Posted: 7/30/2026 11:41:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: amheck][Edited]
|
Doesn't seem to be much info around on this one. Anyone know anything more. I found just a couple articles and/or videos and all are vague as to what was on the pistol at the time of the arrest. https://www.mrcolionnoir.com/report-officers-arrest-driver-over-ar-pistol-with-aftermarket-brace/ "Smith had attached what he considered a brace to the handgun that he purchased online and had shipped to an area gun shop. But the police measured the weapon and arrested him for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle (SBR)." Would really like to know what exactly was installed on the firearm. |
|
Sure hope Desantis or somebody steps up and helps get this BS dropped. Original article has a little more info https://saf.org/special-report-when-florida-police-act-like-theyre-working-in-california/ |
|
I just read the arrest report and it listed the gun as having a Strike Industries Mod1 stock. I’m not familiar with that particular stock, is it a stock or brace. Says the gun had a 7.5” barrel with OAL of 23 inches and the guy arrested said he purchased the gun in that configuration I hate these stupid laws on firearms and don’t understand why some cops can’t cut normal guys loose. I’ve let a ton of SBR violations go, usually with a “here’s the laws, just fix the gun or get a stamp”. Now if the guy was a dirtbag or I knew was involved in the local hoodrats shooting at one another, I’d arrest them. But normal guys, let them walk. |
|
Originally Posted By tc2129: I just read the arrest report and it listed the gun as having a Strike Industries Mod1 stock. I’m not familiar with that particular stock, is it a stock or brace. https://www.strikeindustries.com/si-strike-es-mod1.html |
Now with more political fatigue.
|
Originally Posted By tc2129: I just read the arrest report and it listed the gun as having a Strike Industries Mod1 stock. I’m not familiar with that particular stock, is it a stock or brace. Says the gun had a 7.5” barrel with OAL of 23 inches and the guy arrested said he purchased the gun in that configuration I hate these stupid laws on firearms and don’t understand why some cops can’t cut normal guys loose. I’ve let a ton of SBR violations go, usually with a “here’s the laws, just fix the gun or get a stamp”. Now if the guy was a dirtbag or I knew was involved in the local hoodrats shooting at one another, I’d arrest them. But normal guys, let them walk. Guy either installed the stock or bought it that way (didn't read the articles)... either way, I agree with your position. The statute even hints at "education" over "enforcement". Absent any other factors no way in hell would I have arrested on that. Personally, I've had perhaps three incidents over the years where I had to educate someone on SBR's as they were in possession of one unknowingly. Two I know were LEO's who brought the rifles to the range to qualify with for duty use. Both actually purchased them in their current configuration including one that was transferred by a very large and well known distributor who acquired it from a State Agency as part of an Officer Buy Back Program. The other as I recall was "built by a friend who knows AR's"... 
|
|
I feel like Paul Harvey, with the rest of the story. According to the affidavit, he was in the car himself. In the car's center console was a pipe with weed residue and then there was a container as well. You can read the documents here, use his first and last name, not the middle. https://courtrecords.mypinellasclerk.gov/ |
| Going to be painful for him for sure. Might make a decent test case depending on how far both sides are willing to go. This may even be affected by gun cases currently before SCOTUS. He'll definitely need backing from someone like GOA or other 2A groups. IF the prosecution decides to really push this and at any point it looks like they will lose in court I suspect they'll drop charges to moot the case and try to make it go away (or a plea deal waiving appeal rights). Although by then they've cost him thousands and just shown how the process is really the punishment. Realistically I don't see a favorable ruling at the 11th circuit if it goes that far so SCOTUS is it. I've always felt that the definition of an SBR was unconstitutionally vague to begin with but that's my .02. A barrel length requirement is pretty straightforward, but what constitutes a stock/brace or otherwise a shoulder-able arm has we've all seen been all over the place the last several years. |
Ex-ringmaster: Silver Flag Alpha armed carnival
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
5234
EE: 100% (299)
FL, USA
I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to post until tomorrow (after midnight) so as not to jinx anything. LOL ;)  I think he was charged under state law so now we get to see how the Florida state law will interplay with federal law though it appears as long as there's no violation under federal law, he should be good. |
|
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt: Guy either installed the stock or bought it that way (didn't read the articles)... either way, I agree with your position. The statute even hints at "education" over "enforcement". Absent any other factors no way in hell would I have arrested on that. Personally, I've had perhaps three incidents over the years where I had to educate someone on SBR's as they were in possession of one unknowingly. Two I know were LEO's who brought the rifles to the range to qualify with for duty use. Both actually purchased them in their current configuration including one that was transferred by a very large and well known distributor who acquired it from a State Agency as part of an Officer Buy Back Program. The other as I recall was "built by a friend who knows AR's"... Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt: Originally Posted By tc2129: I just read the arrest report and it listed the gun as having a Strike Industries Mod1 stock. I’m not familiar with that particular stock, is it a stock or brace. Says the gun had a 7.5” barrel with OAL of 23 inches and the guy arrested said he purchased the gun in that configuration I hate these stupid laws on firearms and don’t understand why some cops can’t cut normal guys loose. I’ve let a ton of SBR violations go, usually with a “here’s the laws, just fix the gun or get a stamp”. Now if the guy was a dirtbag or I knew was involved in the local hoodrats shooting at one another, I’d arrest them. But normal guys, let them walk. Guy either installed the stock or bought it that way (didn't read the articles)... either way, I agree with your position. The statute even hints at "education" over "enforcement". Absent any other factors no way in hell would I have arrested on that. Personally, I've had perhaps three incidents over the years where I had to educate someone on SBR's as they were in possession of one unknowingly. Two I know were LEO's who brought the rifles to the range to qualify with for duty use. Both actually purchased them in their current configuration including one that was transferred by a very large and well known distributor who acquired it from a State Agency as part of an Officer Buy Back Program. The other as I recall was "built by a friend who knows AR's"... Has there been any clarifying guidance from your respective agencies on how to proceed? I know the old adage of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but if even LEOs can get it wrong what hope is there for the average citizen especially in light of the recent injunction? As an average Joe Citizen I don't like relying on the government or its agents good will to avoid a felony. Remember Yunis Mejia? https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/st-cloud-man-sentenced-21-months-prison-possessing-short-barreled-rifle Bet he's feeling even worse though I'm sure he's out of prison by now. As for Mr. Smith I would think they should drop the charges within 30 days unless the prosecutor can articulate in detail why he shouldn't. |
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Has there been any clarifying guidance from your respective agencies on how to proceed? I know the old adage of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but if even LEOs can get it wrong what hope is there for the average citizen especially in light of the recent injunction? As an average Joe Citizen I don't like relying on the government or its agents good will to avoid a felony. Remember Yunis Mejia? https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/st-cloud-man-sentenced-21-months-prison-possessing-short-barreled-rifle Bet he's feeling even worse though I'm sure he's out of prison by now. As for Mr. Smith I would think they should drop the charges within 30 days unless the prosecutor can articulate in detail why he shouldn't. No formal guidance, usually officer discretion. I was in a gang/gun unit for years so we dealt with gun stuff more than the average patrol deputy. I still get calls from deputies on scene about stuff and most do what I did, educate if the guys were not dirtbags. We didn’t see too many SBR’s/SBS’s though. One of the last SBR cases I did before transferring units was on a multi time convicted felon that had a cutdown bolt action 22. He also had a bunch of meth and was into burglaries, so I charged him with the SBR charge. As well as felon in possession. He got convicted on the SBR charge and the feds end up adopting it due to his history. |
|
Looks like they did an Administrative Count Closure. To the smart people in the room, does this mean the charge was dropped? If nothing else, this should mean the agencies across Florida need to put out official guidance. Why should anyone be charged until this gets sorted out? STATE OF FLORIDA Vv. TRAVIS SMITH PID: 311530720 ADMINISTRATIVE COUNT CLOSURE The State Attorney, having filed an Information against the above-styled Defendant, hereby files this Administrative Count Closure for the following charges arising out of the same criminal episode: 1 Sequence No. Charge SHORT BARRELED GUN RIFLE OR MACHINE GUN AUG 18 2026 Dated: BRUCE BARTLETT, State Attorney Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida |
|
Originally Posted By fire4effect69: Looks like they did an Administrative Count Closure. To the smart people in the room, does this mean the charge was dropped? If nothing else, this should mean the agencies across Florida need to put out official guidance. Why should anyone be charged until this gets sorted out? STATE OF FLORIDA Vv. TRAVIS SMITH PID: 311530720 ADMINISTRATIVE COUNT CLOSURE The State Attorney, having filed an Information against the above-styled Defendant, hereby files this Administrative Count Closure for the following charges arising out of the same criminal episode: 1 Sequence No. Charge SHORT BARRELED GUN RIFLE OR MACHINE GUN AUG 18 2026 Dated: BRUCE BARTLETT, State Attorney Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida According to google it means they dropped the SBR charge, but he is still being charged with everything else. |