Tag Archives: gun control

Tip for the Week: Get Right on Your Mags

While ammo prices are still sky-high– if you can find it (anyone seen a box of .38 SPL lately?)– and firearms themselves are slowly coming back down to normal, probably the most affordable accessory on the market today that could someday, with little notice, vanish, are detachable magazines.

Metal or plastic, look for those mag deals now, kids, and keep em clean.

I’ve been picking up Okay Industries aluminum mags for $8 (with no tilt followers and textured bodies) and Magpul PMAGs for like $10. Likewise, factory Glock doublestacks are running $20 ish. If you have an HK G3/ HK 91 pattern battle rifle, you can grab West German surplus mags for $3 (yes, three dollars).  

To reiterate: you should still be buying magazines. They’re so cheap and so plentiful right now it’s crazy. I am old enough to remember during the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban when a clapped out USGI mag was $75 in Clinton-era dollars.

Don’t be caught unprepared if that happens again. Eger warned you.

Just 5 Days Left to Get Brace Comments In

Ironically, the rule would allow you to keep this pistol, just get rid of the base, because, somehow, “the brace is what makes it dangerous”

The public comment period on a plan by the White House and federal gun regulators to crack down on the legal use of stabilizing pistol braces is closing in the coming days. 

The proposed rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives largely bans the use of popular stabilizing braces on pistols by proffering a complicated multi-part test to determine if large-format handguns equipped with such braces could stray into being illegal short-barreled rifles.

The comment period is open until Sept. 8 and, as of Thursday morning, only had 149,960 comments listed. By comparison, almost twice as many comments were logged on the ATF’s proposed rule change on firearm frames and receivers, which ended last month.

Keep in mind that there are as many as 40 million braces in circulation right now, meaning only like 0.37 % of brace owners have taken five minutes to weigh in on the issue. My bet is that most don’t know what is coming, which could be bad for them. Like 10 years in prison kinda bad.

Submit your comments in these easy steps:

  1. Visit regulations.gov using this hyperlink
  2. Click the “Comment” button on the “Proposed Rule”
  3. Explain how it would affect you in a reasoned, polite comment that specifically says that you are opposed, or somehow in support of, the rule. 
  1. Enter your e-mail address (scroll down)
  2. Fill out the “Tell us about yourself” section
  3. Hit submit

Last Chance to Comment on ATF Receiver Rule Change

This is the last day to comment on the ATF’s pending idiotic proposed new receiver rule. Go do your part if you haven’t already.

The rule, pitched as a fix for “dangerous ghost guns” is actually far more complex and filled with minute tweaks, with the ATF’s ambiguous summary running to 1,600 words alone, and its analysis clocking in at 67 pages. Besides establishing a de facto ban on so-called 80-percent frames and receivers in the way they are in circulation today, it could also stand to regulate “split/multi-receiver” and “modular firearms” such as the AR-15 and P320 in ways that could require AR uppers and pistol slide assemblies to be a serialized firearm.

This would effectively end the days of uppers or unfinished frames/receivers shipped directly to the door of otherwise law-abiding folks, treating them instead as Title I firearms that would have to transfer through a licensed dealer with a Form 4473 with a NICS (and/or state) background check. 

All you need is a couple of sentences. Just say something like, “I am writing AGAINST ATF’s proposed rule (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05). They seek to change the definition of a firearm receiver that’s been defined in law for 53 years. If a change is needed, it should be done by Congress!”

Just a couple of quick sentences and a NO or AGAINST is all you need.

Again, it is not about ghosts, it is about adding tons of new regulations without Congressional oversight or blessing, and you should be highly concerned with how it is being done. 

The Pistol Brace Test is a Stone Cold Nightmare

With a 71-page proposed rule to clarify when attached stabilizing brace accessories convert pistols into illegal short-barreled rifles now open for public comment, we disastrously attempted to apply it.

In a test with a pair of unloaded large-format AR-style pistols, I sat down with my buddy Ben Philippi to honestly wade through the minefield of potential disqualifiers on proposed ATF Form 4999 to determine if a pistol/brace combos selected– which are legal now– would continue to be so should the rule goes into effect as-is.

And it didn’t work out very well.

The proposed rulemaking, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” as of June 24, has 102,000 public comments.

The last day to file comments is Sept. 8.

Kafkaesque Pistol Brace Rules Released

There are between an estimated 3 and 7 million (that’s a big swing) stabilizing braces on the market right now, all of which got there after the SB15 brace was released just a decade ago. ATF has been notoriously squishy on the legality of braces, especially at the intersection of its use on a handgun to the point that it turns a pistol into an illegal short-barreled rifle or SBR. Unregistered SBRs can get you a dime in the federal hoosgow.

You sitting in the federal hoosgow, looking to trade a pack of mackerel fillet to make unwanted friends in the shower:

“What are you in for?” says the broker

“I added a plastic stock that is not a stock to my pistol and the ATF found out and, it turns out, they ruled it was a stock,” says you.

“That mack got soybean oil or water?”

“Water…”

Zipppppp

Anyway, to keep clear of just what is illegal or not, the DOJ today released a proposed rule that is so simple it has a 71-page explainer to it. It includes a new ATF form (#4999), a two-sheeter that walks you through if your pistol with a brace on it is legal, or an SBR in three easy-to-figure-out sections.

Heavier than 64 ounces and between 12 and 26 inches? Boom, just failed Section I on ATF 4999, head to Section II.

There, if you earn a maximum of three points, proceed to Section III. Have over four points, and you are out of compliance and have an extremely dangerous SBR. So dangerous it only magically becomes safe for the public to own after you pay a $200 tax and wait 10 months for the paperwork to clear. 

At Section III, you can earn a maximum of three more points to keep your brace/pistol combo legal. Four or more, which can be earned even by installing “peripheral accessories” that would show you “intend to shoulder” your pistol, such as a bipod and/or short eye relief optics, or BUIS sights and it’s an SBR even if you passed Section II.

Sounds “simple”, right?

Check out these three examples in the proposed rule. One is (barely) legal, with 3 points in both Sections II & III; the second is an SBR, with 8 and 5 points in each section, and the third is also hot with a combination of 23 points on the worksheet.

 

The thing is, the photos, to the average user, look almost identical.

It is almost as if the feds want to make it so complicated and sow so much confusion and angst over the legal use of braces that most gun owners won’t even bother in an abundance of caution.

HEYYYY-OH!

Worse, what about the average gun owner who bought one of these, legally, at their local gun store thinking it was neat or cool, then they take it to the range five years from now (the proposed rule has no grandfathering) and a picture from that trip makes it to social media and someone casually tags the ATF in it. 

Oof. 

Meet No. 24

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but back in 2015, I was one of the first people in gun media– or any media for that matter– to cover the story of Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers’s effort to include an amendment to the NDAA while the Pentagon spending policy bill was in the House Armed Service Committee. Rogers, who represented the district of Northern Alabama that included the Annison Army Depot and CMP’s headquarters operations, found out that the Army had 100,000 surplus World War II-era M1911s in long-term storage at a cost of $200,000 per year, or about $2 per gun.

The amendment: save Uncle Sam the cash by transferring the guns to the CMP for sale to qualified members of the public, with the funds generated used to support worthwhile marksmanship projects ranging from JROTC to 4H and the National Matches.

I continued to cover the story, which grew legs and captured the imagination of– no joke– millions according to the analytics. Over the course of the next half-decade, I would file at least a dozen updates for a couple different publications. In 2017, after an initial batch had been greenlighted for transfer by the Obama administration (!) on a visit to the “Army’s attic” the Army Museum Support Center at Anniston Army Depot, I was shown crates packed and filled with M1911s pulled from the military’s museum stocks that were in excess of the service’s needs, pending shipment to the CMP once the handgun program got underway.

The thing is, 19,000 people got excited enough about the first round of M1911 sales from CMP and submitted packets for the first 8,000 guns transferred. With that, I felt I had little to no chance of getting one for myself, so I did not wade into the deep waters of trying to get one of these old warhorses through the program.

C’est la vie, right?

However, as CMP announced their Round 2 of the M1911 program earlier this year, I cautiously allowed myself to get optimistic that, perhaps, my chance had come as the really rabid collectors had already shot their bolt– CMP only allows an applicant to get one of these pistols– in the initial go-round.

So I spent a day getting my packet together, sent it in during the open window (January 4 to March 4, 2021), and sat back to wait. On 6 April, I got an email saying I had a randomly generated number (20581) and found out that the current batch of orders was going to start at 20,000.

Nice.

Then, on 20 April, I got the call. All three grades (Service, Field, Rack) were available, so I selected Service– the best– and asked politely for a Colt.

The very next day (after a mandatory two NICS checks!) I walked away from my FFL with this:

The M1911A1 has a Colt GI Military frame, SN 904594, of 1943 production with GHD inspector’s stamp (left) complete with a dummy mark (!) and ordnance wheel/US Property/M1911A1 US Army stamps on the right.

Rather than the original slide, it has a “hard” GI replacement slide with FSN (Federal Stock Number) #7790314 M (magnaflux inspection) TZ (IMI Israeli, who supplied such slides under contract to the U.S.) with a minty chrome-lined barrel marked with FSN #7791193 91. The plastic grips have “24” rack number.

Although I could find no arsenal rebuild stamps, I am theorizing that the gun was reworked at Anniston late in its life, probably in the 1980s, then put back in storage.

I’m totally happy. It was worth the wait.

The 7791193 series barrels have a good reputation for accuracy. I’ll let you know…

The Two Biggest Flaws in a “Ghost Gun” Ban

Unless you have been under a rock, President Biden last week took executive action to order the DOJ to come up with a rule to regulate 80-percent complete firearm frames and receivers, something that has long been pushed by anti-gun groups and progressive politicians looking to get their face on the news.

The basic problem with the “80 percent” designation is that it is a marketing gimmick just as much as the term “Ghost Gun” is, and is not a real-life thing. The ATF looks at a firearm as being 100 percent a firearm, or 100 percent not a firearm. There is no such thing under the law as being anything between, hence the ability to sell such kits through the mail with no checks or regulations– because they just are not guns.

It is too hard to come up with a realistic rule for such things.

Take an AK47 or G3 style rifle. They have a receiver made from folding a flat piece of sheet steel together and making the required cuts. Super simple tech. A guy even famously made an AK from a shovel once.

How do you regulate that?

Even ARs begin life as a plain block of aluminum that doesn’t need that many steps to mill out to a receiver– a process that is in the public domain. 

Do you ban blocks of aluminum? Only transfer said blocks after a background check?  A couple years ago, a fellow with a simple sand forge melted down 265 coke cans to make an AR receiver then built a functional rifle from it.

Then there are guns like the STEN and the like, for which a myriad of plans and parts kits are floating around, which were specifically designed to be made DIY-style with commonly available parts and simple hand tools. Have you ever heard of Harbor Freight? 

Finally, the biggest elephant in the room: criminals will still find a way to make guns. In England, after intense gun control was established, blank guns and starter pistols were converted to fire projectiles while a cottage industry sprouted up to make obsolete 19th-century ammo for relics that had not seen factory-loaded a cartridge produced since Victoria was on the throne. The answer? More gun control on Sherlock Holmes-era firearms. Sure. 

Take this specimen recently picked up by the SFPD– a town without any (legal) gun stores since 2017 and in a state with an “assault weapon” ban since 1989.

Homemade with a DIY frame, this Glock-pattern 9mm also has a selector switch on the back of the slide to make it full auto. Now such switches have been illegal without a tax stamp since 1934 and banned from new consumer production since 1986, but here one is, just floating around the Bay Area. Guess making something illegal doesn’t magically mean it will vanish and that no one would break the law to make one. 

You just can’t really regulate this stuff and expect it to have an effect on crime.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk, stepping down off my soapbox. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. 

War Graffiti, .50 cal Edition

I’ve talked about the effort by Tooele Army Depot to demil some 7 million rounds of WWII-era .50 cal BMG-– much of it from the nearby Ogaden Arsenal– in the past weeks. Well, the TEAD guys just recently found this message scrawled at the bottom of one of the crates in what looks like black crayon, probably by a patriotic ordnance worker back during the big push on Berlin.

“May the contents of this box blow the shit out of Hitler.” This lot, DM 21170, was made in Iowa at the Des Moines Ordnance Plant (DMOP) which produced nearly four billion . 30 and . 50 caliber bullets from Jan. 1942 through July 1945.

While most of these 80-year-old now-surplus wooden crates are being destroyed, TAD says they will be keeping this gem of war effort salt and putting it in the base museum.

Fans of Old Ammo Crates Cry out in Pain

Utah’s Tooele Army Depot, which inherited hundreds of igloos of WWII-surplus war materiel when Uncle Sam closed the nearby Ogden Arsenal in 1955, had been weeding out some of the really old stuff lately. This included demilling and scrapping over a million rounds of leftover .50 cal BMG rounds a year.

Big oof.

More in my column at Guns.com.

If you are one of the 4+ million Stabilizing Brace Owners, now is your time

Federal regulators on Friday set off the starting pistol in the race to establish what stabilizing brace makers term the largest firearm registration scheme in American history. 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives scheduled its proposed 15-page “Objective Factors for Classifying Stabilizer Braces” to publish Dec. 18 in the Federal Register, the official journal of the federal government, for public inspection. Americans have two weeks to provide feedback on the plan, which could be the last chance to make their voice heard on the issue before ATF moves forward.

Written comments on the ATF proposal must be postmarked by, and electronic comments must be submitted on or before Jan. 1, 2021, by midnight Eastern time. SB Tactical is also encouraging members of the public, who are concerned about the issue, to reach out to their lawmakers in Congress as well as the White House.

More background on the brace issue in my column at Guns.com here and here.

« Older Entries