BATFE reverses itself again re: shouldering pistol braces

[HCM]

https://www.sb-tactical.com/blog/sb-tactical-announces-reversal-atf-open-letter-use-sb-tactical-pistol-stabilizing-braces/


Saint Petersburg, Fla. (April, 25, 2017) – SB Tactical™, inventors and manufacturers of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace®, is excited to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has issued SB Tactical a reversal letter containing a sensible clarification of the Bureau’s position on the lawful use of SB Tactical braces.

The new clarification of opinion letter states, “an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”

SB Tactical, along with the law offices of Mark Barnes & Associates, have worked tirelessly for more than two years to correct what they believed to be an inaccurate interpretation of “redesign,” related to the Pistol Stabilizing Brace. “It has always been our belief that the addition of our Pistol Stabilizing Brace benefits shooters, both disabled and able-bodied, and that neither strapping it to your arm nor shouldering a brace equipped pistol would constitute ‘redesign’ of a pistol to a NFA firearm”, said Alex Bosco, inventor, founder and CEO of SB Tactical. “We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission.”

[Balisong]

Even though I don't have any immediate plans to buy a brace equipped pistol, this is Awesome!!!

[MSparks909]

Huh...guess it's "legal" again to do something I've been doing every time I shoot my AR pistol. Come at me ATF.

[ssb]

This is what, the third decision they've rendered on these things and the second unique position they've taken? Living one bureaucrat's decision away from a felony is yet another example of why sensible reform of the NFA is needed.

At a minimum, the SBR and SBS provisions should be re-written to reflect now-common configurations.

[voodoo_man]

Well...

Seeing as how they could not redefine words in the English language to suite their needs, it is about time they reversed it. I am sure there was a little bit of guidance from the current admin.

Baby steps are good.

AR braces now, suppressors tomorrow.

[MistWolf]

I'll take it

[Olim9]

SO THIS IS NOW NOT-UNLEGAL?!?!


https://webmshare.com/PYO0g

[ffhounddog]

So I guess I will be building a pistol lower again with my sig gen 1 brace.

[Ed L]

If you read the whole letter on the last page it states:

"Similarly, an item that functions as a stock if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the purpose of allowing the firearm to be fired from the shoulder may result in "making" a short barreled rifle, even if the attachment isn't permanent."

So the clarification letter clarified nothing. To me this still suggests that if you use a brace as a stock and through some unlikely series of events it comes to the wrong person's attention, you could be in trouble. Not worth it in my book.

[Hambo]

So the clarification letter clarified nothing.

Par for the ATF course. At best, it's legal for now.

[psalms144.1]

Please re-read the last two paragraphs. The second to last specifies the "incidental, sporadic or situational" use of the brace as a stock is not a redesign. The last paragraph states, clearly, in my mind, that putting a brace on a pistol with the intent to use the brace as a stock does, in fact make the pistol into an SBR, even if the modification isn't permanent. It gives the example of putting a 16" barrel on a shotgun - not permanent, but still makes the shotgun an NFA item.

As I read this letter, it is, in fact, a reiteration of the previous, and use of braces as stocks is clearly still not "approved."

[voodoo_man]

Please re-read the last two paragraphs. The second to last specifies the "incidental, sporadic or situational" use of the brace as a stock is not a redesign. The last paragraph states, clearly, in my mind, that putting a brace on a pistol with the intent to use the brace as a stock does, in fact make the pistol into an SBR, even if the modification isn't permanent. It gives the example of putting a 16" barrel on a shotgun - not permanent, but still makes the shotgun an NFA item.

As I read this letter, it is, in fact, a reiteration of the previous, and use of braces as stocks is clearly still not "approved."

Correct.

The only solace we have is that due to the language now if a person is, for whatever reason, charged by the ATF with related crimes it would be their burden to prove that person did this beyond the scope of "incident, sporadic or situational."

What does it mean for us? Absolutely zero. Keep doing as you did.

[BillSWPA]

The last time the NRA Annual Meeting was in Pittsburgh, I attended their firearms law CLE. It was excellent with one exception: the presentation by the top lawyer in the BATFE. He answered "I don't know" to a disturbingly large number of questions for which someone in his position absolutely should have known.

With that in mind, the only certain way to stay in the clear is to stay well outside of the gray areas.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeep45238]

The last time the NRA Annual Meeting was in Pittsburgh, I attended their firearms law CLE. It was excellent with one exception: the presentation by the top lawyer in the BATFE. He answered "I don't know" to a disturbingly large number of questions for which someone in his position absolutely should have known.

With that in mind, the only certain way to stay in the clear is to stay well outside of the gray areas.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this is why my interest is so low - peaking, but low - in getting a scorpion pistol with a brace, vs. a carbine and shortening the barrel later on for an SBR. No potential problems until the forms are done and no 922r problems, in exchange for a little more effort to SBR.

That's worth the trade off if you ask me.

[punkey71]

And this is why my interest is so low - peaking, but low - in getting a scorpion pistol with a brace, vs. a carbine and shortening the barrel later on for an SBR. No potential problems until the forms are done and no 922r problems, in exchange for a little more effort to SBR.

That's worth the trade off if you ask me.

I've several AR SBRs and a braced pistol - 8" MPX with a can, specifically.

Having both gives you options for out of state travel if that's a need. For me, it is. In laws are a few hours away but across a state line. Yes, I could submit forms every year to travel with an SBR but being a pistol also has travel advantages beyond just the paperwork.

Putting a braced AR pistol lower together wouldn't be a bad idea for me.

Having options is good.

I know a lot of folks are either "I hate them" or "I love them". I'm neither.

For me, it's just an option I enjoy having.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jeep45238]

I've several AR SBRs and a braced pistol - 8" MPX with a can, specifically.

Having both gives you options for out of state travel if that's a need. For me, it is. In laws are a few hours away but across a state line. Yes, I could submit forms every year to travel with an SBR but being a pistol also has travel advantages beyond just the paperwork.

Putting a braced AR pistol lower together wouldn't be a bad idea for me.

Having options is good.

I know a lot of folks are either "I hate them" or "I love them". I'm neither.

For me, it's just an option I enjoy having.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's something to consider. It might be something that will impact me in the coming years, and is something to keep in mind. Thanks for the positive counterpoint.

[critter]

The way I got (the now ex) Mrs. Critter into shooting the AR platform was with a braced 9mm 10.5 pistol. She was afraid of the rifles because they looked too scary. She fired pistol from the shoulder, but this was right after the SIG brace became available and before whatever horse shit rulings were rendered.

My take on this is pretty simple: I give |absolute zero| shits what BATFE 'rules' on anything. This is my perspective and stance and is not representative of pistol-forum.com, any member of pistol-forum.com, any other individual anywhere.

[rob_s]

you know how I know you're gay?

you put a "brace" on your "pistol" to try and get around having to comply with the law for an SBR and then try to deny that this is, in fact, exactly what you're doing.

[critter]

you know how I know you're gay?

you put a "brace" on your "pistol" to try and get around having to comply with the law for an SBR and then try to deny that this is, in fact, exactly what you're doing.

By your assertion I'm only half gay because that is, as a matter of explicit fact, exactly what I did - get around the 'law' requiring registration of a firearm or firearm part with the government, which I will never do under any circumstance, but which was also explicitly legal at the time. :cool:

[ffhounddog]

I went crazy bought a whole new rifle with folding stock. Still have an Anderson lower sitting in the gunsafe, have a Sig brace stock h2 buffer, Cmmg LPK, carry handle, now need an upper

[Mobettadefense]

Options, as always, are good to have. "Incidental, sporadic or situational use" is still some use and it is a good thing to see the ATF acknowledge that a pistol should not and cannot magically become a rifle as a result of placing any part of it against any certain part of your body.

[Grey]

So... 3 weeks before they change their mind with everyone writing asking if it's okay the shoulder their braces now?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I only have .22 LR rifles and Dad's M1, but can someone explain to me, whats the point? Whats the advantage of a shorter barrel for a rifle - doesn't that make it very not accurate and kick more? This is not a criticism but a question.

[SecondsCount]

you know how I know you're gay?

you put a "brace" on your "pistol" to try and get around having to comply with the law for an SBR and then try to deny that this is, in fact, exactly what you're doing.

The SBR law is gay, not the guy trying to eliminate the need for putting his name on a registry and paying $200 in taxes in the name of "safety and security"

Kinda shows where your priorities lie.

[critter]

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I only have .22 LR rifles and Dad's M1, but can someone explain to me, whats the point? Whats the advantage of a shorter barrel for a rifle - doesn't that make it very not accurate and kick more?

Maneuverability in tight quarters. I personally don't see any benefit other than that for a 5.56 and arguments can be made for detriments. 300 Blackout is a little different story as the cartridge was designed with SBR's in mind. It also lends pistol calibers (up to specific barrel lengths depending on caliber and load) a little more zip and accuracy.

[TAZ]

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I only have .22 LR rifles and Dad's M1, but can someone explain to me, whats the point? Whats the advantage of a shorter barrel for a rifle - doesn't that make it very not accurate and kick more? This is not a criticism but a question.

SBR can be quite accurate. Accuracy didn't generally come from barrel length. Velocity does, so your max range before the projectile comes back through the sound barrier and gets kind of goofy will be less. The right projectile with the right twist rate and you can have a very stable projectile, admittedly for a shorter range. When you compare a 16" with RDS vs an 11" with RDS the accuracy potential is not limited by the barrel length but rather by the sighting device.

An SBR is easier to maneuver, somewhat lighter and when u add a can they are the same length as a carbine. Makes it easier to use for SD and such.

[Grey]

Another draw is that you can carry a loaded pistol in your car. You can't do that with a rifle in a number of states.

[Zincwarrior]

Thanks. My SD plan is to sit behind the bed and throw wiener dogs at the problem (they say only 8 pigs are needed to eat a man in thirty minutes, but they don't tell you that four wiener dogs can do the same job in seven minutes!), so this is enlightening.


Another draw is that you can carry a loaded pistol in your car. You can't do that with a rifle in a number of states.
Interesting. I am from Texas where, until recently, it was easier to have a rifle or shotgun.

[Rex G]

My biggest gripe with complying with the rules for an SBR, compared to the rules for handguns, is that the main reason I would want one is for traveling, and though I live in the large state of Texas, a significant portion of my road trips head toward a border less than 100 miles away, and can then cross multiple state lines. Traveling with a handgun is much simpler, as there is no need to notify the BATFEman, and loaded handguns inside vehicles are legal far more places than loaded rifles inside vehicles. (I have yet to buy/build an AR pistol; my current favored traveling handgun is a GP100.)

For home defense, my long gun of choice, at most such moments in time, is probably going to be a shotgun, but my BCM 16" Lightweight Middy is plenty handy enough.

I do have one specific role for an SBR. If I can manage to get into one of the too-few patrol rifle training/certification classes, and renew my lapsed certification to carry a patrol rifle, my chief will let me carry an SBR AR15. (Well, it was the prior chief that enacted the rule, and the present chief, of Left Coast origin, has not yet rescinded that rule, anyway.) The Tahoe that I usually drive has plenty of room to get a full-length rifle from the rack, but the newer Ford Explorer-based vehicles are much less roomy. Realistically, I am dreaming; it is very difficult to get enrolled in one of the patrol carbine classes; I will probably retire first. I have requested, in writing, that short-barreled shotguns be similarly OK'ed, but I am not holding my breath.

I would not be allowed to qual with an AR pistol. My future AR pistol project may be a retirement gift for myself. :)

[GuanoLoco]

From a lawyer friend (see attached image)

"Still wouldn't risk it. Remember what the ATF says is just their opinion. Final say is with court. We learned that with Abrimski decision. Read to end. Those 'pistols' sure look like an SBR to me"

My take: ATF may or may not charge you. Once charged, the Courts interpret, not ATF.

[43Under]

Letter or no letter, reversal or no reversal, I'm having trouble figuring out how anyone can ever get busted for shouldering a braced pistol. How can someone (LE) PROVE that I shouldered it and didn't just "cheek" it? Video? There'd have to be a great angle and a lot better resolution than is available on most videos of shootings I've seen. Even in person, like at the range, a random LE guy would have to (in order to be safe) be behind me, so how can he PROVE I shouldered it? Thus, I've never worried about it.

[voodoo_man]

Hypothetically​ speaking if you happened to be in a deadly force scenario and you did use a brace as a stock and shoulder mounted it, as long as the shoot is ruled good the likelihood of you getting charged for a lawful defense are very slim. See states have "emergency use" type clause setup for this particular reason. Not sure about federal...

[ssb]

Hypothetically​ speaking if you happened to be in a deadly force scenario and you did use a brace as a stock and shoulder mounted it, as long as the shoot is ruled good the likelihood of you getting charged for a lawful defense are very slim. See states have "emergency use" type clause setup for this particular reason. Not sure about federal...

Hypothetically, that depends on whether Joe Street Cop understands the nuances of the NFA and any state-specific analogues. After seeing many pseudo-legal analyses by members of that population, my takeaway is that I don't want to rely on the hope Lee Weems shows up at my door.

See also: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/can-use-of-illegally-carried-gun-harm-claim-of-self-defense/#axzz4fJMsfAgG

[Ed L]

you know how I know you're gay?

you put a "brace" on your "pistol" to try and get around having to comply with the law for an SBR and then try to deny that this is, in fact, exactly what you're doing.

So this is how Rob_S' gaydar works. You need to do a chart on gayness on the internet :).

Seriously, in this day in age can we find a better adjective for something than gay (unless it involves liking Judy Garland, Broadway show tunes, and other traditional things of that nature).

And I suppose if the ATF catch you and think you are gay, your interrogation is likely to resemble this scene from the movie Cruising:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgWvLkTkTBY

Sorry, just trying to inject some levity.

[MSparks909]

Apparently for users with the Shockwave Blade (me), as long as you don't use Red Loctite on the set screw and have the length of pull less than 13.5" (how effing arbitrary), you're good to go. Other than that shoulder away!

That's per an ATF response directly to the makers of the Shockwave Blade.

[GuanoLoco]

Apparently for users with the Shockwave Blade (me), as long as you don't use Red Loctite on the set screw and have the length of pull less than 13.5" (how effing arbitrary), you're good to go. Other than that shoulder away!

That's per an ATF response directly to the makers of the Shockwave Blade.

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?m=201704

[MSparks909]

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?m=201704

Yeah, that!

[Willard]

The SBR law is gay, not the guy trying to eliminate the need for putting his name on a registry and paying $200 in taxes in the name of "safety and security"

Kinda shows where your priorities lie.

Exactry!

[Willard]

So the clarification letter clarified nothing. To me this still suggests that if you use a brace as a stock and through some unlikely series of events it comes to the wrong person's attention, you could be in trouble. Not worth it in my book..

Yes. Also in the OP, the quote, “We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission," smacks of buffoonery. Clearly meant to give the ATF an out / political appeasement, but distills down to stating we welcome them revisiting and making currently legal actions illegal in the event of a change of party in the executive down the road (public safety don't ya know).

[entropy]

Boils down to the rule of "Just be quiet and dont be an idiot".

If folks would have just taken the original Sig Brace, smiled, and been on their happy way...we wouldnt be here right now. Instead, they started to chop, modify, and write an ever increasing amount of stooopid letters. Here we are. Some of us dont have the ability to own a SBR due to our state laws. Yea...I know I can move...but being a grown adult with a family, one has certain priorities in life. One day soon. Regardless of that, the ability to use it as a "pistol" and have it in a vehicle across state lines is something you could never do realistically with an SBR anyhow.

Rule 1. Just be quiet and dont be an idiot.
Rule 2. See rule 1
Rule 3. See rule 1
Rule 4. .......

[BillSWPA]

I understand the travel issue, but at least in my experience, in any state where I cannot have a concealed handgun on my person, having any gun in my car is problematic at best. Besides, if I can get to my car, plan A is driving away. A better solution to travel is, depending on location, unarmed skills, knives, pepper spray, and improvised/expedient weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[entropy]

Agreed on above. My use is/was always specific. Long hours of rural interstate travel, often at odd times, always in CCW permissive states. Or alternatively, on the back 40 someplace where I might want somethng more than a "pistol" for whatever reason. My view is it gives me another 50yds or so if I would really need it. Right tool for the job kinda thing. I have a plate carrier in the truck too, using the same thought process.

Regardless, Im glad to see a "reversal by fiat". Hopefully it can be turned into even more common sense when it comes to some issues of NFA. Not really hopeful, but heck...one can dream right?

[Doug]

If my state allowed SBRs, I would rather pay a $200 tax stamp as legal insurance rather than risk footing a minimum $10,000 plus to $25k legal bill trying to defend an overzealous arrest/prosecution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[entropy]

Not to turn the thread into a pee-match... In that case dont shoulder it then. Mine have the Thordsen Device installed which has been around a long time. Still live by Rule 1. That said, I couldnt do what I do IF it WAS and SBR.

All aside, it will be interesting to see if this translates into any thing down the road. Im getting the popcorn ready nonetheless.

[Jeep]

I'm going to do something truly strange and defend the ATF here.

The basic problem is that they are charged with defending a nonsensical statute. As Tam noted on this forum repeatedly, the reason for the SBR restriction was that the NFA was originally going to include handguns, and the SBR section was just designed to take away a loophole. When rural legislators found out about the handgun provision, they insisted that it be removed--but the SBR provision was left in because no one thought to take it out.

Which means that the ATF is trying to regulate the in-regulatable. There is no real difference between a handgun and a SBR, so the ATF focused on the statutory language about a stock. But as this series of letters shows, in the end that leads to nonsensical results no matter what the ATF does.

The real answer is to stop trying to tax and regulate SBR's. It serves no coherent purpose even if you believe in gun control fantasies. But the ATF can't do that.

So the ATF is stuck, and this letter is about as good as it can do in trying to perform an impossible job. The truth about pistol braces is that they work as braces--both over the arm and next to it, and they work as stocks or semi-stocks (by that I mean you can get a check weld with them, without actually shouldering them, which is something I tend to do with certain AR stocks anyway; and interestingly that doesn't count as using something as a stock).

But anyway, we can now use braces as stocks "situationally"--which means sometimes. It certainly must include zeroing the weapon, with occasional use as a stock when aiming at, for example, longer range targets. To my mind, that allows trying out new ways to use a pistol with a brace that might possible advance self-defense tactics.

Whether I'm correct on that or not, I welcome this letter and am not throwing stuff at the ATF. Congress needs to fix this issue.

[entropy]

^^^^^^

Tru.
Dat!

[QuickStrike]

Damnit, I sold my 11.5" BCM upper a while back and now they changed it again!



Still have the pistol lower laying around somewhere.. Kinda tempted to get another short upper TBH...

[Ed L]

If my state allowed SBRs, I would rather pay a $200 tax stamp as legal insurance rather than risk footing a minimum $10,000 plus to $25k legal bill trying to defend an overzealous arrest/prosecution.

Not to mention ending up on the losing side which could entail possible prison time and not being able to legally own firearms again. To me this makes it not worth it, especially with the ambiguousness of the letter if you include this passage from the last paragraph:

"Similarly, an item that functions as a stock if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the purpose of allowing the firearm to be fired from the shoulder may result in "making" a short barreled rifle, even if the attachment isn't permanent."

Frankly, I think certain proponents of the Sig brace are declaring victory prematurely.

[SecondsCount]

I'm going to do something truly strange and defend the ATF here.

The basic problem is that they are charged with defending a nonsensical statute.

....

My question is why?? Because they are going to lose out on $200 in taxes? Because it really presents an issue with the safety of the citizens of this country? There are bigger gun issues in this country when it comes to firearms, and making an issue with shortening the barrel of a rifle or putting a stock on a pistol is a silly law. Whenever I explain the issue with a new gun owner they look at me like I just stepped off a UFO.

[Jeep]

My question is why?? Because they are going to lose out on $200 in taxes? Because it really presents an issue with the safety of the citizens of this country? There are bigger gun issues in this country when it comes to firearms, and the shortening the barrel of a rifle or putting a stock on a pistol is a silly law. Whenever I explain the issue with a new gun owner they look at me like I just stepped off a UFO.

Well the statute is nonsensical by quasi-mistake, though one gets the sense that the NFA's backers were happy to essentially ban (the $200 tax effectively constituted a ban in 1934) any firearm they could And it doesn't get repealed because the gun control forces are against repealing any gun control, and look with favor on statutes that are nonsensical because of their in terrorum effect--they like getting people to refrain from perfectly legal things out of fear that it might somehow constitute a violation of an ambiguous law.

The issue isn't limited to guns. There are a lot of federal criminal laws that are ambiguous and could result in felony convictions for people who have no reason to believe they have violated the law. That isn't how our laws have historically been made, but it has become a favored technique since the progressive error and especially in the last 30 years.

Traditionally in Anglo American law, everything was permitted except if it was specifically forbidden. That principle, however, greatly constrains the power of the State to make things perfect (in the minds of our left-wing friends, at least) and they therefore want a regime in which everything is forbidden unless specifically allowed. It's scary stuff.

[BillSWPA]

My question is why?? Because they are going to lose out on $200 in taxes? Because it really presents an issue with the safety of the citizens of this country? There are bigger gun issues in this country when it comes to firearms, and making an issue with shortening the barrel of a rifle or putting a stock on a pistol is a silly law. Whenever I explain the issue with a new gun owner they look at me like I just stepped off a UFO.

The first thing I say when discussing gun control is not to expect it to make sense. Gun control laws are written by people who neither like nor understand guns. So, expecting them to make sense will only prove to be an obstacle to correctly understanding the legal requirements.

[medic15al]

Question: Is it the same when someone shoulders the bare pistol buffer tube? Is it treated in the same manor?

[ssb]

Question: Is it the same when someone shoulders the bare pistol buffer tube? Is it treated in the same manor?

I would think that, since the buffer tube is a component required for an AR-15 pistol to function rather than a part added later to "make the pistol easier to shoot as a pistol," there's no re-design or manufacture occurring. The back-and-forth with the SigBraces involves manufacturing an NFA firearm by way of adding a new part. However, I don't work for the ATF's FTB and don't pretend to understand what goes on inside their heads.

[NH Shooter]

Question: Is it the same when someone shoulders the bare pistol buffer tube? Is it treated in the same manor?

Not is the tube is so damned short that your nose ends up in the rear sight;

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-2.jpg


http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-10.jpg


http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-11.jpg


With a 2-point sling there is about zero reason to shoulder it anyway.

[entropy]

Using 20rd mags makes the whole thing work....

[GuanoLoco]

Not is the tube is so damned short that your nose ends up in the rear sight;

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-2.jpg


http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-10.jpg


http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/arp-11.jpg


With a 2-point sling there is about zero reason to shoulder it anyway.

Are you fond of that paint job?

[NH Shooter]

are you fond of that paint job?

for illustration purposes only. No paint jobs were injured in the taking of this photo.

[NH Shooter]

you put a "brace" on your "pistol" to try and get around having to comply with the law for an SBR and then try to deny that this is, in fact, exactly what you're doing.

Though I have no data to back the assertion, I suspect 0.09% of those who install a brace actually use it the way it was intended and approved for use by the King's Men (single handed with the brace strapped to the forearm).

[Sensei]

The case of U.S. v. Wright (3:18-CR-16) should give everyone using a pistol brace some pause.


Here is the Cliff’s Notes version:
1) Mr. Wright added Maxim CQB Pistol AR 15 PDW brace, Stark Express angled foregrip, and a flash suppressor to his The Jack AR-15 pistol (7.75” barrel). Of note, all of these products have been deemed as in compliance with the NFA by previous BATF memoranda.

2) He was arrested by the BATF and prosecuted by the US Attorney Office for the Northern District of OH for having an unregistered SBR.

3) During the trial, the prosecution attemped to suppress the previous BATF memoranda regarding the compliance of pistol stabilizing braces.

4) The defendant was acquitted after incurring legal fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Bottom line, if you choose to put these on your pistol, the government can and prosecute you and they will attempt to keep the jury from ever knowing that they told you it was OK to use them. Fortunately, Mr. Wright provided a great case precedent for your acquittal, but be sure to have a rainy day fund for your legal expenses..

[einherjarvalk]

Evidently this is where the ATF tried to nail him to the wall - at the tip of his Maxim cheek rest was a rubber cane tip.

I can see why he was aquitted, but still, this is ridiculous.

https://i.imgur.com/USh9pj8.jpg

Also, here's the full gun in case anyone wants to have their lunch come back out the way it came today.

https://i.imgur.com/iXWnSj5.jpg

[Casual Friday]

Hasn't the rule since day 1 been that you cannot modify the brace?

[DAB]

summary of the above case with some links in the discussion.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/atf-unhinged-prosecutions-made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/

[Lester Polfus]

The case of U.S. v. Wright (3:18-CR-16) should give everyone using a pistol brace some pause.


Here is the Cliff’s Notes version:
1) Mr. Wright added Maxim CQB Pistol AR 15 PDW brace, Stark Express angled foregrip, and a flash suppressor to his The Jack AR-15 pistol (7.75” barrel). Of note, all of these products have been deemed as in compliance with the NFA by previous BATF memoranda.

2) He was arrested by the BATF and prosecuted by the US Attorney Office for the Northern District of OH for having an unregistered SBR.

3) During the trial, the prosecution attemped to suppress the previous BATF memoranda regarding the compliance of pistol stabilizing braces.

4) The defendant was acquitted after incurring legal fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Bottom line, if you choose to put these on your pistol, the government can and prosecute you and they will attempt to keep the jury from ever knowing that they told you it was OK to use them. Fortunately, Mr. Wright provided a great case precedent for your acquittal, but be sure to have a rainy day fund for your legal expenses..

The only thing more expensive than winning a criminal trial is losing.

[Sensei]

The most concerning part was that attempt to suppress the previous BATF memoranda. They didn’t want the jury to know that pistol braces had received an ATF blessing.

These pistol braces are a risk. All it takes is the slightest modification or perhaps even damage that alters it in any way and 5 years of your life can go up in smoke.

[Peally]

The ATF giving the green light to any "braces" (they're fucking hollow stocks) in the first place was a pretty poor choice on their part.

Regardless, anyone who would make a firearm that ugly needs some sort of criminal charges for crimes against humanity.

[Sensei]

summary of the above case with some links in the discussion.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/atf-unhinged-prosecutions-made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/

One of the better suggestions in the discussion is to put micro copies of the ATF memoranda in your pistol grip if you choose to use a brace. That way it will serve a dual purpose of clarifying the purpose of the brace and become part of the evidence if the weapon is seized. I keep micro copies of my ATF stamps in the pistol grips of my SBRs.

[lwt16]

The only thing more expensive than winning a criminal trial is losing.

Truth. It's hard to go home and celebrate when everything you own is up for sale to pay the legal bill.

"Blackbeard"? I'm glad I wasn't in the court room......I'd have busted out in laughter and probably caught a contempt charge.

[DAB]

One of the better suggestions in the discussion is to put micro copies of the ATF memoranda in your pistol grip if you choose to use a brace. That way it will serve a dual purpose of clarifying the purpose of the brace and become part of the evidence if the weapon is seized. I keep micro copies of my ATF stamps in the pistol grips of my SBRs.

not a bad idea.

me? don't have anything that requires or even might require a tax stamp. no AR pistols or AK pistols.

too much paperwork hassle.

[jandbj]

Seriously f’d up work on prosecuting this by the BATF. Never should’ve seen a courtroom.

And they pull this, just as I’m considering adding a 12.5” 6.5 Grendel AR pistol with an SBA3 to the armory. :mad:

[einherjarvalk]

One of the better suggestions in the discussion is to put micro copies of the ATF memoranda in your pistol grip if you choose to use a brace. That way it will serve a dual purpose of clarifying the purpose of the brace and become part of the evidence if the weapon is seized. I keep micro copies of my ATF stamps in the pistol grips of my SBRs.

I do the same with my Form 1 and Form 4 since they usually end up together with my Scorpion. Primary reason I'm still using the Switchback grip, actually.

Doesn't hurt to have digital copies of all of the above on your phone, either. I keep my Form 1 and Form 4 in PDF format in my OneDrive so I can access it anywhere.

[Sensei]

I do the same with my Form 1 and Form 4 since they usually end up together with my Scorpion. Primary reason I'm still using the Switchback grip, actually.

Doesn't hurt to have digital copies of all of the above on your phone, either. I keep my Form 1 and Form 4 in PDF format in my OneDrive so I can access it anywhere.

I do the same - micro copies in my pistol grips, digital copies on my cloud, originals in my safe next to the guns/silencers, hard copies offsite in my safety deposit box.

[BWT]

I brought our my Form 1’d SBR for the first time to a range Saturday.

I made a double sided copy of the Form - put it in a zip lock bag folded in the pistol grip and put a second copy in the rifle case itself for the SBR.

It’s just not worth it.

[BillSWPA]

This whole situation is disgusting but given that the BATFE was involved, not surprising. More reasons to stay out of the gray areas.

Perhaps if we are ever successful in getting national concealed handgun reciprocity and elimination of the sporting purposes test, elimination of the prohibition on short barreled rifles and shotguns could be a next priority.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ccmdfd]

Perhaps I missed it, but how did this case even start?

Did BATFE just happen to inspect this man's safe, and there sat Blackbeard?
Or, did he post a bunch of videos, blog posts, etc where he stated how he beat the system and made an SBR by using a brace?
Something else??

cc

[Lester Polfus]

Perhaps I missed it, but how did this case even start?

Did BATFE just happen to inspect this man's safe, and there sat Blackbeard?
Or, did he post a bunch of videos, blog posts, etc where he stated how he beat the system and made an SBR by using a brace?
Something else??

cc

I was curious how that derpy piece of shit came to the intention of law enforcement in the first place.

I'm guessing he was doing something stupid, but I guess he could have been minding his own business at home when guys rappelled out of the black helicopters and kicked in his door for no good reason.

[HCM]

Perhaps I missed it, but how did this case even start?

Did BATFE just happen to inspect this man's safe, and there sat Blackbeard?
Or, did he post a bunch of videos, blog posts, etc where he stated how he beat the system and made an SBR by using a brace?
Something else??

cc

I haven’t seen anything publicly indicating how this case originated but I would be very surprised if it didn’t start as “something else.”

BATFE is not trolling for innocent people shouldering SIG braces or inspecting people’s safes. The inspections branch of ATF inspects licenses FFL / dealers not individuals.

Also BATFE presented the case to the U.S. Attorneys office but the USAO has the final say on what gets prosecuted. The USAO would also be the ones to request exclusion of the BATFE opinion letters.

My impression is someone thought the modification of the brace with the rubber cane tip “made” an SBR under the NFA. Sounds like a hell of a stretch to me.

[OlongJohnson]

My impression is someone thought the modification of the brace with the rubber cane tip “made” an SBR under the NFA. Sounds like a hell of a stretch to me.

So what about those foam condoms people put on their pistol buffer tubes?

[Nephrology]

I'm guessing he was doing something stupid, but I guess he could have been minding his own business at home when guys rappelled out of the black helicopters and kicked in his door for no good reason.

Kinda like how when homeboy gets shot and shows up in the ER and says it was "two black guys" who attacked him while he was "walkin home minding his own business"

(for whatever reason it is always exactly 2 black guys)

[Drang]

ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next… – Prince Law Offices Blog (https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/atf-unhinged-prosecutions-made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/)
So, put an arm brace on your AR pistol, and the ATFE will petition the court to ignore ATFE determinations that a brace is not a stock, even if you use it like that...

[Kyle Reese]

I'll just pay the $200 NFA tax and not worry about it.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[HCM]

So what about those foam condoms people put on their pistol buffer tubes?

Not really a brace. apples to oranges.

I suspect ( and I am just guessing) their theory was since the maxim brace is supposed to be an “arm brace” if you plug the arm hole it’s no longer usable as brace and thus you have “made” it into a stock.

[HCM]

ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next… – Prince Law Offices Blog (https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/atf-unhinged-prosecutions-made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/)
So, put an arm brace on your AR pistol, and the ATFE will petition the court to ignore ATFE determinations that a brace is not a stock, even if you use it like that...

So besides the fact that there I already a thread addressing this: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?25398-BATFE-reverses-itself-again-re-shouldering-pistol-braces

ATFE does not petition the court for anything The U.S. Attorneys Office does and my understanding was the court (properly) denied the request.

So the real question is why did the USAO take the case ?

Did the AUSA run it by their District USA or City Chief ?

In other words, was this a decision by an lone prosecutor ? By the (AUSA) the U.S. Attorney for the District (political appointee) ? or the DOJ / AG in DC ?

From the publically availible documents it appears the theory of prosecution was that by modifying the brace, in this case with a rubber cane tip, the defendant made it into a stock.

Lesson - Don’t modify a brace from the form in which it was approved.

PS - The other question is what was this guy that put him on the radar in the first place ?

[Grey]

Brace all day.

[willie]

Once as a young man I worked for a university pd and was patrolling behind girls' dorms. I saw a man standing on a 55 gallon drum and accused him of being a window peeper. However, he was facing away from the windows and staring in the wrong direction to see inside. He was a cop from a nearby town. Yes he was trespassing but not window peeping. He got fired anyway. The shoulder brace reminded me of this event.

[ragnar_d]

I can go either way on the brace. I like them and I'll leave it at that.

For me, they'll serve one big purpose. I can assemble a pistol and wring it out before engraving it and submitting a Form 1 on the build. I've got two lowers waiting for me at my FFL, ones destined to be a 11.5" 5.56 and one will be a 10.5 .300BLK. They'll both get SBA3 braces until I'm comfortable in investing $250-300 in turning them into lower receivers I'm stuck with for life.

[einherjarvalk]

Not really a brace. apples to oranges.

I suspect ( and I am just guessing) their theory was since the maxim brace is supposed to be an “arm brace” if you plug the arm hole it’s no longer usable as brace and thus you have “made” it into a stock.

That particular one never had an arm hole. Maxim's since discontinued these in favor of the SBT-derived model, but you can see what the original looks like below:

https://cdn.preppergunshop.com/media/catalog/product/m/a/maxim_cqb_exc_2_.jpg

[HCM]

That particular one never had an arm hole. Maxim's since discontinued these in favor of the SBT-derived model, but you can see what the original looks like below:

https://cdn.preppergunshop.com/media/catalog/product/m/a/maxim_cqb_exc_2_.jpg

Is that supposed to be a “cheek rest” or is the u shaped area in the back a wrist brace ?

Either way, atf technical approvals are only valid for the original version. If you modify it, all bets are off.

[HCM]

I have both braces and SBRs.

There are valid niches for the braces, many of which revolve around their legal status as “pistols.”

Like it or not ATF let that genie out of the bottle and you can’t put it back. Even a massive NFA/SBR amnesty would be problematic as many have braces in states which prohibit NFA items.

[andre3k]

I hate to see the ATF prosecuting cases like this and I cant even get them or the US Attorney to take a simple felon in possession case involving a documented gang member.

[Sigfan26]

Is that supposed to be a “cheek rest” or is the u shaped area in the back a wrist brace ?

Either way, atf technical approvals are only valid for the original version. If you modify it, all bets are off.

It was supposed to be a cheek rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

I hate to see the ATF prosecuting cases like this and I cant even get them or the US Attorney to take a simple felon in possession case involving a documented gang member.

Enforcement only recommends charges, IIRC. If a technical crime was committed, I can’t see why the investigating agency wouldn’t recommend charges (if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs). The US Attorney’s office decides whether or not to pursue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Hasn't the rule since day 1 been that you cannot modify the brace?

Yes. ATF tech letters are only valid for the exact configuration reviewed.

[Sigfan26]

Yes. ATF tech letters are only valid for the exact configuration reviewed.

You mean I can’t tape and 550 cord shit to an approved item and have its validity upheld! This is my surprised face [emoji54]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I hate to see the ATF prosecuting cases like this and I cant even get them or the US Attorney to take a simple felon in possession case involving a documented gang member.

As an LEO you know cases are presented to prosecutors and the prosecutors decide if it goes forward and if it does go forward it is now “their” case

U.S. Attorneys for each judicial district are political appointees each has their own priorities.Each city office within a district has different resources, priorities, and workload as well.

In my old stomping grounds we had three USAO city offices in our area. Each had their own intake guidelines and those guidelines changed each year based on work load. We literally had a score sheet and list of aggravating factors which were worthy of consideration. The score on one side of the bridge was different than the score on the other side of the bridge.

It’s triage. In some areas they are only taking felon in possession cases if the suspect has two felony convictions because they cannot keep up with the volume.

All that aside the cane tip modification seems like a chickenshit case. Either they are not very busy in OH or they “know” this guy was doing other dirt and this was the only charge they could take to court. Two possibilities- what you “know” vs what you can prove or they can’t prove what they know without exposing someone or something more valuable.

[BillSWPA]

That is the only thing that makes sense. Felon in possession would seem like an open and shut case with an almost certain plea bargain. Choosing this case would seem to reflect some very strange priorities unless there are some significant additional details, particularly given the perceived need to suppress the agency’s own determinations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

All that aside the cane tip modification seems like a chickenshit case. Either they are not very busy in OH or they “know” this guy was doing other dirt and this was the only charge they could take to court. Two possibilities- what you “know” vs what you can prove or they can’t prove what they know without exposing someone or something more valuable.
This. The individual sounds like the type that would refer to the ATF as “Alcohol, Tobacco, and F*****s”. Also, according to the LOP of his modified “cheek rest” (per the shown pictures), he was possibly in further violation. Add the angled grip (that was further angled from the weapon) the violation would have been blatant enough that they had no choice but to refer the charges. One grey area? Ok. 4 grey areas... Choice goes out the window



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

The current political climate plays a part, too. If he does something stupid, and you had actionable intelligence you did not refer to the higher ups, your career is the least of your worries. Leftists surrounding your home and assaulting your family becomes a worry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

That is the only thing that makes sense. Felon in possession would seem like an open and shut case with an almost certain plea bargain. Choosing this case would seem to reflect some very strange priorities unless there are some significant additional details, particularly given the perceived need to suppress the agency’s own determinations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was responding to Andre3k’s comment.

I have not seen anything indicating the defendant in the OH case was a convicted felon.

[BillSWPA]

I was responding to Andre3k’s comment.

I have not seen anything indicating the defendant in the OH case was a convicted felon.

That was never stated or implied in my post.

Other posts in this thread discussed the failure to prosecute felons in possession, which should be an easy conviction. Yet, the guy in OH was prosecuted, which the jury obviously thought was a really crappy case, and which the US Attorneys seemed to know was a really crappy case. That reflects some really screwed up priorities unless there is something else we do not know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

So besides the fact that there I already a thread addressing this: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?25398-BATFE-reverses-itself-again-re-shouldering-pistol-braces
I looked, did not see that the other thread had been revived, possibly because I was in a hurry to get ready for work.

Tom_Jones or LittleLebowski, my apologies and go ahead and lock or merge this, as you prefer.

[andre3k]

As an LEO you know cases are presented to prosecutors and the prosecutors decide if it goes forward and if it does go forward it is now “their” case

U.S. Attorneys for each judicial district are political appointees each has their own priorities.Each city office within a district has different resources, priorities, and workload as well.

In my old stomping grounds we had three USAO city offices in our area. Each had their own intake guidelines and those guidelines changed each year based on work load. We literally had a score sheet and list of aggravating factors which were worthy of consideration. The score on one side of the bridge was different than the score on the other side of the bridge.

It’s triage. In some areas they are only taking felon in possession cases if the suspect has two felony convictions because they cannot keep up with the volume.

All that aside the cane tip modification seems like a chickenshit case. Either they are not very busy in OH or they “know” this guy was doing other dirt and this was the only charge they could take to court. Two possibilities- what you “know” vs what you can prove or they can’t prove what they know without exposing someone or something more valuable.


When you consistently send over good cases that meet every single one of their "required" guidelines and not one gets prosecuted, it gets a little old. I'm sending every pistol case I get for DNA and fingerprint testing after I pulled the gun out of the crooks waistband just to meet their "requirements" and I still can't get my turds federal time. I'm tying up resources and money in our crime lab which is always backlogged on rape kits for a very simple pistol case.

And then you see them prosecuting this bullshit.

[Sigfan26]

When you consistently send over good cases that meet every single one of their "required" guidelines and not one gets prosecuted, it gets a little old. I'm sending every pistol case I get for DNA and fingerprint testing after I pulled the gun out of the crooks waistband just to meet their "requirements" and I still can't get my turds federal time.

And then you see them prosecuting this bullshit.

Write your congressperson and your local tv station. (While this sounds sarcastic, it really isn’t)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[5pins]

Kinda like how when homeboy gets shot and shows up in the ER and says it was "two black guys" who attacked him while he was "walkin home minding his own business"

(for whatever reason it is always exactly 2 black guys)

Well he can't say he was beaten up by one dude.

[Coyotesfan97]

Kinda like how when homeboy gets shot and shows up in the ER and says it was "two black guys" who attacked him while he was "walkin home minding his own business"

(for whatever reason it is always exactly 2 black guys)

SOC MOB

[Lon]

SOC MOB

SOCMOB, SG, OON

[Shawn Dodson]

An AR pistol equipped with a pistol brace allows me to load it and carry it in my vehicle as it falls under my Concealed Pistol License here in WA state. An SBR is not covered by my CPL.

[Nephrology]

Well he can't say he was beaten up by one dude.

No, but that would make a lot more sense than homeboy who presents with a GSW that has an obvious trajectory going from his waistband down through his thigh, out and back into his calf, before exiting through the ankle-hem of his jeans. Naturally, 2 black guys (why is it never 2 latinos?). Probably just a coincidence he's a convicted felon and prohibited possessor.