolt44
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 7574
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Loveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by Longcolt44 »

"That kind of full-size service pistol just doesn't have any concealed carry value."

Please tell my custom made IWB holster for my Beretta 92FS, that neither have any value as a carry pistol. I still carry my Tokarev TT-33 and my 9mm Zastava sometimes too. I like all steel pistols.
FREEDOM...USE IT OR LOSE IT!!
User avatar
awalker1829
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 11:10 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by awalker1829 »

FineRedMist wrote:
When I looked at the Beretta 92FS at a LGS, the guy praised it as an awesome range gun but said, "That kind of full-size service pistol just doesn't have any concealed carry value."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sounds to me like that fellow has no idea what he's talking about. I'm here in southern Arizona and can carry my full size M9 or M1911A1 around fully concealed even in my summer garb (shorts and shirtsleeves) such that you'd have no idea I'm carrying. Granted, I'm a big guy (6'4") so a full sized pistol covers less area on me than it would on a smaller person. As for extra mags, I carry them in my weak side pocket so they don't stand out. For warm weather, I buy shorts with cargo pockets and carry them there-easy to access but they don't stand out.
FineRedMist
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by FineRedMist »

In fairness, he did say that a big guy might get away with it. But most "carry" pistols do seem to run a bit smaller. :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
FineRedMist
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by FineRedMist »

In any case, and on topic, I think Andre the Giant might be able to CC an AR "pistol," but few others!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
RazorBurn
Posts: 1234
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: Southern WV

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by RazorBurn »

FineRedMist wrote:In any case, and on topic, I think Andre the Giant might be able to CC an AR "pistol," but few others!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Remember, in a vehicle, concealed carry doesn't always mean the weapon is physically on you. I could be under the seat, behind the seat, in a bug out bag, etc...
Threadkiller extraordinaire...
FineRedMist
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by FineRedMist »

Yeah, I was just thinking IWB, etc. Might make for a cool action movie character: some 6'8", 300 lb. behemoth with an AR/AK pistol at 4 o'clock. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
gurn
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:40 pm
Location: Mid.TN

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by gurn »

I'm glad in TN I don't have to worry about CC only. Here its just a carry permit and if it shows or pops out it doesn't matter. I see people all the time open carry. I don't as I feel it gives me the element of surprise. Well, I have carried my S&W 5906 OC as it looks sooooo good. :bwink:
Sé onr sverdar sitja hvass! - May your swords stay sharp!
Image
User avatar
awalker1829
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 11:10 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by awalker1829 »

Arizona has Constitutional Carry-no permit required for open or concealed carry. There are some limitations that CC carriers have that permit holders don't have-mainly school zones and no interstate reciprocity.
User avatar
Jackson
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:26 am

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by Jackson »

BubbaDX wrote:
Lee-online wrote:They are still legal to use at designed, as soon as you shoulder it, it is then illegal.

I have a SBR, a fun gun but it is so stupid to pay for the tax on a gun that falls between a pistol and a rifle.
That is what I thought. I don't see it as they changed their mind. Shouldering the stock is using it for something it was not designed to be used for. Sig did not get permission to make a super short rifle even though the brace could be used like that. They got permission to make a pistol with a brace.
2A: now with permission attached.
We soldier on, not because we think we can win, but because we refuse to lose quietly.
Jolly Green Chopper
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by Jolly Green Chopper »

I agree that we might want to keep politics out. Seems like the ATF did not change it's mind until the public started talking. They do not like to have anyone question their authority. When I saw gun owners using the arm brace as an SBR shoulder stock, I knew it was just a matter of time . I'm just glad I got mine before they make arm braces totally illegal. I am a disabled Vet.. with a need for one and use it as an arm brace... :wink:
User avatar
BubbaDX
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:29 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by BubbaDX »

Jackson wrote:
BubbaDX wrote:
Lee-online wrote:They are still legal to use at designed, as soon as you shoulder it, it is then illegal.

I have a SBR, a fun gun but it is so stupid to pay for the tax on a gun that falls between a pistol and a rifle.
That is what I thought. I don't see it as they changed their mind. Shouldering the stock is using it for something it was not designed to be used for. Sig did not get permission to make a super short rifle even though the brace could be used like that. They got permission to make a pistol with a brace.
2A: now with permission attached.
None that haven't been in place since 1934 with the national firearms act (correct me on the year if I am wrong, but I think I am close). Short barrel rifles are not allowed without the tax stamp, period. Like others have said, its the stupid jackwagons that sent that letter to the ATF that are to be blamed for this.
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." - Albert Camus
User avatar
Jackson
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:26 am

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by Jackson »

BubbaDX wrote:
Jackson wrote:
BubbaDX wrote:
Lee-online wrote:They are still legal to use at designed, as soon as you shoulder it, it is then illegal.

I have a SBR, a fun gun but it is so stupid to pay for the tax on a gun that falls between a pistol and a rifle.
That is what I thought. I don't see it as they changed their mind. Shouldering the stock is using it for something it was not designed to be used for. Sig did not get permission to make a super short rifle even though the brace could be used like that. They got permission to make a pistol with a brace.
2A: now with permission attached.
None that haven't been in place since 1934 with the national firearms act (correct me on the year if I am wrong, but I think I am close). Short barrel rifles are not allowed without the tax stamp, period. Like others have said, its the stupid jackwagons that sent that letter to the ATF that are to be blamed for this.
Never said that it wasn't in place that long, but I never said I agreed with that being valid either.
We soldier on, not because we think we can win, but because we refuse to lose quietly.
User avatar
JoeR
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:00 pm
Location: IL. ( Way south of I-80 )

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by JoeR »

I suspect many of you got the email today from NRA-ILA that says the ATF wants to ban "AR ammo" . Yet another reason why I have never got on the AR train. If I had all the milsurps that I dream of maybe then I'd want an AR but I know that will never happen. :lol:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... ar-15-ammo
If at first you don't succeed, reload and try again.
User avatar
Lee-online
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:47 pm

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by Lee-online »

JoeR wrote:I suspect many of you got the email today from NRA-ILA that says the ATF wants to ban "AR ammo" . Yet another reason why I have never got on the AR train. If I had all the milsurps that I dream of maybe then I'd want an AR but I know that will never happen. :lol:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... ar-15-ammo
Not banning AR ammo, just the M855/SS109. This is the NATO 62 grain round with the steel penetrator in the nose of the lead. This will remove a shit ton of surplus ammo from the market.

Most people shoot the cheaper 55 grain but this shows how the administration and ATF can restrict our rights with the stroke of a pen.
Kollaa kestää
wolfhollow
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:21 am

Re: NOTICE...ATF CHANGES IT'S MIND

Post by wolfhollow »

Atf is so silly
Post Reply