Quoted:
What we do know is they have have a patent pending for "NRS" technology.

This means that it has some sort of novel feature that makes this legal.  In other words, they didn't just find some legal loophole in the wording of the NFA.

Since they specifically say it's not a rifle and not a shotgun, this leads me to believe that it has something to do with the bore.  Why else would they specifically say it isn't a shotgun?  Since they specifically say it isn't rifle, this also hints that it has something to do with the rifling of the bore, or lack thereof.

Another possible clue is they don't make any statement of caliber offerings.  The mag certainly looks like a standard 5.56/.300BLK mag, and it very well could be.  However, my guess is that it shoots a new ammo that has stabilizing features similar to shotgun slugs.  It could even be a standards round like 5.56 or .300BLK, but with a new projectile.

That's my guess.

Quoted:
I imagine there is a FA marketing manager following this thread looking exactly like this.

https://i.imgur.com/JQB7k.gif

Quoted:
I imagine there is a FA marketing manager following this thread looking exactly like this.

https://i.imgur.com/JQB7k.gif

Quoted:
What we do know is they have have a patent pending for "NRS" technology.

snip.

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:

Just a quick sidebar here: we all really need to understand that INTENT IS MEANINGLESS.  Irrelevant.  Not germane.  Superfluous.  Immaterial.  Extraneous.  Impertinent.  Inconsequential.  TO BE IGNORED.

In a free society, all statutory ambiguity shall be found in favor of the people.  Seriously, that's not a joke - I don't give 2 squirts about the "intent" of a law, and neither should you.

Quoted:
Maybe it identifies as a full 20” AR.

Quoted:

Just a quick sidebar here: we all really need to understand that INTENT IS MEANINGLESS.  Irrelevant.  Not germane.  Superfluous.  Immaterial.  Extraneous.  Impertinent.  Inconsequential.  TO BE IGNORED.

In a free society, all statutory ambiguity shall be found in favor of the people.  Seriously, that's not a joke - I don't give 2 squirts about the "intent" of a law, and neither should you.

Quoted:

No, it sounds like we live in the same world.  You yourself said it's not our job to interpret intent, that's the job of the courts.  Let them do it, and then adjust your behavior accordingly - which is exactly what is happening here with pistol braces, and whatever this thing is from Franklin Armory.

There's no moral imperative for an individual to "interpret" laws, merely to follow them.  And depending on how you feel about constitutional matters, disobey the unlawful ones; but that's not up to me to decide.  Nor is devining the intent of some asshole legislator, all I can go on is what they wrote, and what the courts have had to say about what they wrote.

Quoted:
What we do know is they have have a patent pending for "NRS" technology.

This means that it has some sort of novel feature that makes this legal.  In other words, they didn't just find some legal loophole in the wording of the NFA.

Since they specifically say it's not a rifle and not a shotgun, this leads me to believe that it has something to do with the bore.  Why else would they specifically say it isn't a shotgun?  Since they specifically say it isn't rifle, this also hints that it has something to do with the rifling of the bore, or lack thereof.

Another possible clue is they don't make any statement of caliber offerings.  When a manufacturer releases a new firearm, they typically list the calibers it will be initially offered in.  They don't do that here. The mag certainly looks like a standard 5.56/.300BLK mag, and it very well could be. However, my guess is that it shoots a new ammo that has stabilizing features similar to shotgun slugs.  It could even be a standards round like 5.56 or .300BLK, but with a new projectile.

That's my guess.

Quoted:
Still nothing.

Maybe there should be a pole of the likely ways just to see where everyone one is at.

1. Barrel/bore

2. Trigger

3. Barrel length/stock magic.

I'm for 2.

Quoted:

FA said not the trigger.

Quoted:

They also said not smooth bore and I don't know how they would patent a barrel they don't manufacturer.

So 3 then

Quoted:

Do both.

Legally circumventing the unconstitutional NFA serves two purposes.  1) it gets more items into more hands, making them more mainstream.  2) it highlights the absurdity of the law, and informs more people as to the absurdity of the law.

Both of these things serve a valuable purpose for eventual challenging and changing the law.  When the courts contemplate the intent (as is their job): for example - if "pistols" are very common and yet there is no discernable illegal misuse of them, then that is good evidence that the law is superfluous, precisely BECAUSE a brace can be used like a stock.

Again, I understand your position: "change the law don't flout it" - I'm saying that is exactly the wrong position to take because flouting it serves a valuable purpose to changing it AND it isn't our job to guess what some lying politician "intended".

That's all I'm saying.

Quoted:
NRS = Necessitates Rampant Speculation

Quoted:
NRS: Non-Repeating Semi

Nowhere in the press release does it call this action semi auto. If you zoom in on the selector markings, safe is easy to read, but where SEMI would be, it's blurred out. The other setting is "binary".

I think this is a version of the British solution to semi-auto rifles. One pull fires, releasing (or a second pull) closes the bolt again. If they've argued that each action of the trigger is a separate pull, Binary isn't a machine gun, nor is it semi auto.

Quoted:

I think you're on the right track. I was just looking at Shockwave braces and saw their info (direct from ATF) about shouldering them:

If a brace with LOP of less than 13.5" is okay, then why not an actual stock pinned to less than 13.5"?

Edit: wasn't ATF okay with short pinned stocks for AR pistols a couple decades ago?

Quoted:
NRS: Non-Repeating Semi

Nowhere in the press release does it call this action semi auto. If you zoom in on the selector markings, safe is easy to read, but where SEMI would be, it's blurred out. The other setting is "binary".

I think this is a version of the British solution to semi-auto rifles. One pull fires, releasing (or a second pull) closes the bolt again. If they've argued that each action of the trigger is a separate pull, Binary isn't a machine gun, nor is it semi auto.

Quoted:
I imagine there is a FA marketing manager following this thread looking exactly like this.

https://i.imgur.com/JQB7k.gif

Quoted:
Somewhere, dozen pages back " Someone" speculated that the arm  might fire from an  open bolt.

With the bolt at rest, in " Ready to Fire" condition, the  BATFE Standard Measuring Rod dropped down bore, from muzzle would  then  transit  first the muzzle device, then the barrel, and THEN the full depth of  barrel extension PLUS the BOLT travel distance...

Quoted:
It is a rifled .410. 100%

Quoted:

From a Pmag, though?