In 2013, SB Tactical introduced the AR-pistol “stabilizing brace.” Navy veteran Alex Bosco designed the brace for a wounded warrior who had lost an arm in combat. The ATF approved the device for general use. The People of the Gun soon realized that an AR-15 pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace could be used as a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Justifiably worried about falling afoul of onerous, expensive, time-consuming and extremely punitive NFA requirements, more than a few law-abiding Americans wrote the ATF asking for clarification.

In January 2015 the ATF released an open letter answering their concerns. The Bureau stated that the act of placing an AR-15 pistol on the shooter’s shoulder constituted a “redesign” of the firearm, instantly turning it into an unregistered SBR. You could fire a brace-equipped AR pistol from your hip, your chest, even your forehead. Shoulder it, though, and you’re committing a federal felony.

Sales of pistol arm braces dropped as concerns about legality grew. Despite the fact that the ATF would have had a very difficult time defending their decision in court, no one wanted to be “that guy” to test it.

For the last two years the issue has simmered in the background. In February a leaked ATF memo indicated that a new ruling was on its way. TTAG can now reveal that the ATF has issued a new opinion letter clearing the way for owners of SB Tactical stabilizing braces to shoulder their “pistols.”

Click here to read the full ATF opinion letter. Here’s the important bit:

With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder.

If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock — for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace — and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively “redesigned” the firearm for the purposes of the NFA.

Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock — even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder.

Bottom line: if an unmolested SB Tactical stabilizing brace is attached to the buffer tube of an AR-15 pistol, the resulting firearm can be legally shouldered and fired without “making” it a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearm Act. However as soon as you do anything to change the brace (even just removing the strap) you have now “made” an SBR.

This letter applies solely to pistol arm braces which have been submitted to the ATF FTB branch and have received approval. SB Tactical is the only maker to have received this approval. If you have a non-SB Tactical pistol brace, this ruling does not apply to your brace. Shoulder those at your own risk.

Sources also tell TTAG that the ATF will be designing a litmus test to identify the difference between a stock and an arm brace (rather than the Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” approach). The test’s protocols are as yet unknown, but the mention of “comfort” above may mean that the ATF will be looking to ensure that the length of the arm brace is short enough to make it inconvenient to shoulder among other requirements.

Is this a reversal of the ATF’s policy? The ATF says no — in their letter they specifically call this a “clarification” of their policy and not a revision. But I can’t help feel that this is as close to a non-reversal reversal as we can expect from the bureaucratic nightmare that is the U.S. government.

99 Responses to ATF: It’s Now Legal to Shoulder an AR-15 Pistol Equipped with an SB Tactical Arm Brace

    • Lol! I’ve been waiting to see somebody put a stock on a pistol but then add a sinch-strap out of duct-tape – after all, you have then just “redesigned” your stock into a brace. hehe.

      • This is still a good deal. If they go back on their decision and this ends up in court, this letter is certainly going to be part of the record.

        • Just how many reversals back are we allowed to go?
          If *this* reversal is *the* *official* reversal, why won’t the next reversal become the *official* reversal?
          As has been said before, this is why the BATFE needs to go.
          For those who don’t understand the “why” here, it has become obvious to anyone who is willing to look that the BATFE is merely sticking a wet finger into the wind to stake out a position. Their own rules are so ambiguous that they can be reversed with a straight face.

  1. This is why the ATF neesd to go away or be severely restricted. Basically legislation needs to be put into place that says they can’t unless the law says they can, none of this “opinion” stuff.

    • Totally agree. As the owner of a Dead Air Ghost 45m, Ive been on the receiving end of these “opinions” myself with the recent suppressor wipe fiasco. It kills me than an “unofficial opinion letter” from the ATF apparently holds the full force of law behind it. I thought the whole brace decision was asinine, but the wipe “reclassification” really ground my gears.

      • How exactly does their opinion letters hold the letter of the law behind them? They are nothing but opinion letters. There had been no legislation to enforce any of this stuff.
        No tests in a court of law.
        How anybody buys into this crap and actually concerns themselves with this BS is beyond me.

        • The ATF’s opinion does not change the law and is not the letter of the law. Not at all. However, the ATF does enforce this law. The agency is telling us, in effect, how they plan to enforce it. They may be right and they may be wrong, and if the ATF arrests you based on their interpretation and a prosecutor moves forwards with it, then you’ll have your chance to argue the law in court. At that point, the judicial system will actually rule on the letter of the law and the ATF will find out whether their interpretation was right or wrong. Unfortunately, if you win you may well be bankrupt and if you lose you’ll be bankrupt and imprisoned for ~10 years. Unsurprisingly nobody has volunteered to be the test case. …meaning the reason why people concern themselves with this BS is pretty obvious.

          I’m also not aware of anyone being prosecuted for it at all. I don’t think a lawsuit can be brought against the ATF for simply stating their opinion on the law and how they plan on enforcing it without it having actually been enforced against anyone. There’s no defendant. The closest thing we have to that is SB Tactical, which can claim financial damages due to the ATF’s public opinion negatively affecting sales. Et viola, SB Tactical has found success in this pursuit. Hence this “reversal” news.

        • Totally agree Michael, but as Jeremy explains, no one wants to be the test case. Regardless of the legality of their “opinions” there is still unfortunately power behind them. My LGS will no longer sell the wipes for the can I already own (a feature that was also a deciding factor for me for getting it), and Dead Air is no longer selling them to the public.

      • How exactly does their opinion letters hold the letter of the law behind them? They are nothing but opinion letters. There had been no legislation to enforce any of this stuff.
        No tests in a court of law.
        How anybody buys into this crap and actually concerns themselves with this BS is beyond me.

  2. While this is welcome, it’s still shady as all get on. When can we get an actual pro-gun person in charge of the ATF and see actual change?

  3. This is the textbook definition of capricious. Agencies are not permitted to be capricious, and it almost seems like this sets up a possible legal challenge.

    That said, I’m not sure anyone wants to roll the dice since losing means a decade in club fed.

    • Look up “chevron deference” –precedent allows regulators to be arbitrary & capricious so long as the law is sufficiently vague that courts have to trust the regulators’ judgment (pun intended). NFA is incredibly vague, so ATF has unfettered power.

      • The chevron defense is the only reason I like Gorsuch, his opinions have been against bureaucratic overreach.

    • Something I have always wondered is this. How can the government put someone in jail for 10 years because they are guilty of not paying the government a 200 dollar tax on a so called nfa weapon, when people are caught cheating the IRS out of many times that and are given a fine and have to make restitution?

  4. No. No no no no no nope. No, sir. Nadda. No way. Not the slimmest chance in hell would I trust the ATF on this or any other “letter” or “clarification”. When an agency has the power to capriciously ruin your life based on their “opinion letter” of the day, they gotta go. NOW.

    • Have not a clue do you? SB Tactical isn’t part of SIG, maybe you should learn before commenting or read the article ( you say you have…ok, read it twice!

      • Sig made them for SB Tactical. Read the last paragraph below. Not sure if it was a licensing agreement or partnership.

        Quietly launched midway through 2013 by inventor Alex Bosco and his company SB-Tactical, the SB-15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace was intended to help disabled shooters operate an AR-style pistol one-handed. The flexible plastic cuff wraps around a shooter’s wrist or forearm and an integrated Velcro strap secures the brace in place.

        The idea was hatched in 2012 when Bosco was shooting with a disabled friend who was asked by a range officer to stop shooting his AR-15 pistol because of poor control of the firearm.

        When he returned home, Bosco started tinkering with soft foam and a plastic modeling kit to solve the stability problem, and the rudiments of the SB-15 brace were formed.

        With a prototype in hand, Bosco said in an interview on his SB-Tactical website that he realized it would be prudent to check with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make sure his invention wouldn’t run afoul of any laws.

        “I didn’t know anything about SBRs, NFA items or anything like that … I didn’t understand the implications of it,” Bosco said in the interview. “But I knew the best thing to do was to write a letter to the ATF.”

        In two weeks Bosco got his answer.

        “They said as long as the intent of the device was to fire the weapon as it was defined — as a pistol with one hand — they were OK with it,” Bosco explained.

        With the letter in hand, Bosco began his search to find a firearms manufacturer to help him build and distribute the brace. He found his partner in Sig Sauer, which makes a variety of high-tech modern firearms and likely saw a way to expand its reach into the pistol market with the SB-15 brace.

      • Yes CuDa, hard to fathom how Rob or anyone else could make such a giant leap by making the unreasonable and illogical assumption that the letters “S B” were an abbreviation for “Sig Brace”, totally inexcusable, he should be shot. Too funny! Angry Bitch much CuDa?

      • The owner of SB Tactical partnered with SIG to make his Brace. The SIG Brace was and is a SB Tactical.

        Bosco began his search to find a firearms manufacturer to help him build and distribute the brace. He found his partner in Sig Sauer, which makes a variety of high-tech modern firearms and likely saw a way to expand its reach into the pistol market with the SB-15 brace.

        http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/grand-view-outdoors/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-sb-15-sig-brace/

      • From 2013 to 2015, Sig had exclusive rights to the AR-15 version under license from SB-Tactical. It was originally introduced as the “Sig Sauer SB-15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace.” It’s pretty reasonable to assume Sig was adding to the muscle behind getting a good decision here. I didn’t see any problem with original post.

  5. Um, what? The letter provided does NOT say anywhere that it is legal to stick even a factory configuration sig brace up to your shoulder, it just re-states that it is legal to attach to a pistol as mentioned in prior letters. Your excerpt from the letter only tells us that altering the brace makes it illegal just to have on the pistol, but says nothing about legally being able to shoulder it.

    This is going to blow up in sb tactical’s face, more than likely. What a hell of a misunderstanding….

    • The original open letter said that shouldering the arm brace constitutes a redesign of the firearm and therefore makes it an SBR. The new letter says you only redesign the gun when you alter the SB Tactical brace and shoulder it. Therefore shouldering an unmodified brace is 100% legal.

      • I wouldn’t say something is 100% legal unless I were an attorney and a member of my state’s bar. I don’t think the ATF is going to ruin your life over it but I don’t think this letter “clarifies” anything other than the fact that you cannot legally even have an altered brace on your pistol that serves no purpose other than being used as a shoulder stock.

        The ATF doesn’t “reverse” their opinions… ever. Their original opinions are based off of their knowledge of the statute over time, and I would say considering the very first letter was written in 2012 on these braces they were probably well versed by the time 2015 rolled around to say what they meant to say. Only a fool would interpret this letter as a “reversal”. I’m giving this two weeks tops until someone writes up the ATF once again and they put all this to rest. Until then, save your pennies SB tactical because this gravy train aint gonna last forever.

        • “removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace — and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively “redesigned” the firearm.” Its only illegal to remove the strap then shoulder it. @Rob L you can remove the strap legally you just can’t shoulder it just put it on your forearm.

      • Shouldering an unmodified **SB Tactical** brace is now lawful. This ruling doesn’t explicitly apply to other manufacturers, just the brace SB Tactical submitted for evaluation.

  6. IRS has been with us seemingly forever. BATF is in the same department of the Executive Branch. IRS has been doing this very same thing since its beginning. Never will stop & there never will be a meaningful change in either.

    • No. IRS is under Treasury. ATF is under Justice. It started out under treasury to collect the various taxes, however it was later given greater law enforcemrnt ability and moved into DOJ.

      It needs to be stripped of its powers and moved back to treasury as a wing of IRS. Collect taxes and nothing more. Let FBI handle enforcement. They already handle NICS, let them have the rest.

  7. Well good news, but I have a shockwave blade attached. Not that it’s a problem, though. I mainly had it for looks.

  8. I wonder if SB Tactical’s MPX PSB (sb-tactical.com/product/mpx-psb/) will similarly be anointed by the BATFE? It’s kind of the same, but different…

    While it looks more like a stock than the AR version, it functions much the same.

    Any thoughts on it?

  9. So, you can shoulder an arm brace as long as the strap that is NOT being used is attached, but if you remove said unused strap and shoulder it you are commiting a felony? What simple S.O.B. decided this?
    A.bsolutly T.yranical F.uckers just need to go.

  10. Did anybody honestly stop? Like anything else thats fun… Keep it secret, keep it safe. Don’t ask for permission to be free and go about your life.

    Oh and I will add that a brace on a g17 with an endo adapter is just silly fun. Maybe not useful, but it brings a smile to everyone’s face that shoots it.

    • I’ve been throwing around the endo adapater idea, just because it can be removed quickly if need be. And it’s fairly reasonably priced and looks good.

      They also make awesome shirts.

      • Taking it off the gun doesn’t protect you. Just having the two components, even if they have never been assembled together, can be “constructive possession” in the eyes of the ATF, and still land you in prison.

        Arbitrary? You bet.

        • Arm braces are legal so…? The intent is to put an arm brace on a pistol. A stock is another story.

  11. “…designed the brace for a wounded warrior who had lost an arm in combat.”

    I understand how the brace stabilizes the gun, but how does a one-armed person operate the charging handle, especially with the gun strapped to their arm?

      • I couldn’t do it but I imagine the same way guys like Kyle Maynard become high caliber atheletes and climb mountains without arms or legs and no prosthetics. Got to meet him once, good guy and a very interesting perspective on life

        People with disabilities and motivation have more creative solutions to problems than I could ever dream of

    • Big-boy charging handle and a prosthesis. Very few arm prosthetics provide the user with the ability to safely hold an AR pistol, depress the trigger and control it during fire, but they do provide enough function to allow the user to manipulate the controls of the weapon. I have a lot of friends with missing limbs, and the SB Brace does make a huge difference for the guys that are missing an arm or part of an arm, but take the time to learn to use the brace. I thought it was purely a gimmick at first, but watching the guys that learned to work it changed my mind.

  12. If a firearm arm brace user were to. . .
    Remove the cross-line and invert the “A” in ATF you’d be most of the way to WTF, which is close enough for gov’t work. If you we’re to hold the ATF up to your shoulder, it would be close enough to your ear to hear satan laughing.

  13. It’s all good. ARFCOM will submit hundreds of letters asking for the same thing and they’ll be sure to have it reversed and banned fully in no time, just like they did last time.

  14. Ive heard nfa wait list times are still over a year. And they want to add marijuana to the plate of the hopelessly inept atf. On the bright side the atf hasnt shot any mothers or burned any children alive in a few years, all they seem capable of is making firearms less fun for no aparent reason.

  15. Like the white paper leaked a few months ago, this looks to me like part of ATF’s desperation moves to avoid being dismantled. With PDT in office and ordering reports of what federal departments can be eliminated, a new AG who is likely cleaning house of anyone involved in Fast & Furious or its coverup, and a GOP congress that is not amused by the ATF’s arrogance and sorry recent history, the ATF is in very serious jeopardy of being shuttered, and I’d say the chances of the FBI absorbing very many of the current ATF field agents into the FBI are somewhere between slim and “are you nuts?”

    Probably (and hopefully) too little, too late. Sometime in the next quarter the reports that PDT ordered on departmental reorganizations / eliminations will start coming out, and I suspect that ATF may be one of the peasants designated for hanging in the public square. I suspect the ATF knows this, which is why we are suddenly seeing moves like this and the recent reorganization to purportedly reduce NFA wait times (and the white paper expressing support for the HPA). The bureaucrats just want to keep their jobs and preserve their little fiefdoms, but anyone who has watched the ATF for any amount of time knows that once the pressure is off (or there’s another 2A-hostile administration), the’ll be right back to their old tricks.

    I hope Congress and PDT see through ATF’s recent effort to repair its reputation, and go all Cato the Elder on that agency. Fold its tax collection activities into the IRS, let the FBI take over criminal enforcement activities, maybe let DoE or DoT handle explosives licensing/inspections, and deputize FFL’s to be able sell customers tax stamps for suppressor, SBR’s, SBS’s, and AOW’s on a cash and carry basis upon a NICS check and submission of paperwork in the proper form.

    Of course, full NFA repeal would be better, but let’s start with what is doable quickly.

    • “Fold its tax collection activities into the IRS, let the FBI take over criminal enforcement activities, ”

      Is folding into the IRS really a good idea? Wasn’t the IRS targeting conservative groups (who are the closest thing to real supporters of gun rights)? And doesn’t the IRS now have a decent stockpile of weapons and light military vehicles along with enforcement agents?

      Sounds like a great way to formalize a new full fledged gestapo

  16. From what I can see, this letter does not really clarify anything, and is self-contradictory. The last paragraph on page 2, and the first paragraph on page 3 seem to convey pretty clearly that as long as the arm brace is installed, has not been objectively altered, and can still function as an arm brace, then “incidental, sporadic, or situational” firing from the shoulder is, basically, ok.
    But then, the second paragraph on page 3 seems to completely contradict the previous two paragraphs, by essentially stating that if a device is affixed to a pistol that could serve as a shoulder stock, it would constitute the creation of an NFA item, even if its manufacturer did not intend for it to be used as a shoulder stock.
    I’m going to go ahead and take it to mean firing it from the shoulder is ok, since they dedicated much more ink to expressing that idea. Fuck it all.

  17. Oh FFS, can we just get rid of the stupid “short barrel rifle” and “short barrel shotgun” provisions now? They were only ever in there to begin with to close loopholes around the handgun ban, which didn’t even make it into the final bill.

  18. I like how if an average person says something that’s patently ridiculous they would feel embarrassment or even shame.

    If that same person were backed by partisanship or government “authority” no amount of ridiculousness will ever result in embarrassment or shame.

    Take a babbling 8 year old rambling on about superheros or similar absurd content, attach a title such as “agent” or “spokesperson” and suddenly that babbling 8 year old becomes a threatening force.

    • Your cart appears to be ahead of your horse. Let’s see how far this administration and Congress are willing to go for the HPA first. I’m not yet convinced we’ll even see that one passed.

  19. It was mentioned in the article that ATF “opinion letters” are just that-opinions
    They do not carry the force of law
    Until a federal judge rules on the issue it is not a settled area of law
    As was said, no one wants to be the test case
    Until it is a law, feel free to keep shouldering your brace

  20. It might be just me not seeing it, but nowhere in the ATF letter does it state only SB Tactical braces are covered by this new determination. It simply states ***Stabilizing Braces*** without mention to manufacturer. Granted it in in response to and addressed to the Counsel of SB Tactical but seems like to me it encompasses all Stabilizing Braces. Tell me if I’m wrong.

    • The letter was submitted by and is addressed to SB Tactical’s chief counsel. The letter specifically indicates that the sample provided (by SB Tactical) is acceptable, and as per previous letters it only applies to those entities to whom the letter is addressed.

      • The new letter from the ATF is addressing the “Open Letter” on Stabilizing Braces and no manufacture is singled out. The Open Letter from the ATF in 2014 also just mentions Stabilizing Braces with no manufacture is singled out. And the subject of the new letter is “Reversal of ATF Open Letter on the Redesign of “Stabilizing Braces”” The ATF is addressing SB tactical but the wording puts the meaning to Stabilizing Braces meaning all braces not just theirs (SB Tactical”. Also, nowhere does it stated the sample provided on either the New letter or the open letter, it uses words such as devices and braces which mean any that fall into this category.

        • That is exactly how took the letter. It’s open generic “stabilizing braces.” It seems they have given the go ahead to shoulder unaltered braces no matter the brand or specific brace.

        • Correct. This clarification letter addresses the Open Letter. No manufacturer or product was singled out. This letter clarifies a category.

    • You don’t need permission, but the threat of ten years in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison is a reasonably strong incentive to seek it.

  21. “With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF” they use the generic term “stabilizing braces” in this letter. People keep saying which is logical as mostly these letters are geared toward one individual companies individual product that the letter is only for the one SB brace. Yet the photo is a different brace by the same company. And the letter itself states openly generic “stabilizing braces” plural and doesn’t seem to imply just the individual SB the individual SB that was submitted in the first no shouldering letter.

  22. This is all arcane drivel dancing around the fact that the government’s need to classify and restrict “SBRs” and “AOWs” is ridiculous, pointless, and above all, unconstitutional.

  23. Great….until they arbitrarily change their mind again.

    Can we just get Congress to pass a law specifically exempting the brace? Or better yet chuck the NFA entirely?

  24. Could anyone tell me the AR setup which is seen in the picture? Never seen that exact kind of AR (without buffer tube) or that very sweet brace setup (who makes it and what type of brace attachment is that also). Any help who be greatly appreciated, thanks. Need to get one.

  25. I see what the NFA is saying in both lettets. All aproved stabilizers are designed as that. In order for them to be used as a shoulder stock they would have to be redesigned or modified. Simply placing it on your shoulder does not constitute a redesign. Not that hard to understand.

  26. What about the “Shockwave” brace? It has no straps and I don’t think you can adjust it so that the buffer tube sticks out the back. I didn’t understand the part about ” for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock)”. Does this imply you must attach it in such a fashion that the buffer tube sticks out the back?

    • However the brace was aproved by the NFA. The lettet that came with the Blade from the NFA says you can use a strap with it. As long as you don’t modify the product (cutting, drilling, or simular deformation), you are good to go. Kak made a buffer tube that allows adjustment to the length of the arm brace. And per the NFA letter, so long as it is NOT so long as to no longer be used as a forearm brace, and only as a shoulder stock.

  27. Until the ATF becomes a legislative body I’m not worried. People and government agencies can write all the opinions they want. Doesn’t hold force of law. MAY only influence it but that’s all and we won’t know until a case is brought before the courts.

  28. I don’t think the ATF letter is saying what you think ti does. All it is saying is that someone using the brace in an unintended way – as a rifle stock by shouldering it – does not change the classification of the brace. It is still illegal to shoulder a pistol using one of the braces.

  29. So now a short barreled rifle and a brace/ which is a stock, atf cannot win a sbr reg stocked short barreled rifle, can u see it in court, the jury would see pure stupidity, show a brace or stock to jury?? Show me differance ? A brace is a stock, a stock is a brace!! They can never win a sbr conviction, ever!!! Cant have it both ways, proves how stupid nfa is!!!

  30. PS. What is a stock??? Duh, it a brace, there the same? Why have a stock on a rifle, its so you can brace the weapon to hold onto it, aim it and work it correctly, Now if they just allowed a brace to be shouldered, Well a stock is a brace/ a brace a stock!!
    Show me any court that that cant be clearly demoed, and shown, They just got rid of a ileagal sbr reg, not a law, a reg,
    As i said, show a jury, they will see how stupid it is,, At least we need ta be done with non constitutional regs, pure stupid, dumb!!!
    Sorry for spelling, im at work…,
    Goodbye nfa!!!

  31. Nick, that is a fine looking AR pistol you have. What is the lower or adapter that you have in place to fit that collapsible mpx stock? Thanks!

  32. That is not what the letter says. The letter says that shouldering a brace equiped pistol does not constitute a redesign. No where does it say that purposely shouldering a brace equiped pistol is legal.

  33. With this many opinions, reversals, comments, letters, etc…….if you want to be the litmus test for the anger of some govt paper pushing “official”, go ahead. It won’t be me. Too many control freaks with ammo we bought wanting to “prove” they are somebody and count in this life. BTW if you think you are somebody stand in front of that next Texas twister or hit the beach during a hurricane…..and not one single person is there to threaten you.

    Reminded of the old joke ……A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas , and talked with an old rancher.
    He told the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.”
    The rancher said, “Okay , but don’t go in that field over there.”, as he pointed out the location.
    The DEA officer verbally exploded saying, ” Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me !” Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher. “See this badge?! This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish…. On any land! No questions asked! Do you understand ?!!” The rancher nodded politely, apologized, and went about his chores. A short time later, the old rancher heard loud screams, looked up, and saw the DEA officer running for his life, being chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull…… With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it seemed likely that he’d sure enough get gored before he reached safety. The officer was clearly terrified. The rancher threw down his tools, ran to the fence and yelled at the top of his lungs….. “Your badge, show him your BADGE!!”

  34. The whole point – legal, not legal, questionable – who cares! You can have a SBR’ish AR or AK, where it’s legal, and keep it ‘handy’ – if the SHTF no one will care…you, on the other hand, will have a portable weed wacker that could save you and your family from a horrible fate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *