hmmmm....... kind of like those old collapsible travel cups but out of metal.

Two-stage trigger that fires a round at each stage.  Technically more than one round per single trigger pull so not a rifle, but each round requires a separate 'function' so not a machine gun.

Thats not it because they said it can take a standard trigger, but would work.

They should have named it FORESKIN.

So what did I miss? Just checking back in seeing if anyone figured out why a rifle can have a butt stock with an 11.5" barrel and not be classified as a short barreled rifle.

My guess is there is inter-dimensional mechanics at play in the barrel. It measures 11.5" on the outside, but when a solid rod is inserted into the barrel, it measures 16" from the bolt face. Was CERN involved in the design phase?

Or are magnets and a treadmill involved?

It is not an end run around anything! Words matter, and the regulations were written with specific meaning so inventing a product that is outside those words is not an end run around anything.

My bet is that each gun is on a trust from the factory. The trust is then bought and sold with only a background check and fingerprints at the gun shop.

now that is thinking outside the box

Genius...

ETA: Added to an existing trust?

My guess is they are playing with the definition of "firearm" or telescopic muzzle device. Both are probably wrong though.

I could most likely figure this out if I had more data (While they tell you the barrel length what is the overall length?).  It appears the "stock" is fixed forward.  I highly doubt that the firearm in question is smoothbore.

This situation right here is why ALL ATF letter should be on an online data base.  They are public info.  They are discoverable under US v. Brady.  They are also FOIA retrievable....

I remember the Akins Accelerator and the steadfast refusal to make the "approval" letter public....Turned into a shit show.

Were I to guess it would be this:

If the overall length is less than 26" and the "stock" does not extend or retract  (Is being utilized as a "cheek rest" due to the short nature) it would most likely be classified a "Pistol" such as the Mare's leg....

If the overall length is greater than 26" and the stock does not extend or retract (Is being utilized as a "cheek rest" due to the short nature) it would most likely considered a "firearm" such as a 1919 semi is....

Either way a FOIA request can be made or Franklin Armory will make it available.....It will be public shortly one way or another.  Franklin is most likely waiting to the last possible minute to release to avoid copycats but that could work to Franklins disadvantage if the public senses it might be hinky and does not buy.

What a wonderful example of how this badly written law (NFA) makes as much sense as Voodoo.   Think about it?  You must make an offering to the NFA gods and perform many rituals in order to "lawfully own" NFA.....In some cases the NFA firearm dimensionally identical and operationally identical to the firearm that is not under the NFA (The Shockwave is another great example).

You are 100% correct.  Words matter, and regulations are written with specific meanings...which we are choosing to circumvent.  Do you actually believe the intent of the NFA laws are to allow you to build AR15 pistols with forearm braces, with barrels less than 16"/OAL's less than 26", and therefore not have to buy a tax stamp for them?  Because you "designed it" to be a "pistol" and therefore it's ok to go ahead and ignore the fact that it has never, ever been fired one handed using the brace for it's intended purpose, but instead is used exactly like an SBR?

The double standard here is INCREDIBLE.

On one hand, every member here will rail all day long about "Shall not be infringed," myself included.  We are quite literally up in arms about our rights being infringed, and can't understand how any sane individual doesn't see how nearly every firearm law on the books in actually infringing on our rights in some way.  We quote endlessly from the writings of the founding fathers about their actual intent when writing the second amendment, to support our cause.  Because, as you say, words matter, but obviously so does the intent behind those words.

Then, on the other hand, you'll happily pick apart a law you DON'T like word-by-word looking for any possible way to circumvent it, despite the fact that you probably KNOW that the intent behind the law, however unconstitutional it may be, does not support what you are actually doing.  You KNOW it, because, just as the founding fathers couldn't foresee AR15's, computers, the internet, etc., the Bill of Rights was made to be the law of the land unless actually changed by the process spelled out in the document itself; and the writers of the NFA couldn't foresee a bunch of people using a specific, extremely mutable firearm platform to circumvent their law.

The NFA is unconstitutional.  It directly infringes on our rights as enumerated in the Second Amendment.  The people who passed it, and who continue to pass restrictive firearm laws in the various states, and attempt to pass them nationally, are wiping their ass with The Constitution.  They follow it only when they benefit from it, and ignore it or do end-runs around it when they don't.  This is EXACTLY what is happening with the NFA in these cases.  If an obviously guilty person got away with a crime because of a technicality in the law, you would be OUTRAGED.  Here, instead you are ECSTATIC.  

They way to deal with an unconstitutional law is to destroy it, not to ignore it or hunt endlessly for loopholes in it, based on specific wording written a hundred years ago in a completely different world.  And, as I said before, the more you do this, the more you educate the other side.  And the more airtight and restrictive their future attempts will be, when they are back in power.  And the WILL be back in power.  To think otherwise is to have your head in the sand.

Change the laws, AND the lawmakers, that you don't like.  Or, pepper thy angus for the backlash.  Myself?  I'm hoping for a couple new SCJ's before the end of the current administration.  Then we can actually start challenging, for realsies, this continuing unconstitutional bullshit.

Remember...you are fighting against cowards and criminals.  They won't accomplish their goal to disarm you correctly, i.e. with a Constitutional Amendment.  Instead, they will pick apart our rights with new laws that ignore the Second Amendment, death by a thousand cuts.  You aren't even doing THAT.  That would entail passing new laws that modified or deleted parts of the NFA.  You're just choosing to ignore it, or, at the very least, the intent behind it, which I already agreed was crap and unconstitutional.  But it's a law, nonetheless.

You forget the GD motto: get both.

That's actually not a bad idea.  Put it on a trust, wait 9 months or whatever, once you get the tax stamp back put the gun up for sale.  When someone buys it, they get added to the trust and listed as the sole beneficiary.

Would you even need fingerprints?  IIRC you only need to submit prints when you add a gun, not when you amend your trust.
ETA:  Would you even need a BG check?

Lol, this thread has come up with about 18 NFA workarounds already.  But, "not a rifle" so that's not it.

It has been done with corporations before trusts.  Corporation owns gun, but corporations do not dissolve with ownership change.  Sell the single share and done.  Has worked on a case by case basis by individuals, but seem to recall that ATF or IRS nuked a gunshop that was doing that trick as it was consider Tax evasion.

This sounds like the most plausable idea yet.

While you can add and remove members to a trust at will, explicitly doing so with the intent of transferring ownership of an NFA item while avoiding the process of paying the tax is, technically, tax evasion and would be easy to argue as such in court.  Especially is a manufacturer tried to do it and advertised it as a workaround...

The more "loopholes" people find the more this stuff comes into common use.   IMO it'll be easier to remove NFA if it becomes a complete joke and it will be easier to convince the Supreme Court the law is BS for the same reason.

At this point with what we know, this is probably the most plausible answer. While it is an interesting solution, I still think shouldering a brace is infinitely better than a a pinned fully collapsed stock that's nearly useless for anyone over 5'0".

Hmm.. leasing MGs.... hmmmm.

410  smooth bore?

The people who were willing to vote in favor of an opinion which held that the letters P-E-N-A-L-T-Y spell the word "tax" and to vote in favor of an opinion which held that the letters S-T-A-T-E spell the word "federal" aren't going to be moved to void any Federal statute because it's a "complete joke".

This.

ETA:  You are arguing from an assumption that you are dealing with reasonable people who see things the way you (and I) do.  That, if something is "a complete joke," it must have no value and you do away with it.  Sadly, that is not the case.

Non-Rifled Smoothbore

They did this with real estate here. You pay document stamps on real estate sales. Smart ones said the Corporation owns the property, we are just selling the Corp. hence no change in ownership. Dont know if it still flys.

No. There is one trust per gun and the trust is bought and sold. It would also work with a collection of guns but that makes it harder to market.

The fed definition of a rifle includes this bit:

"designed... 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"

"Designed" and "only a single projectile" could be the keys to avoiding rifle definition. So if the design is for more than a single projectile to be fired using the energy of the explosive, it doesn't meet the legal definition of a rifle.

It's much easier to avoid shotgun definition because the fed definition of shotgun says it has to have a smooth bore and fire a fixed shotgun shell.

The only way to avoid AOW means being greater than 26" OAL. The language for AOW is extremely inclusive and would include all pistols with rifled bores if they weren't specifically exempted from the definition.

To satisfy every single one of those criteria, it is required is use some of the "energy of the explosive" to fire a secondary projectile of some kind. It'd be extremely cheap to have a forward-facing hole in the gas block that is designed to fire an additional projectile like a pencil eraser or something similar using a minuscule amount of gas. For a semi-automatic weapon it would require "reloading" after every shot, but because it is designed to fire a secondary projectile, regardless of whether or not the secondary projectile is fired with every trigger pull, the real-world functionality of the weapon is of no legal significance. "Pistol braces" are a prevalent example of how "design" can provide additional functionality without changing a weapon's legal classification.

Lastly, it wouldn't be a machinegun because both projectiles are part of the same "shot" and machinegun has to fire more than one "shot" per trigger pull to meet that definition.

Such a design would use all standard AR15 parts except the gas block as long as the weapon measures greater than 26" OAL.

One way this idea wouldn't work is if it were argued that any additional projectile would have to go through the same rifled bore as the "main" projectile. But it could also be argued the law doesn't require that, and that the "only a single projectile" language makes the manner by which any additional projectile is fired, as long as it uses the energy of the explosive to produce said additional projectile, irrelevant, and therefore such a weapon falls outside the fed definition of a rifle.

Kinda depends on which Supreme Court....ours or theirs...

Shotgun?

Hmm, the world may never know....

At QCB distances, would it being a smoothbore make much of a difference vs a rifled barrel?

I seriously doubt it's smooth bore. As to your question, no idea.

Damnit we still dont know I see

Franklin has already confirmed it is NOT a smoothbore

Even our's we'll run into in the common use thing.    If it's their court we're screwed either way.   If it's our court then more things that minimize the impact of NFA and make it look stupid is good.

Ive figured it out!

It’s demilled!

If that were the case it would be a rifle.

You choose to accept "unconstitutional laws" for the time being.  Others choose to fight it in ways that don't risk prison.  Think hard about chastising the people bringing the fight to the enemies of freedom on your behalf.

I've figured it out!  It's a plain old SBR, but Franklin Armory's come up with a time disruptor that creates a bubble in space-time around the gun.  The gun itself actually exists in 1927, so the NFA doesn't apply.  

Nope. These products prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the NFA is already pointless and ineffective.

SB Tac pistol braces will be the death of SBR laws (at the federal level) if only we can get a handful of R's in congress who aren't too busy working against us to work for us.

Crowd-sourcing IP.... not a bad idea.

So far this is the best response, my partially rifled barrel would be second.  Interesting loophole idea. Also couldn't the doble barreled 1911 be made NON NFA by making a sorta double barreled single primered bonded round( kinda like squishing the 2 brasses together and making a single case(with the fronts separated about halfwar down the "round"(not kinda looks like a figure 8 from the back with a single primer, and from front like 2 separate .45 rounds). you get ONE trigger actuation, hammer, chemical reaction, but 2 projectiles.

Fine with me, so long as they build and sell it at a reasonable price.

Holy Crap!  That's Brilliant!

Maybe it identifies as a full 20” AR.

The definition of machinegun uses the word "shot" and not "projectile" so one or more projectiles doesn't necessarily mean it's a machinegun.

ATF gave import permission for this double 1911:

http://www.guns.com/2012/11/27/arsenal-to-import-af2011-a1-january-1-2013-launch-shot-show/

I've been waiting for these geniuses to figure it out as well.

I have figured it out. The “stock” is not designed as a shoulder stock. It is actually a disguised flesh light. Firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the crotch. Occasional shouldering of firearm does not make it an NFA weapon

Most people seem to think it fires on release, and only the release, of the trigger. Stupid in my opinion.

They've made shotguns like that for years.