View Full Version : ATF Singles out 23 SB tactical Firearms Braces...
rcbusmc24
11-25-2020, 12:48 AM
[url]https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf-singles-out-23-sb-tactical-firearms-braces-that-do-not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6ema2ljtI ("https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf-singles-out-23-sb-tactical-firearms-braces-that-do-not-have-determination-letters/[/URL)
It appears from the above posted article that another salvo has been fired in the ongoing brace saga...... I suppose it remains to be seen what the final result will be, but personally, I am planning on filing yet more SBR paperwork shortly.... While I am hoping for the best, if this,coupled with the previous ATF letters publicly posted by Q all prove to be true then I am not very sanguine about the long term prospects regarding many of the most popularly sold braces...
Totem Polar
11-25-2020, 01:17 AM
Interesting...
Looks like they pulled the article on this, as the link doesn’t work?
rcbusmc24
11-25-2020, 06:41 AM
Appears so..,.hafta wonder why?
5pins
11-25-2020, 07:43 AM
The link worked for me. There is an update, maybe it was down while updating.
Screwball
11-25-2020, 07:49 AM
Guns & Gadgets did a live stream early this morning... referencing the dead link (which has become live again while I posted this) and the letter. Watched part, got to the specifics of the letter/approved braces... and shut it off because I am getting tired of the sky is falling BS.
This was from a FOIA request regarding the Honey Badger situation. The letter is from July of 2018. Sorry, but if 23 of SB Tactical’s braces were illegal for over the past 2 years... I think we would have heard something. I sure as hell wouldn’t have two ordered from OpticsPlanet, being delivered today (got a 9mm pistol build to do).
SB Tactical has discussed talking to ATF about requirements of braces over the years... again when the Honey Badger thing came up. They said the ATF’s first view was if the brace was functionally similar to the approved one(s), they were good. Don’t remember the specific details given, but here is the interview with SB Tactical from MAC.
https://youtu.be/9sP99XzoQnk
Also a link to the verbal diarrhea (Guns & Gadgets), since I rather people be able to see it for themselves. Not promoting the channel or the video at all.
https://youtu.be/IMguU-SPRoA
-I edited part of this since the link was made live again... especially considering SB Tactical made a statement in there. Still suggest to watch the MAC interview, since it was touched on in there.
2021 will be known as 1301 to many here.
jetfire
11-25-2020, 10:33 AM
Good lord, the amount of Chicken Little sky is falling nonsense going on over this letter is mind blowing. Not here, but elsewhere on the internets. It's just...people can't fucking read, can they? Everyone's shitting their pants over a 2 year old letter that doesn't even say that the braces are illegal, just that they might be.
Then we find out that SB Tactical has been working with ATF this whole time and a bunch of the products listed on the two year old letter are in fact actually greenlit by the ATF as good to go, so this whole thing is basically a tempest in a teacup. If we should be upset at anyone, it's Ammoland and John Crump for shit-tier, lazy "journalism." Fuck.
Casual Friday
11-25-2020, 05:44 PM
It also has something to do with a criminal case in which someone put a SBA3 on one of those Tac14 or whatever shotguns and the DA asked for clarification about whether or not it makes it a SBS. In this case, they ruled that it did for this one particular firearm in this one particular instance.
I've seen those short shotguns with the braces, and I figured they'd hammer someone's nuts over it eventually. On the ones I've seen, there is no way to use the brace as designed and intended to be used, the angle makes it next to impossible.
Just like the contraption that allows you to put a KAK blade or SBA3 on a Glock, if the way it's installed doesn't allow it to be used as the brace was designed it's gonna land you in hot water if you trip the ATF's radar.
The simplest solution is to the disband the ATF, erase all gun laws on the books, and let us boogie like the forefathers intended.
Good information here, seems like the most relevant ATF letter was from September 2020:
https://youtu.be/-zHJIp0FpGY
Paul Blackburn
11-26-2020, 07:56 AM
Given the current controversy, Braces are probably ok for range guns. That said go-to HD guns should have a stock or be a SBR if they're shorter than 16". JMO
Paul Blackburn
11-26-2020, 07:57 AM
Given the current controversy, Braces are probably ok for range guns. That said go-to HD guns should have a stock or be a SBR if they're shorter than 16". JMO
WobblyPossum
11-26-2020, 10:08 AM
The Ammoland article contains a link to a Truth About Guns article. That one has a complete copy of the September 2020 letter referenced in the video GJM linked. Looks like the ATF is setting the stage to screw us again.
Paul Blackburn
11-26-2020, 10:26 AM
Delete
Given the current controversy, Braces are probably ok for range guns. That said go-to HD guns should have a stock or be a SBR if they're shorter than 16". JMO
Please explain the logic of this ?
They are either legal (which they are at this time) or they are not.
Paul Blackburn
11-26-2020, 12:12 PM
Please explain the logic of this ?
They are either legal (which they are at this time) or they are not.
Because of the ambiguity over whether an AR pistol is legal or not.
Rex G
11-26-2020, 12:29 PM
Because of the ambiguity over whether an AR pistol is legal or not.
If ATF wants to make an example of some folks, I would think that they might select a shooting range, to shop for likely candidates, complete with video and still images, of the weapons being shouldered, rather than wait for the rarer event of the occasional defensive shooting incident. Prosecutors love images and video; worth a thousand words, and all that.
As HCM indicated, the weapons are either illegal, or they are legal.
Moreover, the ambiguity, at this point in time, is not whether AR pistols are legal, but whether some braces render the AR pistol an illegal SBR.
kitchen's mill
11-26-2020, 01:14 PM
If ATF wants to make an example of some folks, I would think that they might select a shooting range, to shop for likely candidates, complete with video and still images, of the weapons being shouldered, rather than wait for the rarer event of the occasional defensive shooting incident. Prosecutors love images and video; worth a thousand words, and all that.
As HCM indicated, the weapons are either illegal, or they are legal.
Moreover, the ambiguity, at this point in time, is not whether AR pistols are legal, but whether some braces render the AR pistol an illegal SBR.
I think Paul makes a good point.
Actually use one in a fight. Illegal or legal might depend on where you are at, who you shot, and how many times.
And of course how much you want to pay a lawyer to argue the point for you in court.
Why play those odds if something less controversial is available for use. Does a pistol with brace really offer an advantage in a fight.
And I've heard "I have a right", and of course you do. If you can really predict what a jury will do, you can make a fortune.
A cost benefit analysis might be in order.....
Rex G
11-26-2020, 01:49 PM
I think Paul makes a good point.
Actually use one in a fight. Illegal or legal might depend on where you are at, who you shot, and how many times.
And of course how much you want to pay a lawyer to argue the point for you in court.
Why play those odds if something less controversial is available for use. Does a pistol with brace really offer an advantage in a fight.
And I've heard "I have a right", and of course you do.
A cost benefit analysis might be in order.....
Well, if one thinks that one’s weapon might have legal issues, one may be best-advised to keep braces well away from it, at all times. I have never worked for ATF, but worked 33+ years for a major local PD. If I want to build a case against someone, for an illegal weapon, I would want to create still image and video image evidence, of that weapon being possessed, handled, and used by the defendant-to-be. So, my cost-benefit analysis, as the owner of a hypothetical illegal weapon, would be that I would not want to be seen with it, especially in a place visible to a portion of the public, where ATF might be seeing me.
The “blue” DA in this county would love to throw me under the bus for anything, because I am a fair-skinned male, of northern-European descent, a retired LEO, and, I have two entries, on a local leftist website, that documents “shooters” among local LEOs. So, yeah, I would be best-advised to use non-controversial weapons, should I dare to defend myself with any weapon, and especially a hypothetical illegal weapon. I checked a bump, in the carport, just this morning, with a shotgun in my hands. Uncle Joe weapon. ;)
Shotgun Joe-y sits around in his underwear, bidin’ on a pellet, and sniffing everyone’s hair.
littlejerry
11-26-2020, 02:15 PM
Please explain the logic of this ?
They are either legal (which they are at this time) or they are not.
You sound confident.
Is there a letter from the ATF explicitly stating that the SBA3 and other braces are legal? Right now we have a handful of early braces "approved" by the ATF, and a case where they determined the addition of a brace was illegal. Has the ATF explicitly stated that it was the type of brace, the type of firearm, or the combination of features that influenced their decision?
This whole thing seems pretty grey right now unless you have one of the early model of braces with an approval letter.
Looking at the list of approved devices, it seems like none of them have an adjustable LOP. I wonder if that's one of the sticking points.
AR pistols were around a long time before we had braces. For defensive purposes, I would have zero issues deploying an eight inch .300 BLK AR pistol with just the buffer tube.
Dan_S
11-26-2020, 03:50 PM
I see that the the increasing hyper-politicization of the forum has infected technical discussions now...yay!
Wish I could thank jetfire ‘s post more than once.
You sound confident.
Is there a letter from the ATF explicitly stating that the SBA3 and other braces are legal? Right now we have a handful of early braces "approved" by the ATF, and a case where they determined the addition of a brace was illegal. Has the ATF explicitly stated that it was the type of brace, the type of firearm, or the combination of features that influenced their decision?
This whole thing seems pretty grey right now unless you have one of the early model of braces with an approval letter.
Looking at the list of approved devices, it seems like none of them have an adjustable LOP. I wonder if that's one of the sticking points.
Going back to what I posted in response to, If you aren't confident, why would you bring a gun out to public range if you weren't confident enough to use it for home defense? It's illogical. Either you are confident, or not. If you aren't confident, don't own/use a brace pistol.
As for the letter, jetfire said it best. It's a 2 year old letter obtained by a third party being spun by doom porn assholes to generate clicks and views. As he mentioned SB has been working with ATF on those issues for the past two years. Why do you think you can still buy an SB braced pistol at an FFL ?
There are two types of people, those who believe things are permitted unless explicitly permitted and those who believe things are forbidden unless explicitly permitted. Regardless ATF's prior actions, including their failed brace prosecution in OH and reversal on shouldering (which included defining braces as "accessories") have created precedent favoring braces.
If ATF bans braces you will know it and it won't be via a 3rd party FOIA request.
I am confident about the following re: braces
Making 4 million brace owners felons over night is a non starter. It is logistically unenforceable and 4 million is a pretty good argument for "common use" under Heller. (Speaking of Heller, under Miller brace AR's could have a better argument than 16" rifles since the U.S. military no longer issues the 1903A3 in common use at the time of Miller vs US and now primarily uses ARs with barrel lengths ranging from 10.3 to 14.5". )
If the SB braces were so problematic why weren't they served a cease and desist letter as Q was ?
Worst case based on ATFs prior finding that braces are "accessories" rather than stocks, I could see an technical argument for making brace pistols AOWs rather than SBRs. It would require an amnesty and it would be a $5 stamp vs a $200 stamp.
The new admisntration will target imported "pistols" in rifle calibers via admin authority under GCA of 1968. You can thank all the turds who made "draco" rap videos for that one. They've made the "Draco" the Saturday night special of the 2020s.
Isn’t the relevant letter from September 2020?
Isn’t the relevant letter from September 2020?
The one cited in the ammoland article was July 2018.
Totem Polar
11-26-2020, 04:21 PM
AR pistols were around a long time before we had braces. For defensive purposes, I would have zero issues deploying an eight inch .300 BLK AR pistol with just the buffer tube.
This, and I’m no AR guy.
This is also inspiring me to start a thread I’ve been meaning to get after, but not in here.
:)
The one cited in the ammoland article was July 2018.
I watched the video I linked earlier in this thread, and there was a letter from Sept 2020 where ATF found (cliff notes version) a short barrel shotgun with a SB brace to be a SBS, and said a long list of SB braces were not approved by ATF. That letter is worth a read, based on content and the date it was issued.
I watched the video I linked earlier in this thread, and there was a letter from Sept 2020 where ATF found (cliff notes version) a short barrel shotgun with a SB brace to be a SBS, and said a long list of SB braces were not approved by ATF. That letter is worth a read, based on content and the date it was issued.
Link to letter:
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/58-64.pdf
Paul Blackburn
11-26-2020, 04:35 PM
You will be investigated in a self defense shooting.
You aren't as likely to be investigated for going to the range.
I watched the video I linked earlier in this thread, and there was a letter from Sept 2020 where ATF found (cliff notes version) a short barrel shotgun with a SB brace to be a SBS, and said a long list of SB braces were not approved by ATF. That letter is worth a read, based on content and the date it was issued.
As Casual Friday mentioned Braces on "shotguns" is a whole other legal mess as they are neither "shotguns" nor "pistols" but "other firearms."
That letter citied the July 2018 letter, however, the circumstances of the July 2018 letter have changes as noted by jetfire.
WobblyPossum
11-26-2020, 05:15 PM
Worst case based on ATFs prior finding that braces are "accessories" rather than stocks, I could see an technical argument for making brace pistols AOWs rather than SBRs. It would require an amnesty and it would be a $5 stamp vs a $200 stamp.
How would the AOW thing work technically? If we Form 1ed to AOW our braced AR pistols, would we be stuck having to use the braces instead of real stocks because the stock would mean we’d be Form 1ing SBRs so we’d have to pay the $200?
HeavyDuty
11-26-2020, 05:42 PM
AR pistols were around a long time before we had braces. For defensive purposes, I would have zero issues deploying an eight inch .300 BLK AR pistol with just the buffer tube.
Same. I was very hesitant to get on the brace bandwagon. I am perfectly happy with a cheekweld and no shouldering, even with a brace.
How would the AOW thing work technically? If we Form 1ed to AOW our braced AR pistols, would we be stuck having to use the braces instead of real stocks because the stock would mean we’d be Form 1ing SBRs so we’d have to pay the $200?
Pretty much. The $5 vs $ 200 thing is how the NFA is written.
Technically a "pistol" is supposed to be designed to be used with one hand. Even though we normally shoot pistols 2 handed now. Remember 1934 norms applied. A guns with no stock "designed " to be shot with two hands (usually defined by dual grips) is an AOW. One could argue that even AR pistols without a brace are technically AOW since you are still using two hands gripping two different parts of the weapon ( PG and either mag well or rail).
For people who have multiple brace pistols $5 would still be a better option than dumping a few grand into SBR stamps.
You would be able to put vertical foregrips on with a brace.
The people in states that allow brace pistols but not NFA would be SOL but for most it would just be a PITA.
The fact that this thread is in the Rifle and carbine section speaks to what "braces" really are and how dumb the NFA is.
A major advantage of the pistol over a SBR is being able to cross state lines without paperwork.
A major advantage of the pistol over a SBR is being able to cross state lines without paperwork.
And in many states it can be carried on concealed "handgun" or "pistol" licenses.
I know a few states like FL have concealed "weapon" licenses but most like Texas have concealed "handgun" or "pistol" licenses
Screwball
11-26-2020, 06:17 PM
How would the AOW thing work technically? If we Form 1ed to AOW our braced AR pistols, would we be stuck having to use the braces instead of real stocks because the stock would mean we’d be Form 1ing SBRs so we’d have to pay the $200?
Form 1 an AOW is $200, as well.
Transferring an AOW is $5.
WobblyPossum
11-26-2020, 06:23 PM
Pretty much. The $5 vs $ 200 thing is how the NFA is written.
Technically a "pistol" is supposed to be designed to be used with one hand. Even though we normally shoot pistols 2 handed now. Remember 1934 norms applied. A guns with no stock "designed " to be shot with two hands (usually defined by dual grips) is an AOW. One could argue that even AR pistols without a brace are technically AOW since you are still using two hands gripping two different parts of the weapon ( PG and either mag well or rail).
For people who have multiple brace pistols $5 would still be a better option than dumping a few grand into SBR stamps.
You would be able to put vertical foregrips on with a brace.
The people in states that allow brace pistols but not NFA would be SOL but for most it would just be a PITA.
The fact that this thread is in the Rifle and carbine section speaks to what "braces" really are and how dumb the NFA is.
You’re a whole lot more familiar with the NFA than I am so let me bounce some things off you. Would there be issues setting up an AOW to be intended to fire from the shoulder without using a traditional buttstock? At that point it’s already an NFA registered firearm so it’s not exactly building a pistol with the intent to shoot it primarily from the shoulder. What would be the most stock-like “pistol brace” if one was to choose the AOW route instead of the SBR route? Sturdy with a good cheekweld, etc. The SBA3 with a split-fix strap? SBA4? TailHook with some foam built up on the receiver extension for cheekweld?
Shawn Dodson
11-26-2020, 06:35 PM
When I assembled my 11.5" 5.56 AR pistol in 2016 I installed an SB15 brace on a KAK Super Sig SB15 buffer tube. I've never felt the need to upgrade it. This pistol consists of an Aero Precision engraved "pistol" model lower receiver that I had processed, at the time of purchase, through the Washington State Patrol as a pistol. I occassionally CCW it in a nondescript hiking backpack. My intent with the SB15 brace, "pistol" engraved lower receiver, and state patrol processing as a pistol was to mitigate any claims that it was an SBR versus a pistol by a hostile prosecutor.
WobblyPossum
11-26-2020, 07:13 PM
Form 1 an AOW is $200, as well.
Transferring an AOW is $5.
I forgot that. Guess that answers my questions.
You’re a whole lot more familiar with the NFA than I am so let me bounce some things off you. Would there be issues setting up an AOW to be intended to fire from the shoulder without using a traditional buttstock? At that point it’s already an NFA registered firearm so it’s not exactly building a pistol with the intent to shoot it primarily from the shoulder. What would be the most stock-like “pistol brace” if one was to choose the AOW route instead of the SBR route? Sturdy with a good cheekweld, etc. The SBA3 with a split-fix strap? SBA4? TailHook with some foam built up on the receiver extension for cheekweld?
Since ATF has already said that braces are accessories and therefore not stocks (stocks are integral parts of the firearm “accessories) are not) I don’t think it matters how you hold the AOW. That’s getting squishy though into the area where caselaw and Precident starts to become a thing. A president that would favor us is the fact that putting two hands on a Glock 19 when you are firing it doesn’t make it into an AOW.
I think the tail hook is probably the most solid.
I forgot that. Guess that answers my questions.
I forgot that as well. Doesn’t change the characteristics that define an AOW though
HeavyDuty
11-26-2020, 07:19 PM
Since ATF has already said that braces are accessories and therefore not stocks (stocks are integral parts of the firearm “accessories) are not) I don’t think it matters how you hold the AOW. That’s getting squishy though into the area where caselaw and Precident starts to become a thing. A president that would favor us is the fact that putting two hands on a Glock 19 when you are firing it doesn’t make it into an AOW.
I think the tail hook is probably the most solid.
I make a point of shooting my Tailhooks opened and against bare arm every time I shoot. And I don’t wipe them down after.
Screwball
11-26-2020, 07:46 PM
I forgot that as well. Doesn’t change the characteristics that define an AOW though
Really, the only situation where AOW is worth to Form 1 is if you are trying to keep a TAC-14/Shockwave in its original state but go under the 26” limit (for example, if you install a folding brace). If you SBS one, it had a stock installed, so is now a shotgun. To get out of NFA territory... you’d have to install an 18” barrel.
Brace on it... it is not a stock. Toss the original grip on (putting it back over 26”), and you are back to the same setup as before you got the stamp.
If it came down to Form 1 an AR pistol, I’d really have to think long/hard about not going SBR. Same costs, so no real difference in the application process. Going with an actual stock is nice to shoulder, but AOW allows for easier transportation.
Dan_S
11-26-2020, 08:10 PM
Link to letter:
https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/58-64.pdf
Yup, not really sure what there is to get worked up over.
SB Tactical makes unfounded claims (‘ATF compliant’ etc) and FATD tests a particular brace on a particular firearm, and concludes what every single shooter has known since day one?
BehindBlueI's
11-26-2020, 08:16 PM
Moved to General Discussion.
Here it comes:
https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/16/atf-to-institute-rulemaking-regarding-stabilizing-braces-and-require-registration-of-currently-owned-braces/
t1tan
12-16-2020, 10:25 PM
ATF collectively can suck a bag of dicks. I'd hope people would throw on stocks and ignore this bullshit, and if anybody comes knocking make them regret it, but people are weak and I've seen people pre-emptively planning to comply for months, super pathetic and depressing.
Here it comes:
https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/16/atf-to-institute-rulemaking-regarding-stabilizing-braces-and-require-registration-of-currently-owned-braces/
Page 13 is interesting. Waived NFA tax
Though I agree. Fuck em and put a stock on anyway - this seems not as “screw the law abiding guy” as it would first seem (SBR baggage notwithstanding)
64764
littlejerry
12-16-2020, 11:01 PM
How about they expedite all of the Form 4 transfers that have been in limbo?
joshs
12-16-2020, 11:05 PM
Page 13 is interesting. Waived NFA tax
Though I agree. Fuck em and put a stock on anyway - this seems not as “screw the law abiding guy” as it would first seem (SBR baggage notwithstanding)
64764
I'm not sure how they plan to expedite a number of forms that could approach the total number of firearms registered in the NFRTR as of 2019.
My favorite part is the repeated claim that these are "objective" when they dropped this gem in there: "No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis."
fatdog
12-16-2020, 11:48 PM
They now feel full on empowered with the "political capital" to reverse any and every past ruling or guidance and just "change their minds, change the rules" as they have so many times in the past. Goodbye 80% lowers of all sorts, goodbye braces of every sort. Goodbye many things imported that previously had "a sporting purpose". There is nobody to stand in their way anymore and its time to see what they can do to kiss up to their new boss.
Vandal320
12-17-2020, 05:45 AM
Does this mean that all pistol braces are going to become "illegal" or just the SB Tactical Braces? If it's just SB, what would be a good brace to replace one with?
Tensaw
12-17-2020, 06:41 AM
Hmm.... I just got finished perusing the Polymer 80 thread that derailed into a discussion about (consent vs PC) searches and now I am here. With the way ATF is running things at the moment, this is where my mind goes.
Registering the brace is a de facto gun registration. Will there come a day, after all braces are registered for free (whee!) that ATF decides, “No, we have changed our minds again. Braces are now illegal and must be surrendered.” And for those who do not comply and surrender the now-registered braces, ATF shows up at the formerly law-abiding gun owner’s doorstep with a search warrant to confiscate the brace and/or arrest the brace owner. Heck, they might just skip the search cause once registered, THEY KNOW YOU HAVE IT. (And if you are the type of person who would violate the “surrender your brace” law, you must be very dangerous.) Remember, guns don’t kill people, guns with braces do...
Do I need to loosen (or tighten) my tinfoil?
I'm not sure how they plan to expedite a number of forms that could approach the total number of firearms registered in the NFRTR as of 2019.
My favorite part is the repeated claim that these are "objective" when they dropped this gem in there: "No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis."
It is subjectively objective.
Braces have always been at war with Eastasia.
Screwball
12-17-2020, 08:23 AM
Hmm.... I just got finished perusing the Polymer 80 thread that derailed into a discussion about (consent vs PC) searches and now I am here. With the way ATF is running things at the moment, this is where my mind goes.
Registering the brace is a de facto gun registration. Will there come a day, after all braces are registered for free (whee!) that ATF decides, “No, we have changed our minds again. Braces are now illegal and must be surrendered.” And for those who do not comply and surrender the now-registered braces, ATF shows up at the formerly law-abiding gun owner’s doorstep with a search warrant to confiscate the brace and/or arrest the brace owner. Heck, they might just skip the search cause once registered, THEY KNOW YOU HAVE IT. (And if you are the type of person who would violate the “surrender your brace” law, you must be very dangerous.) Remember, guns don’t kill people, guns with braces do...
Do I need to loosen (or tighten) my tinfoil?
Well, their answer is “free” SBR registration. Remember, they are saying that the brace is a shouldering device.
Once it is registered, being the verbiage makes it out that in process NFA applications are good with the braces, you will have a stamped SBR (unsure if braced TAC-14s will be lumped in, and SBSed). So, once it is engraved and stamp is in hand... bye-bye brace, hello stock. Kind of a pain, but stocks are more appropriate in more situations than braces. I didn’t build my pistols to get around NFA laws, but if they are going to be registered as such, might as well do it right.
My question is what about the non-shotguns and other ARs (over 26” OAL, brace, and vertical grip)? So, they are going SBx? I was planning on AOWing my TAC-14, being adding a folding brace would allow me to go back to a non-NFA status by adding the original grip. Once a stock is on it (that’s what they are saying the brace is), it is a shotgun. To go to non-NFA... I’d have to add an 18” barrel. I’m guessing that sort of puts the heels to that.
Also, are NFA items protected from any further confiscation? Anything written in the NFA specifically that discusses that? That would be my deciding factor, being if I got a stamped SBR, even if they wave the tax... it is a taxable item. If I sell, it is a $200 transfer. So, how can they legally take it away from you?
CleverNickname
12-17-2020, 10:12 AM
Does this mean that all pistol braces are going to become "illegal" or just the SB Tactical Braces? If it's just SB, what would be a good brace to replace one with?
Pistol braces won't become illegal any more than stocks will become illegal. What they're proposing are subjective standards which will prevent using pistol braces on pistols. If you want to put a brace on a rifle, then what will the ATF do, charge you with using a pistol brace as a stock on a firearm which is supposed to have a stock?
Hmm.... I just got finished perusing the Polymer 80 thread that derailed into a discussion about (consent vs PC) searches and now I am here. With the way ATF is running things at the moment, this is where my mind goes.
Registering the brace is a de facto gun registration. Will there come a day, after all braces are registered for free (whee!) that ATF decides, “No, we have changed our minds again. Braces are now illegal and must be surrendered.” And for those who do not comply and surrender the now-registered braces, ATF shows up at the formerly law-abiding gun owner’s doorstep with a search warrant to confiscate the brace and/or arrest the brace owner. Heck, they might just skip the search cause once registered, THEY KNOW YOU HAVE IT. (And if you are the type of person who would violate the “surrender your brace” law, you must be very dangerous.) Remember, guns don’t kill people, guns with braces do...
Do I need to loosen (or tighten) my tinfoil?
You can't register a brace, it's not a firearm. You can only register the gun which a brace is installed on, as an SBR or SBS. Once that's done though, why use a brace instead of a normal stock?
Once it is registered, being the verbiage makes it out that in process NFA applications are good with the braces, you will have a stamped SBR (unsure if braced TAC-14s will be lumped in, and SBSed). So, once it is engraved and stamp is in hand... bye-bye brace, hello stock. Kind of a pain, but stocks are more appropriate in more situations than braces. I didn’t build my pistols to get around NFA laws, but if they are going to be registered as such, might as well do it right.
Wasn't one of the benefits of having a pistol supposedly being easier interstate travel?
joshs
12-17-2020, 10:23 AM
The unpublished version is now available for public inspection: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-27857.pdf
It will likely be officially published tomorrow, which will start the comment period.
OlongJohnson
12-17-2020, 10:30 AM
Wasn't one of the benefits of having a pistol supposedly being easier interstate travel?
That and avoiding the perception risks potentially associated with lawful defensive use of an NFA item.
-------------------
Wargaming this out, I could imagine it becoming a fight about "common use." If the number of pistols suddenly required to be registered under NFA goes into hundreds of thousands, there's an argument that they are in "common use." So one side would say it's now legitimate for the NFA to cover items in common use, and try to sweep all firearms (or maybe just all handguns, or all semi-autos) into it. The other side would say the NFA was obviously not intended to include items in common use, and it's demonstrated by the numbers that SBRs are in common use, so take SBRs out of the NFA.
Uncertain odds, high stakes.
CleverNickname
12-17-2020, 10:57 AM
Wargaming this out, I could imagine it becoming a fight about "common use." If the number of pistols suddenly required to be registered under NFA goes into hundreds of thousands, there's an argument that they are in "common use." So one side would say it's now legitimate for the NFA to cover items in common use, and try to sweep all firearms (or maybe just all handguns, or all semi-autos) into it. The other side would say the NFA was obviously not intended to include items in common use, and it's demonstrated by the numbers that SBRs are in common use, so take SBRs out of the NFA.
It's already in the hundreds of thousands. According to the ATF's 2019 "Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistics" report (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2019-firearms-commerce-report/download), there were 413,167 short-barreled rifles registered as of May 2019.
5pins
12-17-2020, 11:16 AM
What's to stop me from registering more then the two I have now for free. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure I have four of them.
That and avoiding the perception risks potentially associated with lawful defensive use of an NFA item.
-------------------
Wargaming this out, I could imagine it becoming a fight about "common use." If the number of pistols suddenly required to be registered under NFA goes into hundreds of thousands, there's an argument that they are in "common use." So one side would say it's now legitimate for the NFA to cover items in common use, and try to sweep all firearms (or maybe just all handguns, or all semi-autos) into it. The other side would say the NFA was obviously not intended to include items in common use, and it's demonstrated by the numbers that SBRs are in common use, so take SBRs out of the NFA.
Uncertain odds, high stakes.
It's already in the hundreds of thousands. According to the ATF's 2019 "Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistics" report (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2019-firearms-commerce-report/download), there were 413,167 short-barreled rifles registered as of May 2019.
Regarding common use:
-there are over 4,000,000 brace pistols in the US - more than 10x the number of SBRs.
-in addition to common use under Heller, the original NFA Challenge pre WWII was Miller vs US in which the court ruled against Miller saying sawed off shotguns were not suitable militia weapon. However, the U.S. military’s standard issue rifles are now the M4A1 with a 14.5” barrel and the Mk18 with a 10.3” barrel. I believe even the USMC is phasing out 20” rifles for general issue.
Suvorov
12-17-2020, 11:34 AM
Regarding common use:
-there are over 4,000,000 brace pistols in the US - more than 10x the number of SBRs.
-in addition to common use under Heller, the original NFA Challenge pre WWII was Miller vs US in which the court ruled against Miller saying sawed off shotguns were not suitable militia weapon. However, the U.S. military’s standard issue rifles are now the M4A1 with a 14.5” barrel and the Mk18 with a 10.3” barrel. I believe even the USMC is phasing out 20” rifles for general issue.
I’ve never understood why Miller for all its warts is not sited more as a defense for “military style” firearms? The way I understand it Miller specifically protects an M4 clone while NOT so much Joe Biden’s double barrel..
RevolverRob
12-17-2020, 12:22 PM
Who is leading the legal charge on this one - FPC, NRA, SAF?
CleverNickname
12-17-2020, 12:26 PM
Who is leading the legal charge on this one - FPC, NRA, SAF?
I haven't seen any announcements. I think they might be waiting until the proposed regulation is officially released.
What's to stop me from registering more then the two I have now for free. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure I have four of them.
I assume because you'd register the lower not the brace, same as with any AOW or SBR.
Casual Friday
12-17-2020, 12:59 PM
This should infuriate all gun owners. Not just brace owners, but everyone. Not because you like them, or don't like them, or you think they're cool, or you think they're dumb. But because braces have been on the market for nearly a decade, I believe the Sig brace came out around 2013 IIRC. They've been legal to purchase and use all this time. Millions of people have purchased them. To simply shrug off a govt agency declaring another person's legally purchased property as now illegal unless they register or destroy it is despicable. I held this same belief with bumpstocks even though I find them to be stupid. I'll hold this same belief when they go after binary triggers even though I find them to be stupid as well.
farscott
12-17-2020, 01:03 PM
Assuming that the receiver, as usual, is what becomes the NFA firearm, I see an issue. Looking at registering as an AOW, SBR, or SBS per the NFA and waiving the tax, how does the BATFE know whether any, for example, TAC-14 is eligible for the free registration? It seems that the BATFE would need to have two sets of records, owners of TAC-14 firearms and owners of braces. Then make a Venn diagram. That sounds difficult for the BATFE as a practical matter as brace sales are not tracked by retailers. Is it possible the brace, like a MG sear, will become the registered "firearm" in the NFA registry? If so, how will it be uniquely identified? I do not believe the braces are serialized.
Alternatively, I could see BATFE authorizing an amnesty period for owners to come forward, but that leads to people claiming multiple receivers have worn braces so as to build multiple SBR, SBS, or AOW without paying the proper tax.
Nephrology
12-17-2020, 01:04 PM
Good thing I ordered that 16" sionics upper 2 weeks ago.
court ruled against Miller saying sawed off shotguns were not suitable militia weapon. However, the U.S. military’s standard issue rifles are now the M4A1 with a 14.5” barrel and the Mk18 with a 10.3” barrel. I believe even the USMC is phasing out 20” rifles for general issue.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the 'common use' part of Heller but that alone isn't enough to e.g. stop congress from adding things to the NFA. Regardless of how common they are. It only applies to something like an outright ban. So while DC's handgun ban is no bueno, California's AWB isn't addressed. Neither is New York City's comically draconian gun laws, nor is the NFA itself.
Which is what makes the recent 'assault weapons' strategy interesting because they're no longer trying for outright bans. They're trying for tax stamps, byzantine "you used blue ink instead of black ink" procedural regulations and month long (if you're lucky) processing times with registration as a bonus, and problematic inheritance as a cherry on top. Also addresses the grandfathering provision which I'm sure they've figured out since 1994. That seems to be a keen way to handle things inside of a generation.
It looks like they're using New York as a template instead of California, and regardless of the composition of SCOTUS I'm not convinced they won't be successful with that strategy.
OlongJohnson
12-17-2020, 01:17 PM
Regarding common use:
-there are over 4,000,000 brace pistols in the US - more than 10x the number of SBRs.
-in addition to common use under Heller, the original NFA Challenge pre WWII was Miller vs US in which the court ruled against Miller saying sawed off shotguns were not suitable militia weapon. However, the U.S. military’s standard issue rifles are now the M4A1 with a 14.5” barrel and the Mk18 with a 10.3” barrel. I believe even the USMC is phasing out 20” rifles for general issue.
You could argue that the current military standard issue options as powerful indications of the sweet spot for overall utility of the firearm. Thus, it is optimized for general use in such a configuration.
Further, the number in use under the severe restrictions of the NFA does not lead to a reasonable basis for characterizing common use. Common use must be assessed in context of what would be the likely outcome without any special restrictions on use, such as the burdens placed on use by NFA taxation, registration and travel limitations. Otherwise, the government could just restrict anything, enforce the restrictions for years or decades, and achieve a situation in which the article was not in common use, thereby validating the restriction by the fact that it was not in common use.
I think anyone with an open mind could understand that a 12.5- to 14.5-inch barrel would likely be the most common length for a general purpose AR if the NFA didn't drive a magical stake made from a unicorn horn and sprinkled with fairy dust into the ground at 16 inches.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the 'common use' part of Heller but that alone isn't enough to e.g. stop congress from adding things to the NFA. Regardless of how common they are. It only applies to something like an outright ban. So while DC's handgun ban is no bueno, California's AWB isn't addressed. Neither is New York City's comically draconian gun laws, nor is the NFA itself.
Which is what makes the recent 'assault weapons' strategy interesting because they're no longer trying for outright bans. They're trying for tax stamps, byzantine "you used blue ink instead of black ink" procedural regulations and month long (if you're lucky) processing times with registration as a bonus, and problematic inheritance as a cherry on top. Also addresses the grandfathering provision which I'm sure they've figured out since 1994. That seems to be a keen way to handle things inside of a generation.
The argument about common use vs. NFA hasn't really been had in the courts, AFAIK. The idea that the purpose of the NFA is to include items in common use is nonsensical, as in inflation-adjusted dollars, the $200 stamp would be around $3400 or so today. The point was to limit the things in it to use by very well-funded organizations, not "common" individuals. The NFA is clearly intended to constitute a significant infringement, and in fact it does so still today, although less than it used to.
The non-heritability of registered "assault weapons" is one more fact that crystallizes in my mind that the ultimate goal of infringement is not public safety, but cultural change.
Imagine if there was a law that allowed you to worship in the faith or your choosing, but not to train your children up in it or pass it on to them in any way. And in fact, they would be prohibited from joining your faith of their own accord. That would meet the legally accepted international standard of ethnic cleansing.
Alternatively, I could see BATFE authorizing an amnesty period for owners to come forward, but that leads to people claiming multiple receivers have worn braces so as to build multiple SBR, SBS, or AOW without paying the proper tax.
I get the impression this isn't about the tax revenue.
WobblyPossum
12-17-2020, 01:45 PM
What's to stop me from registering more then the two I have now for free. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure I have four of them.
I think there wouldn’t be a realistic way to verify whether something was set up as a braced firearm before these changes are enacted in order to qualify for the tax stamp fee waiver. My guess is they’d offer a blanket amnesty and take your word for it. You could probably buy a new lower right now and potentially have the tax stamp fee waived if you wanted to SBR it.
fatdog
12-17-2020, 01:49 PM
They did the amnesty and register it now thing on the Striker style shotguns when they out of the blue reversed themselves for political reasons, but the 10+ years of those being sold legally did not put nearly so many in the market as we are talking for the pistols with braces. It was not the loss of tax revenue in that amnesty that allowing free SBR registration of pistol AR's would be. And there was not much chance for cheating and claiming you had a brace to get free registration like there would be with AR's. Plus by moving those shotguns to the DD class of NFA items they created an impossible situation for owners who's states did not allow DD's virtually creating a mandatory confiscation/desctruction scenario which certainly "got them off the street forever" as their political masters wanted.
For open bolt semi-autos, bump stocks, and the Akins accelerator they just banned them when they changed their mind. The two alternatives were turn them in or destroy them, nobody may possess one, no registration, end of story.
I am betting their first move is the latter course of action like they did on bump stocks, you can keep that pistol with a bare back end, or an unslotted plane non-folding buffer tube in the case of AR's, but you must remove and destroy or surrender the brace itself and no more may be sold.
OlongJohnson
12-17-2020, 01:51 PM
I think there wouldn’t be a realistic way to verify whether something was set up as a braced firearm before these changes are enacted in order to qualify for the tax stamp fee waiver. My guess is they’d offer a blanket amnesty and take your word for it. You could probably buy a new lower right now and potentially have the tax stamp fee waived if you wanted to SBR it.
I believe you would need to have everything in your possession and assembled before the notice goes live in the Federal Register tomorrow to qualify for the no-tax stamp, according to the language as seen last night.
IANAL, and my posts here are never legal advice.
farscott
12-17-2020, 01:51 PM
I get the impression this isn't about the tax revenue.
This could allow the number of NFA weapons in the registry to increase by ten-fold or more, depending upon how many people decide to get tax-free AOW, SBR, and/or SBS. Since having weapons in common usage was a factory in the Miller case, it may be an argument that suggests the NFA is unreasonably restrictive.
5pins
12-17-2020, 02:09 PM
I assume because you'd register the lower not the brace, same as with any AOW or SBR.
I know. What's to stop me from registering more lowers then I have braces for.
Mike C
12-17-2020, 02:12 PM
Am I paranoid or does this just seem like a fancy scheme to get millions to register guns? Seems like with the massive work that would be required to expedite and do this in an efficient manner they will want to do this electronically and in the process build an actual database, you know because it is for the best. But hey, maybe I am just paranoid but I already mentioned that. These next four years are going to suck worse that four 2020's put together.
RevolverRob
12-17-2020, 02:13 PM
I'm not sure how they plan to expedite a number of forms that could approach the total number of firearms registered in the NFRTR as of 2019.
My favorite part is the repeated claim that these are "objective" when they dropped this gem in there: "No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis."
Josh, I know you're probably a little busy today - I'll try to give you two simple yes or no questions:
Can we/should we legal action against these rules in the next 48-hours, once they are published in the federal register?
Or should not expect legal action to begin until after the comment period is closed?
CleverNickname
12-17-2020, 02:17 PM
I know. What's to stop me from registering more lowers then I have braces for.
The answer is that the ATF doesn't care that the government might be potentially losing what amounts to an infinitesimal amount of tax revenue, in the grand scheme of things. They just want more guns registered. Also, the ATF doesn't get any NFA tax money, it all goes straight to the Treasury general fund, so it's not like there'd be bureaucratic turf wars or something over the "lost" taxes.
RevolverRob
12-17-2020, 02:18 PM
Am I paranoid or does this just seem like a fancy scheme to get millions to register guns? Seems like with the massive work that would be required to expedite and do this in an efficient manner they will want to do this electronically and in the process build an actual database, you know because it is for the best. But hey, maybe I am just paranoid but I already mentioned that. These next four years are going to suck worse that four 2020's put together.
Sounds like the best legal challenge to these proposals, since FOPA prohibits a national database from being generated.
That said, I've long thought that what they intended to do was turn NFA into a defacto national gun owner database. And that appears to be precisely what they are trying to do here.
Their legal argument will be, "NFA Registry is clearly legal. It's not a database."
The counter argument will be, "If you force people to register their weapons as SBRs, you'll add more than 10x the number of weapons currently in the registry, resulting in the formation of a defacto database."
Afterall, at present the number of NFA weapons registered is less than the population of our least populous state, Wyoming (575k people). 4,000,000+ weapons is more than the population of our 28th most populous state, Oklahoma (3.9 million).
Totem Polar
12-17-2020, 02:25 PM
Sidebar: is there anything in the current discussion, what we know of it, that would stop one from just pulling the brace off, adding a $6 foam sleeve, and driving on in early 2000s fashion? Asking for a friend that lives on a state border, and on the side that disallows carry of loaded rifles in cars, etc.
WobblyPossum
12-17-2020, 02:34 PM
Sidebar: is there anything in the current discussion, what we know of it, that would stop one from just pulling the brace off, adding a $6 foam sleeve, and driving on in early 2000s fashion? Asking for a friend that lives on a state border, and on the side that disallows carry of loaded rifles in cars, etc.
The only thing I can think of would be that once a gun is a rifle, it’s always a rifle. This document makes it sound like everyone’s braced pistol has actually been an unregistered SBR or AOW the whole time but, because we were all mislead by the “brace industrial complex” into believing they were pistols it’s not our fault. The ATF will offer an amnesty so we can register our SBRs/AOWs and they won’t charge us criminally. Aren’t they such nice people? *rolls eyes*
joshs
12-17-2020, 02:38 PM
Josh, I know you're probably a little busy today - I'll try to give you two simple yes or no questions:
Can we/should we legal action against these rules in the next 48-hours, once they are published in the federal register?
Or should not expect legal action to begin until after the comment period is closed?
Since this "objective" guidance doesn't specifically identify the legality or illegality of any specific product, it would be difficult for someone to challenge the guidance. Determinations made under this guidance (or any other standards) are a different matter.
5pins
12-17-2020, 02:42 PM
Sidebar: is there anything in the current discussion, what we know of it, that would stop one from just pulling the brace off, adding a $6 foam sleeve, and driving on in early 2000s fashion? Asking for a friend that lives on a state border, and on the side that disallows carry of loaded rifles in cars, etc.
No there is nothing to stop "your friend" from doing that.
RevolverRob
12-17-2020, 02:48 PM
Since this "objective" guidance doesn't specifically identify the legality or illegality of any specific product, it would be difficult for someone to challenge the guidance. Determinations made under this guidance (or any other standards) are a different matter.
Got it. Until actual determinations are made under this guidance - we're playing the waiting game.
Thanks.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the 'common use' part of Heller but that alone isn't enough to e.g. stop congress from adding things to the NFA. Regardless of how common they are. It only applies to something like an outright ban. So while DC's handgun ban is no bueno, California's AWB isn't addressed. Neither is New York City's comically draconian gun laws, nor is the NFA itself.
Which is what makes the recent 'assault weapons' strategy interesting because they're no longer trying for outright bans. They're trying for tax stamps, byzantine "you used blue ink instead of black ink" procedural regulations and month long (if you're lucky) processing times with registration as a bonus, and problematic inheritance as a cherry on top. Also addresses the grandfathering provision which I'm sure they've figured out since 1994. That seems to be a keen way to handle things inside of a generation.
It looks like they're using New York as a template instead of California, and regardless of the composition of SCOTUS I'm not convinced they won't be successful with that strategy.
This isn’t Australia.
Grandfathering - whether 1994 style or via NFA registration is essential. It’s what keeps people from saying fuck it let’s fight.
That’s why both CA and NY had grandfathering /registration options. It wasn’t because they were being nice. Not to mention the logistics of confiscation are wholly impractical.
This isn’t Australia.
Grandfathering - whether 1994 style or via NFA registration is essential. It’s what keeps people from saying fuck it let’s fight.
That’s why both CA and NY had grandfathering /registration options. It wasn’t because they were being nice. Not to mention the logistics of confiscation are wholly impractical.
...Yes?
I'm unclear on why you think I thought any different. Pointing out the difference between 1994 and what this would mean was my point.
edit: 1994 left a lot of product in circulation where basically nothing changed except the price. They did not get the desired result. Having registration and things like red tape on inheritance were almost certainly the original goal. (If not in fact then in hindsight.) This rectifies what they see as the shortcomings of what they did in 1994.
edit2: It also addresses the notion that SCOTUS might see an AWB ban like they saw DC, but NFA regulation as different. Only Roberts and 2 others have to agree.
HeavyDuty
12-17-2020, 03:16 PM
Serious question - I’ve never before lived in a NFA state. I thought that for major reconfigurations of registered SBRs you needed to file some kind of change doc? Moving from a brace to a stock once you did the freebie may be an issue if that’s the case. Again, I’m not knowledgeable about the regs and am asking the question.
Serious question - I’ve never before lived in a NFA state. I thought that for major reconfigurations of registered SBRs you needed to file some kind of change doc? Moving from a brace to a stock once you did the freebie may be an issue if that’s the case. Again, I’m not knowledgeable about the regs and am asking the question.
If "permanent" yes.
And if you think "permanent" is whimsically defined in policy but not legislation the answer is also yes.
joshs
12-17-2020, 03:19 PM
Serious question - I’ve never before lived in a NFA state. I thought that for major reconfigurations of registered SBRs you needed to file some kind of change doc? Moving from a brace to a stock once you did the freebie may be an issue if that’s the case. Again, I’m not knowledgeable about the regs and am asking the question.
Only if it impacted information that is kept in the NFRTR. The only potentially impacted info would be overall length, but people change stocks on SBRs and SBSs and I've never heard of ATF wanting an update for a very small change to overall length from switching stocks.
OlongJohnson
12-17-2020, 03:30 PM
The only thing I can think of would be that once a gun is a rifle, it’s always a rifle. This document makes it sound like everyone’s braced pistol has actually been an unregistered SBR or AOW the whole time but, because we were all mislead by the “brace industrial complex” into believing they were pistols it’s not our fault. The ATF will offer an amnesty so we can register our SBRs/AOWs and they won’t charge us criminally. Aren’t they such nice people? *rolls eyes*
The bold part is not true in every case.
My understanding is that if a firearm is first assembled as a pistol, then it can be reassembled as a rifle, and re-reassembled as a pistol as often and as many times as desired.
So if an AR was assembled the very first time as an unambiguous, early-00s style pistol with a round receiver extension and nothing more on it than maybe a foam sleeve, it is eligible to be returned to a legal pistol configuration for all time. It can be made into a standard rifle without filing any special paperwork, or made into an SBR or AOW with a stamp. And you can go back and forth. You just have to be careful of the path you take transiting between states so you don't as an intermediate state assemble a configuration for which you have not acquired a stamp. As in, if you have a stamp for an SBR, don't let it be an AOW when changing from rifle to SBR or pistol.
However, if a firearm is first assembled as a rifle, then it is always a rifle. If a stamp is acquired, it can be reassembled as an SBR, because that is a subcategory of rifle, but it can never be a pistol.
So if this notice starts being used to make determinations that braced pistols are actually SBRs, then they will be and will have always been rifles in the eyes of BATFE.
However, if they were first assembled as unambiguous pistols with non-braced round receiver extensions, and the brace added later, then they could be converted back to pistols. I suppose that in that case, if a stamp was acquired and if the particular brace you used was one that worked with a round tube, rather than a "carbine" extension, you could go back and forth between pistol and SBR configuration simply by removing or reattaching the brace. It seems likely that BATFE will argue that a carbine RE is "objectively" intended to be used with a shouldering device, but it would be much harder for them to argue that a round tube without any additional device attached is "objectively" a stock.
I wouldn't want to go back and forth between configurations by changing the receiver extension, as that means messing with castle nut stakes every time you make a change, and likely a new castle nut and receiver end plate.
As always,
IANAL, and my posts here are never legal advice.
My understanding is that if a firearm is first assembled as a pistol, then it can be reassembled as a rifle, and re-reassembled as a pistol as often and as many times as desired.
So if an AR was assembled the very first time as an unambiguous, early-00s style pistol with a round receiver extension and nothing more on it than maybe a foam sleeve, it is eligible to be returned to a legal pistol configuration for all time. It can be made into a standard rifle without filing any special paperwork, or made into an SBR or AOW with a stamp. And you can go back and forth. You just have to be careful of the path you take transiting between states so you don't as an intermediate state assemble a configuration for which you have not acquired a stamp. As in, if you have a stamp for an SBR, don't let it be an AOW when changing from rifle to SBR or pistol.
However, if a firearm is first assembled as a rifle, then it is always a rifle. If a stamp is acquired, it can be reassembled as an SBR, because that is a subcategory of rifle, but it can never be a pistol.
My understanding as well, and the reason that every lower I build is first assembled and test fired as a (braceless) pistol.
...Yes?
I'm unclear on why you think I thought any different. Pointing out the difference between 1994 and what this would mean was my point.
edit: 1994 left a lot of product in circulation where basically nothing changed except the price. They did not get the desired result. Having registration and things like red tape on inheritance were almost certainly the original goal. (If not in fact then in hindsight.) This rectifies what they see as the shortcomings of what they did in 1994.
edit2: It also addresses the notion that SCOTUS might see an AWB ban like they saw DC, but NFA regulation as different. Only Roberts and 2 others have to agree.
I agree an AWB 2.0 not leaving gaps like the whole thumbhole stock thing but grandfathering is the only way it has any hope of working in the real world.
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces?fbclid=IwAR0epiJoGldLn0P7ehJeM1zSTkeAlvzGBO maxj95qSCwz5H7Yc6XHjPIq3s
Not published yet but from a .GOV source.
ccmdfd
12-17-2020, 06:57 PM
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces?fbclid=IwAR0epiJoGldLn0P7ehJeM1zSTkeAlvzGBO maxj95qSCwz5H7Yc6XHjPIq3s
Not published yet but from a .GOV source.
Was reading that a little more thoroughly since getting home.
ATF claims that some makers submit their product as a brace, then advise it as a stock to the masses.
Has that actually happened?
I've never seen an add for a brace stating it was also a stock, and can't imagine a company being that bold/stupid.
But i also don't see all of the adds out there.
My questions:
1) what calibers are compatible with a brace, and what calibers are necessarily rifles or shotguns.
2) will engraving be required.
3) is a pistol without a brace still a pistol, regardless of caliber.
4) does a buffer tube have to be round or some other spec to still be a pistol.
5) for designs without a buffer tube, can you have a faux buffer tube and still be a pistol.
Was reading that a little more thoroughly since getting home.
ATF claims that some makers submit their product as a brace, then advise it as a stock to the masses.
Has that actually happened?
I've never seen an add for a brace stating it was also a stock, and can't imagine a company being that bold/stupid.
But i also don't see all of the adds out there.
I’ve never seen that either.
Maybe they mean advertise it used like a stock ? Like. Photo or video of someone shouldering it ?
Casual Friday
12-17-2020, 08:19 PM
Was reading that a little more thoroughly since getting home.
ATF claims that some makers submit their product as a brace, then advise it as a stock to the masses.
Has that actually happened?
I've never seen an add for a brace stating it was also a stock, and can't imagine a company being that bold/stupid.
But i also don't see all of the adds out there.
I’ve never seen that either.
Maybe they mean advertise it used like a stock ? Like. Photo or video of someone shouldering it ?
There was a typo on Q's website calling the Honeybadger's brace a stock in one small paragraph in the description. It was unintentional according to Q.
Totem Polar
12-17-2020, 08:27 PM
A corollary to this line of thought is if anyone has ever seen a gun mag review or test of a braced pistol where it was actually used as a brace and *not* a surrogate stock.
WobblyPossum
12-17-2020, 08:29 PM
The bold part is not true in every case.
My understanding is that if a firearm is first assembled as a pistol, then it can be reassembled as a rifle, and re-reassembled as a pistol as often and as many times as desired.
So if an AR was assembled the very first time as an unambiguous, early-00s style pistol with a round receiver extension and nothing more on it than maybe a foam sleeve, it is eligible to be returned to a legal pistol configuration for all time. It can be made into a standard rifle without filing any special paperwork, or made into an SBR or AOW with a stamp. And you can go back and forth. You just have to be careful of the path you take transiting between states so you don't as an intermediate state assemble a configuration for which you have not acquired a stamp. As in, if you have a stamp for an SBR, don't let it be an AOW when changing from rifle to SBR or pistol.
However, if a firearm is first assembled as a rifle, then it is always a rifle. If a stamp is acquired, it can be reassembled as an SBR, because that is a subcategory of rifle, but it can never be a pistol.
So if this notice starts being used to make determinations that braced pistols are actually SBRs, then they will be and will have always been rifles in the eyes of BATFE.
However, if they were first assembled as unambiguous pistols with non-braced round receiver extensions, and the brace added later, then they could be converted back to pistols. I suppose that in that case, if a stamp was acquired and if the particular brace you used was one that worked with a round tube, rather than a "carbine" extension, you could go back and forth between pistol and SBR configuration simply by removing or reattaching the brace. It seems likely that BATFE will argue that a carbine RE is "objectively" intended to be used with a shouldering device, but it would be much harder for them to argue that a round tube without any additional device attached is "objectively" a stock.
I wouldn't want to go back and forth between configurations by changing the receiver extension, as that means messing with castle nut stakes every time you make a change, and likely a new castle nut and receiver end plate.
As always,
You are correct. I should have been more clear in that I was referring to pistols configured from the start with braces. If the ATF is now basically saying that braces are stocks or that a braced pistol is an SBR, then those guns were rifles from the start.
Rex G
12-18-2020, 08:03 AM
Sidebar: is there anything in the current discussion, what we know of it, that would stop one from just pulling the brace off, adding a $6 foam sleeve, and driving on in early 2000s fashion? Asking for a friend that lives on a state border, and on the side that disallows carry of loaded rifles in cars, etc.
Well, it does appear that removing and destroying, or, surrendering the brace, is what BATFE is considering to be acceptable, according to the posted document. (I am not a lawyer.)
Not being a fan of the early-version SB Tactical brace, packaged as an manufacturer-included accessory with my DDM4 V7P, that part, at least, makes my situation less complicated. (The brace adds considerable bulk and length to the RE, which is already made longer by the LAW folder.) The interesting part will be to see what the BATFE considers to be acceptable forms of destruction, and whether they will require some type of documentation of the destruction.
I am not saying that all else is rosy, regarding this BATFE document.
jetfire
12-18-2020, 08:17 AM
A corollary to this line of thought is if anyone has ever seen a gun mag review or test of a braced pistol where it was actually used as a brace and *not* a surrogate stock.
Fourth picture
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2020/8/4/review-cmmg-mk17-banshee-9-mm-pistol/
5pins
12-18-2020, 08:23 AM
Fourth picture
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2020/8/4/review-cmmg-mk17-banshee-9-mm-pistol/
He dose not appear to be using the brace at all in that picture. He's just shooting it two handed.
https://d3apgz7jqdnp73.cloudfront.net/media/2111961/cmmg-3.jpg
Rex G
12-18-2020, 08:26 AM
You are correct. I should have been more clear in that I was referring to pistols configured from the start with braces. If the ATF is now basically saying that braces are stocks or that a braced pistol is an SBR, then those guns were rifles from the start.
I share your concern. The BATFE document indicates that surrendering or destroying the offending brace would be acceptable, but, somewhere in the making of this sausage, will the result be that my DDM4 V7P ends up being retroactively considered an SBR, rather than a pistol, from the moment of its transfer, or, will I indeed be allowed handle this as a simple do-it-myself correction? (I am lucky, in that my early SBT brace is a simple friction fit, leaving a clean, slick RE, when the brace is simply pulled away. I already removed it, long ago, for reasons unrelated to the current legal issue, but have kept the brace stored separate from the weapon, in case something like this happened.)
I plan to replace the SBT brace with a Tail Hook, but am awaiting the outcome of this mess.
jetfire
12-18-2020, 08:32 AM
He dose not appear to be using the brace at all in that picture. He's just shooting it two handed.
https://d3apgz7jqdnp73.cloudfront.net/media/2111961/cmmg-3.jpg
Eh, close enough. It's not being used as a stock.
Also don't refer to me in the third person like that, it's weird.
It doesn’t carry the weight of law....
And folks are already “I’ll just take it off”.
Cheebus
New Gadsden flag idea - a disposable mask with an earthworm on it
5pins
12-18-2020, 08:53 AM
Eh, close enough. It's not being used as a stock.
Also don't refer to me in the third person like that, it's weird.
If anything you showed it's unnecessary by not using it.
I just tried shooting my SBA3 as a brace and it didn't work very well. The strap just barely made it around my arm and it came off after about five rounds. Not to mention aiming with it was awkward.
jetfire
12-18-2020, 09:03 AM
If anything you showed it's unnecessary by not using it.
I just tried shooting my SBA3 as a brace and it didn't work very well. The strap just barely made it around my arm and it came off after about five rounds. Not to mention aiming with it was awkward.
This brace works as a brace, but also it's easier to shoot the pistol like a pistol, or shoulder it like a stock.
5pins
12-18-2020, 09:14 AM
This brace works as a brace, but also it's easier to shoot the pistol like a pistol, or shoulder it like a stock.
I thought the point of the brace was to make it easier to shoot? If it's easier to shoot like a pistol then what is the point of the brace?
In my case it doesn't work as a brace at all. The original brace actually worked very well and I could see how it could be helpful with someone that needed it. The SBA3? Not so much.
LOKNLOD
12-18-2020, 09:16 AM
May have missed this figure elsewhere but how many braces are estimated to be in the wild?
May have missed this figure elsewhere but how many braces are estimated to be in the wild?
I’ve heard several hundred thousand to 4 million
Like many quoted stats, I’d bet both those numbers are made up on the spot.
Which is sort of the point. It’s -not a prohibited item - so like how would any one know how many there are or who really has one.
Most of The noise around this is hand wringing.
Rex G
12-18-2020, 09:30 AM
I just tried shooting my SBA3 as a brace and it didn't work very well. The strap just barely made it around my arm and it came off after about five rounds. Not to mention aiming with it was awkward.
My earlier SBT brace ain’t much of a brace, either. And, it is a poor excuse for a stock substitute, when “incidentally” shouldered. Plus, with my LAW-foldered RE, the “LOP” is substantially longer than what I want an AR/M4 rifle/carbine stock to be. After some kind of sticky liquid was splashed or spilled on the weapon, I pulled the brace off, for cleaning, and never put it back onto the weapon.
I bought my DDM4 V7P to be a rule-book pistol, that could be carried loaded and bagged, in jurisdictions that do not allow long to to be loaded while concealed, and/or while being transported. In actual practice, it has yet to displace a long-barreled revolver, in that role.
ccmdfd
12-18-2020, 09:36 AM
I’ve read through it again.
Someone correct me if I’m incorrect in this interpretation. This isn’t my area of expertise by a long shot.
So they say they want to clarify things so that manufacturers and the public will have an easier time figuring out if something is a brace vs an sbr, vs an …. (ok that seems reasonable)
But they then go on to say that they don’t have specific criteria for what is what. There are some things which will be considered; caliber, sights, etc, but also some things which even they don’t know yet and it’s still going to be a “we know it when we see it” or perhaps “it is what we say it is” kind of situation? And that is basically the same situation we are in now?
Thanks
cc
LOKNLOD
12-18-2020, 09:52 AM
I’ve heard several hundred thousand to 4 million
Like many quoted stats, I’d bet both those numbers are made up on the spot.
Which is sort of the point. It’s -not a prohibited item - so like how would any one know how many there are or who really has one.
Most of The noise around this is hand wringing.
If there are 4 million braced guns in the wild, it’s just proof that SBRs aren’t meaningfully different and need to be removed from the NFA altogether. “Save the braces” needs to be “fuck the Idea of SBRs”
Also, remove the whole NFA but that’s another discussion.
jetfire
12-18-2020, 09:55 AM
I thought the point of the brace was to make it easier to shoot? If it's easier to shoot like a pistol then what is the point of the brace?
In my case it doesn't work as a brace at all. The original brace actually worked very well and I could see how it could be helpful with someone that needed it. The SBA3? Not so much.
The design intent of the original pistol brace was to provide shooters with physical infirmities the ability to fire an AR pistol with one hand. That's pretty well documented. For an accomplished pistol shooter, with a gun the size of the CMMG Banshee, just holding it like a pistol with two hands provides the most stable "non-shouldered" platform. I imagine shooting it old-school SAS style pressed out against a tight sling would work too.
Borderland
12-18-2020, 10:08 AM
Looking at this discussion as someone who has never owned a SBR or AR pistol I'm hopelessly lost.
To my uninformed perspective, it seems that braces are like bump stocks. First they were legal and then they weren't. Nothing changed except a ruling that the ATF made on an order that came down from the administration.
It didn't matter in this state because they became contraband about a month before the ATF took any action. If you had one the state paid you to turn it in. There were no exceptions. They became contraband over night.
Knowing that, if I wanted a SBR or AR pistol I probably wouldn't buy one because 1) ATF might change the definition or, 2) the state might declare either of those contraband based on something the adm. proposed even if they don't actually do it. That's exactly how SBR's are regulated in this state now.
I’ve read through it again.
Someone correct me if I’m incorrect in this interpretation. This isn’t my area of expertise by a long shot.
So they say they want to clarify things so that manufacturers and the public will have an easier time figuring out if something is a brace vs an sbr, vs an …. (ok that seems reasonable)
But they then go on to say that they don’t have specific criteria for what is what. There are some things which will be considered; caliber, sights, etc, but also some things which even they don’t know yet and it’s still going to be a “we know it when we see it” or perhaps “it is what we say it is” kind of situation? And that is basically the same situation we are in now?
Thanks
cc
That is my take on it. I believe it is intentionally vague to create confusion and fear in order to get people to avoid braces or comply with the dubious NFA registration scheme.
Casual Friday
12-18-2020, 10:45 AM
There's rumors floating around that the "free and expedited" tax stamp would only allow it to be in braced pistol configuration and not a true SBR. If that's the case I hope nobody falls for that.
64817
OlongJohnson
12-18-2020, 10:48 AM
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces?fbclid=IwAR0epiJoGldLn0P7ehJeM1zSTkeAlvzGBO maxj95qSCwz5H7Yc6XHjPIq3s
Not published yet but from a .GOV source.
Published:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
I take this to indicate the time at which it was published:
Page views:
0
as of 12/18/2020 at 10:15 am EST
There's rumors floating around that the "free and expedited" tax stamp would only allow it to be in braced pistol configuration and not a true SBR. If that's the case I hope nobody falls for that.
64817
A. I just notice your signature line. Legit
B. As much as I love feeling like I’m being ambushed - the no one falls for it thing is pretty wierd.
There’s no tax stamp for “braced pistol configuration. It’s an SBR or it isn’t. If the a brace is a stock in technical terms then it’s an SBR. Folks be looking for more trouble inside other trouble that hasn’t even opened yet.
Get the stamp, use a stock, roll on.
Let’s pretend for second this is a shoe store not a gov agency.
Potential new owners don’t like layaway Sales. But you and your idiots running the store have allowed 500k-4M folks put stuff in layaway.
Now you’re trying to keep your job. Oh fuck. Let’s clear off these layaways before the new boss realizes we’re idiots.
Probably more feasible than a double ambush of a duty free SBR
WobblyPossum
12-18-2020, 10:55 AM
There's rumors floating around that the "free and expedited" tax stamp would only allow it to be in braced pistol configuration and not a true SBR. If that's the case I hope nobody falls for that.
64817
Then they’d need to change the statutory definition of rifle because once a firearm is a rifle you can put whatever stock you want on it.
Casual Friday
12-18-2020, 11:08 AM
A. I just notice your signature line. Legit
B. As much as I love feeling like I’m being ambushed - the no one falls for it thing is pretty wierd.
There’s no tax stamp for “braced pistol configuration.
Yet.
It’s an SBR or it isn’t. If the a brace is a stock in technical terms then it’s an SBR. Folks be looking for more trouble inside other trouble that hasn’t even opened yet.
Get the stamp, use a stock, roll on.
That's why I mentioned that they were only rumors. While it doesn't seem plausible, there was a time I didn't think a bump stock was a machine gun either but here we are.
Rex G
12-18-2020, 11:34 AM
I will not be saying what I “will” do, until I see the final decision. I want to keep my DDM4 V7P a legal pistol, so that it can be kept loaded, while traveling in jurisdictions that do not allow long guns to be loaded while concealed, or while being transported. For the sake of my increasingly-gimpy right shoulder and right thumb/wrist, I want pistol braces to remain legal, especially the Tail Hook type, which most certainly is a “stabilizing” accessory. (I am generally ambidextrous with most handguns, have carried at 0300 since 1983, and generally shoot long guns lefty.)
An NFA weapon is not desirable, for my purposes, because I could not readily travel with it, or keep it loaded in the previously-mentioned jurisdictions, and would rather not use an NFA weapon in a defensive incident.
The part about the power of the cartridge, in the BATFE document, is a serious concern. I hope that BATFE will see .300 BLK/AAC as a pistol cartridge, as it was developed with short barrels in mind. Deep. Sigh.
Edited to add: I am not against the concept of having an NFA weapon, but would rather it be a Benelli M2 or M4 SBS. I was, at least, document-ably “qual’ed” with an 18.5” M2 Benelli, when I retired from LEO-ing, which would lend some level of legitimacy to my using a shorty version for defense.
Caballoflaco
12-18-2020, 11:46 AM
The part about the power of the cartridge, in the BATFE document, is a serious concern. I hope that BATFE will see .300 BLK/AAC as a pistol cartridge, as it was developed with short barrels in mind. Deep. Sigh.
Edited to add: I am not against the concept of having an NFA weapon, but would rather it be a Benelli M2 or M4 SBS.
I’ll be curious to see how they go about that one. “No powerful ammo of it’s a semi auto” well what about .50AE? It’s got more ke than a 5.56. And a 3” .44 mag sure does suck a lot more to shoot than an AR pistol.
Casual Friday
12-18-2020, 11:55 AM
The part about the power of the cartridge, in the BATFE document, is a serious concern. I hope that BATFE will see .300 BLK/AAC as a pistol cartridge, as it was developed with short barrels in mind.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
OlongJohnson
12-18-2020, 12:12 PM
There’s no tax stamp for “braced pistol configuration. It’s an SBR or it isn’t. If the a brace is a stock in technical terms then it’s an SBR. Folks be looking for more trouble inside other trouble that hasn’t even opened yet.
Then they’d need to change the statutory definition of rifle because once a firearm is a rifle you can put whatever stock you want on it.
I will not be saying what I “will” do, until I see the final decision.
Yeah. The comment period is open. After it closes, they have time to review all the comments and decide what to do before issuing a final guidance document, if they even do issue a final version. The document states that the issuance of no-tax stamps will be a separate process. I believe there is no current legal framework for issuing NFA stamps without payment of the tax, so they would likely have to go through the NPRM and final rule process to create the special case. As such, they could absolutely put special conditions on that stamp.
The part about the power of the cartridge, in the BATFE document, is a serious concern. I hope that BATFE will see .300 BLK/AAC as a pistol cartridge, as it was developed with short barrels in mind. Deep. Sigh.
I’ll be curious to see how they go about that one. “No powerful ammo of it’s a semi auto” well what about .50AE? It’s got more ke than a 5.56. And a 3” .44 mag sure does suck a lot more to shoot than an AR pistol.
Yeah, that was the first thing that came to mind. .44 Magnum burns significantly more powder than .300 BLK. My thoughts were more along the lines of 6.5 Grendel. Cartridges that have objectively impaired ballistics when fired from a short barrel vs. a long barrel.
The other angle would be stuff like .458 SOCOM, that could be argued to carry such recoil that they are not really suitable for a handgun. As noted, the arguments against that would be the even bigger revolver cartridges. .500 S&W actually slings a given weight bullet faster than .458 SOCOM and in a short barrel, the SOCOM might not do even as well as the published figures I'm looking at.
It would be magnificent if Contenders and revolvers saved AR pistols. :cool:
Borderland
12-18-2020, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't hold your breath.
I think straight wall cartridge will be the definition. Mostly anything with a shoulder these days is a rifle cartridge by definition if a reloading manual is used. I know there are some exceptions but generally that's the easiest way to separate cartridges into pistol/rifle categories. A max case length might also be used. SBR and AR pistol is a relatively new phenomenon in the firearms industry. I've only seen those in any numbers in the last 20 years on a civilian range. I know they've been around in LE a lot longer.
Now if 30 carbine gets under the wire all is not lost. ;)
GyroF-16
12-18-2020, 12:45 PM
I think straight wall cartridge will be the definition. Mostly anything with a shoulder these days is a rifle cartridge by definition if a reloading manual is used. I know there are some exceptions but generally that's the easiest way to separate cartridges into pistol/rifle categories. SBR is a relatively new phenomenon in the firearms industry. I've only seen those in any numbers in the last 20 years on a civilian range. I know they've been around in LE a lot longer.
Now if 30 carbine gets under the wire all is not lost. ;)
I thought of the “straight wall” as a definition (much like some states limit cartridges for hunting).
Except that .357 Sig isn’t straight walled, and it is absolutely a pistol cartridge.
Borderland
12-18-2020, 12:48 PM
I thought of the “straight wall” as a definition (much like some states limit cartridges for hunting).
Except that .357 Sig isn’t straight walled, and it is absolutely a pistol cartridge.
Yeah, that one popped into my head when I was writing. 30 Carbine comes up as a rifle cartridge in the manuals and it's a bastard just like 357 Sig. Not sure what you could do with that except exempt it.
CleverNickname
12-18-2020, 12:50 PM
The document states that the issuance of no-tax stamps will be a separate process. I believe there is no current legal framework for issuing NFA stamps without payment of the tax, so they would likely have to go through the NPRM and final rule process to create the special case. As such, they could absolutely put special conditions on that stamp.
There may not be a legal way to issue NFA tax stamps without paying the tax, but whether it's legal or not, it's happened before when the USAS-12 and Streetsweeper were retroactively changed from title I shotguns to destructive devices in the 90's. The ATF allowed people who owned them as title I to register them tax-free.
There's rumors floating around that the "free and expedited" tax stamp would only allow it to be in braced pistol configuration and not a true SBR. If that's the case I hope nobody falls for that.
64817
Then they’d need to change the statutory definition of rifle because once a firearm is a rifle you can put whatever stock you want on it.
Yet.
That's why I mentioned that they were only rumors. While it doesn't seem plausible, there was a time I didn't think a bump stock was a machine gun either but here we are.
Yeah. The comment period is open. After it closes, they have time to review all the comments and decide what to do before issuing a final guidance document, if they even do issue a final version. The document states that the issuance of no-tax stamps will be a separate process. I believe there is no current legal framework for issuing NFA stamps without payment of the tax, so they would likely have to go through the NPRM and final rule process to create the special case. As such, they could absolutely put special conditions on that stamp.
Re: Bump stocks - they were originally classified as machine guns before they weren't.
Re: NFA:
Creating a new NFA category would require legislation. So they need to shoehorn Brace pistols into either SBRs or AOW's.
ATF has set precedent that braces are accessories, not stocks. Stocks are are an integral part of a rifle/shotgun/SBR/SBS.
So ATF could flip flop and say braces are stocks, but that doesn't comport with the ambiguous analysis in the proposed rulemaking. i.e. if braces are just stocks why would you need to do an analysis of features ?
If they hold with the precedent that braces are accessories, then they could argue that a brace pistol is an AOW just like adding a second pistol grip (also an accessory) can convert a pistol "designed" to be fired with one hand into an AOW designed to be fired with two. An AOW designation / stamp would only allow the brace.
GyroF-16
12-18-2020, 01:48 PM
I readily acknowledge that I’m not nearly as knowledgeable on NFA topics as you are.
But I will point out that the ATF repeatedly used the terms “short barreled rifle”, “stock”, “length of pull”, and “rifle” in the proposed rule change. I didn’t see the term “all other weapon” used at all.
This would tend to lead me to believe that they’re eyeing an SBR designation.
Or they’re just being cagey by avoiding using “AOW” in the document.
But I don’t know why we would be suspicious of a government agency that publishes a proposed rule change on a Friday, with a short, two week comment period that covers the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s Day...
Re: Bump stocks - they were originally classified as machine guns before they weren't.
Re: NFA:
Creating a new NFA category would require legislation. So they need to shoehorn Brace pistols into either SBRs or AOW's.
ATF has set precedent that braces are accessories, not stocks. Stocks are are an integral part of a rifle/shotgun/SBR/SBS.
So ATF could flip flop and say braces are stocks, but that doesn't comport with the ambiguous analysis in the proposed rulemaking. i.e. if braces are just stocks why would you need to do an analysis of features ?
If they hold with the precedent that braces are accessories, then they could argue that a brace pistol is an AOW just like adding a second pistol grip (also an accessory) can convert a pistol "designed" to be fired with one hand into an AOW designed to be fired with two. An AOW designation / stamp would only allow the brace.
I readily acknowledge that I’m not nearly as knowledgeable on NFA topics as you are.
But I will point out that the ATF repeatedly used the terms “short barreled rifle”, “stock”, “length of pull”, and “rifle” in the proposed rule change. I didn’t see the term “all other weapon” used at all.
This would tend to lead me to believe that they’re eyeing an SBR designation.
Or they’re just being cagey by avoiding using “AOW” in the document.
But I don’t know why we would be suspicious of a government agency that publishes a proposed rule change on a Friday, with a short, two week comment period that covers the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s Day...
The proposed rule change is (IMHO) intentionally ambiguous so it could go either ways.
The comment period is supposed to be 90 days. A fair amount of Trumps attempted immigration regulation changes (like DACA) were torpedoed by administrative procedures act violations.
OlongJohnson
12-18-2020, 02:03 PM
I think straight wall cartridge will be the definition. Mostly anything with a shoulder these days is a rifle cartridge by definition if a reloading manual is used. I know there are some exceptions but generally that's the easiest way to separate cartridges into pistol/rifle categories. A max case length might also be used. SBR and AR pistol is a relatively new phenomenon in the firearms industry. I've only seen those in any numbers in the last 20 years on a civilian range. I know they've been around in LE a lot longer.
Now if 30 carbine gets under the wire all is not lost. ;)
Not to mention all the shouldered cartridges cooked up for the Contender over these many long decades.
GyroF-16
12-18-2020, 02:23 PM
The proposed rule change is (IMHO) intentionally ambiguous so it could go either ways.
The comment period is supposed to be 90 days. A fair amount of Trumps attempted immigration regulation changes (like DACA) were torpedoed by administrative procedures act violations.
So I take it you’re not buying the ATF’s assertion that this is a “guidance document”?
Quoted from the document in question:
“ On August 19, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published regulations
defining “guidance documents” and the required procedures that the Department and its
components must follow to issue guidance documents consistent with Executive Order
13891. See 28 CFR 50.26. The regulation defines the term “guidance document” as “an
agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior
of regulated parties that sets forth (i) a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical
issue, or (ii) an interpretation of a statute or regulation.” 28 CFR 50.26(a)(1).”
And a bit later:
“ Although there is no requirement that a guidance document
be published for notice and comment,9 ATF has decided to publish the proposed
objective factors in the Federal Register for a brief comment period, given the public
interest surrounding these issues. ATF will consider the comments it receives before
finalizing this guidance.”
I’m hoping you’re right, and not intending to come across as argumentative... I’m just completely unfamiliar with Executive Order 13891, which apparently only was executed in August of this year. I’m hoping that doesn’t remove the requirement for a significant comment period before what it effectively a significant rule change.
CZ Man
12-18-2020, 03:41 PM
Let your Reps know what you think about this BS:
https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=10271
jetfire
12-18-2020, 04:12 PM
Well this represents the finest moment of my trolling career
64847
Casual Friday
12-18-2020, 04:13 PM
Clear as mud.
64846
Lester Polfus
12-18-2020, 04:14 PM
Well this represents the finest moment of my trolling career
64847
In the absence of a "golf clap" button, I am reduced to merely "liking" this.
Totem Polar
12-18-2020, 04:50 PM
Well this represents the finest moment of my trolling career
64847
https://media1.tenor.com/images/f3ad19898460b57e0144d0804c56ad7d/tenor.gif?itemid=5210564
Borderland
12-18-2020, 05:00 PM
I don't think the ATF has had a director for a long time.
I know they just got a new deputy director a few months ago but I think they always had one of those.
whomever
12-18-2020, 05:03 PM
Clear as mud.
64846
That actually seems pretty clear to me. Pistols use pistol scopes, with 18 inches or whatever of eye relief. If you put a rifle scope on a 44 mag revolver and they put the scope an inch from your eye so you can see through the scope ... that's going to be messy. Pistols use pistol scopes, or things where eye relief doesn't matter like red dots.
farscott
12-18-2020, 05:10 PM
Clear as mud.
64846
That statement scared me as I use normal rifle scopes on certain rifle-caliber single-shot handguns. For example, I have a Leupold M8-8X on a T/C Contender wearing a fifteen-inch .22 K-Hornet barrel. The lack of gun movement from recoil allows the use of a riflescope with no concerns about getting smacked in the face. And the pistol is fired from the bench or from a bipod with a single-hand. I also have the same model of scope on a .22 LR barrel of the same length.
Casual Friday
12-18-2020, 05:46 PM
That actually seems pretty clear to me. Pistols use pistol scopes, with 18 inches or whatever of eye relief. If you put a rifle scope on a 44 mag revolver and they put the scope an inch from your eye so you can see through the scope ... that's going to be messy. Pistols use pistol scopes, or things where eye relief doesn't matter like red dots.
64850
CleverNickname
12-18-2020, 06:22 PM
Well this represents the finest moment of my trolling career
64847
IDGI. Are you saying you have a "short barrel"?
OlongJohnson
12-18-2020, 09:52 PM
Happened across the box my SBA3 came in while cleaning up tonight.
Says right on it:
Designed for all platforms capable of accepting a mil-spec carbine receiver extension, the SBA3 5-position adjustable brace provides you with all the advantages of a pistol with improved control by adding a third point of contact for stabilization.
I suspect that if/when BATFE goes after it, the bolded part will be mentioned as a factor.
Bipods and scopes make something a rifle...
64871
BehindBlueI's
12-18-2020, 10:30 PM
Happened across the box my SBA3 came in while cleaning up tonight.
Says right on it:
Designed for all platforms capable of accepting a mil-spec carbine receiver extension, the SBA3 5-position adjustable brace provides you with all the advantages of a pistol with improved control by adding a third point of contact for stabilization.
I suspect that if/when BATFE goes after it, the bolded part will be mentioned as a factor.
Are they not saying the third point of contact is on the arm, though, when used "as intended" vs shouldering? Wasn't the original idea behind braces that it attached to your forearm as the additional point of contact and wasn't just a shorty stock? I may be misremembering, and it may be irrelevant, but I seem to recall the first brace that got widespread attention had a velcro strap so it could actually be attached to your forearm.
Or are you saying it's an issue because "third point" means the intended use includes both hands?
This stuff makes my head hurt. The SBR ban makes zero sense since handguns were never banned. It's like a jacked up version of Goldilocks. This one is just big enough to be big (rifle), this one is just small enough to be small (handgun), but this one...this one is too medium sized and is therefore bad.
CleverNickname
12-18-2020, 10:31 PM
Happened across the box my SBA3 came in while cleaning up tonight.
Says right on it:
I suspect that if/when BATFE goes after it, the bolded part will be mentioned as a factor.
I don't see how that makes a difference. The third point of contact could be either the arm or the shoulder.
rcbusmc24
12-19-2020, 12:14 AM
I wonder what the ATFs plan is for those states where SBRs are illegal but pistols are not..... Cause the ATF won't approve a stamp in a state where they are not allowed by state law...The New position that they seem to be taking is that many of the pistols out there are actually SBRs and they are being nice and allowing registration after the fact... ... If we follow the same logic that the ATF uses for machine guns ( IE.. once a mg always a mg...) Then technically there is no way to turn a newly designated SBR back into a pistol.... IE, you can't go from rifle to pistol, just pistol to rifle..... Unless you built it yourself from parts and play fast and loose with the truth in regards to how you first configured it..... But most of the factory guns might be screwed.... Or not, no one really knows right now, but I will say that all the factory built pistols just got put on closeout at RSR and other distributors today so they aren't planning on being able to sell them to anyone much longer...
Spartan1980
12-19-2020, 01:16 AM
..... But most of the factory guns might be screwed.... Or not, no one really knows right now, but I will say that all the factory built pistols just got put on closeout at RSR and other distributors today so they aren't planning on being able to sell them to anyone much longer...
Meanwhile S&W brings back this. (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/12/10/smith-wesson-introduces-new-mp15-22-pistol-they-brought-it-back/)
So did they slap some braces on a pile of guns they discovered in a dark corner of the warehouse or are they poking the bear?
whomever
12-19-2020, 07:38 AM
..., but I seem to recall the first brace that got widespread attention had a velcro strap so it could actually be attached to your forearm.
They did. I just looked and the SBA braces still have the velcro strap. My dim memory says that the first 'Shockwave' brand ones also had a strap to bind the paddle shape to your forearm, but I just looked and it isn't pictured on their website.
(I thought the shockwave was intended to be used like this:
https://shockwavetechnologies.com/shockwave-introduces-the-blade-ar-pistol-stabilizer/blade-ar-with-strap-1/
but if you scroll down here:
https://shockwavetechnologies.com/product/blade-pistol-stabilizer/
someone from the company says "Do not add a strap to the Blade. It was approved WITHOUT a strap and therefore if you put one on it that is changing the brace."
so I dunno)
======
To expand on your last couple of sentences, I have heard that the legislative history of the SBR/SBS ban was that the NFA originally included a handgun ban, and some one said 'but wait, if we ban handguns, people will just chop down rifles and shotguns to handgun size', so they said 'well, let's ban those too'. And then at the last minute they didn't have the votes for the handgun ban and pulled it, and didn't remember to also remove the SBR/SBS ban.
I have just heard this anecdotally - does anyone recall an authoritative source for that?
Meanwhile S&W brings back this. (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/12/10/smith-wesson-introduces-new-mp15-22-pistol-they-brought-it-back/)
So did they slap some braces on a pile of guns they discovered in a dark corner of the warehouse or are they poking the bear?
The first-gen 15/22 pistols didn't have a buffer tube (since the guns don't need one), so these appear to be newly designed (unless they're just using the same production line as the rifles to make the lowers)
That said, I'd love to SBR one of these.
OlongJohnson
12-19-2020, 12:16 PM
Anti-SJW "far right" lefties talking about BATFE's pistol brace guidance:
https://youtu.be/4vei5KmW4qQ?t=418
On-point stuff peters out around 11:30, but I think the whole video is worth watching.
Zincwarrior
12-19-2020, 12:20 PM
Edit: deleted post due to mod reminder below.
BehindBlueI's
12-19-2020, 12:40 PM
Reminder: The sole exception to this is specific 2nd amendment politics. These threads must be narrow in scope, such as a specific legislation proposal, lawsuit filed, new law going into affect, etc. General "they are anti-gun" does not qualify for this exception. General complaining about a given candidate does not qualify. Specific and limited in scope.
If you want to talk parties, candidates, etc. do it in the politics forum. Keep this thread specific to braces.
camel
12-19-2020, 01:30 PM
Is the atf saying that because it can be used from a shoulder makes it a stock? Is how it is often used the definition? I’m confused on what the atf exactly with there previous rulings are judging this on. I get that it’s been a long time coming with the company in mention. But maybe I’m to low an information voter to get through all the red tape. Seems like it’s standards now and feelings later.
rcbusmc24
12-19-2020, 01:44 PM
Meanwhile S&W brings back this. (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/12/10/smith-wesson-introduces-new-mp15-22-pistol-they-brought-it-back/)
So did they slap some braces on a pile of guns they discovered in a dark corner of the warehouse or are they poking the bear?
I'll bet those have been in design/ development for a bit now and they just used the regular rifle lower, during assembly. Back when the original MP 15-22 pistols came out was when they were still using slick buffer tubes on other companies pistol offerings and S&W probably didn't want to pay for a seperate mold just for those pistol lowers....
OlongJohnson
12-19-2020, 01:48 PM
Reminder: The sole exception to this is specific 2nd amendment politics. These threads must be narrow in scope, such as a specific legislation proposal, lawsuit filed, new law going into affect, etc. General "they are anti-gun" does not qualify for this exception. General complaining about a given candidate does not qualify. Specific and limited in scope.
If you want to talk parties, candidates, etc. do it in the politics forum. Keep this thread specific to braces.
I forgot that when you embed a video, YouTube doesn't honor the start time that is in the link. So for the on-point stuff, skip ahead in the video to 6:58.
Or just use this link: https://youtu.be/4vei5KmW4qQ?t=418
Anti-SJW "far right" lefties talking about BATFE's pistol brace guidance:
https://youtu.be/4vei5KmW4qQ?t=418
On-point stuff peters out around 11:30, but I think the whole video is worth watching.
GyroF-16
12-19-2020, 01:50 PM
I forgot that when you embed a video, YouTube doesn't honor the start time that is in the link. So for the on-point stuff, skip ahead in the video to 6:58.
Or just use this link: https://youtu.be/4vei5KmW4qQ?t=418
I thought the whole video was worth watching, anyway.
Casual Friday
12-19-2020, 02:15 PM
I've noticed some fire sales on braces over the last couple days, some up to 50% off. Retailers trying to clear inventory while they still can I suppose. I hope every brace in stock across the US is bought over the next few weeks.
64901
Totem Polar
12-19-2020, 03:29 PM
I forgot that when you embed a video, YouTube doesn't honor the start time that is in the link. So for the on-point stuff, skip ahead in the video to 6:58.
Or just use this link: https://youtu.be/4vei5KmW4qQ?t=418
Having been on the Evergreen campus more than once, I would have betted against myself really wanting to have coffee with one of their professors, but there is an exception to every rule.
OlongJohnson
12-19-2020, 04:08 PM
Having been on the Evergreen campus more than once, I would have betted against myself really wanting to have coffee with one of their professors, but there is an exception to every rule.
Well, Evergreen threw them out back in 2017. Apparently, they weren't a good fit.
Screwball
12-19-2020, 05:56 PM
Just thinking about this... if they consider a brace a stock in certain situations, then it should be ok to toss the folding brace back on my TAC-14 until they force NFA registration?
Had to pull it since they said a brace is an accessory and not a stock... so didn’t go towards OAL extended. If it is considered a shouldering device... then it should be measured unfolded. Not to mention, like the original Black Aces DTs were measured.
Can’t have it both ways...
Just thinking about this... if they consider a brace a stock in certain situations, then it should be ok to toss the folding brace back on my TAC-14 until they force NFA registration?
Had to pull it since they said a brace is an accessory and not a stock... so didn’t go towards OAL extended. If it is considered a shouldering device... then it should be measured unfolded. Not to mention, like the original Black Aces DTs were measured.
Can’t have it both ways...
Using logic, common sense or general legal conventions to divine future BATF actions is risky.
Using logic, common sense or general legal conventions to divine future BATF actions is risky.
And that statement in and of itself is proof that this entire thing is extralegal and unconstitutional.
5pins
12-20-2020, 08:18 AM
This is the shit that happens when you try to interpret an almost 90-year-old law.
Screwball
12-22-2020, 12:49 AM
So far, 21,444 comments submitted on the brace document.
Mrgunsngear did a video on this (linked below), where he discussed a similar document submitted when 7N6 came to the chopping block... and less than 5,000 people commented. We don’t see 7N6 coming in today, so obviously they moved on that due to lack of interest.
M855’s turn on the chopping block... it had 80,000 comments... which kept Obama’s agencies from moving against banning that. We could realistically purchase some of that today, if it were in stock.
I think if those numbers get to over 100,000... we have a shot of them blinking over it. Personally, I’d love to see 1,000,000... but it really depends on whether or not people will take 10 minutes to write a response.
https://youtu.be/ABCczG9HUjQ
joshs
12-22-2020, 12:50 PM
So far, 21,444 comments submitted on the brace document.
Mrgunsngear did a video on this (linked below), where he discussed a similar document submitted when 7N6 came to the chopping block... and less than 5,000 people commented. We don’t see 7N6 coming in today, so obviously they moved on that due to lack of interest.
M855’s turn on the chopping block... it had 80,000 comments... which kept Obama’s agencies from moving against banning that. We could realistically purchase some of that today, if it were in stock.
I think if those numbers get to over 100,000... we have a shot of them blinking over it. Personally, I’d love to see 1,000,000... but it really depends on whether or not people will take 10 minutes to write a response.
https://youtu.be/ABCczG9HUjQ
Those things didn't move or not move based on the number of comments, but more comments are definitely helpful. I'd recommend making small changes to any draft comment you use so that it is not submitted as an identical comment.
Also, I don't recall an opportunity to comment on the 7N6 AP determination, so I'm not sure what comments he is referring to.
Screwball
12-22-2020, 02:01 PM
Those things didn't move or not move based on the number of comments, but more comments are definitely helpful. I'd recommend making small changes to any draft comment you use so that it is not submitted as an identical comment.
Also, I don't recall an opportunity to comment on the 7N6 AP determination, so I'm not sure what comments he is referring to.
It is probably a daily thing... being it was at like 13,000 the day prior. The actual time period for comments legally should be 90 days... per the GCA... and we get 14 days for this. Hopefully people flood them.
When I wrote mine, I had about 50 characters left from the limit. Big thing, just keep it PG and make a halfway decent argument to keep braced pistols off the NFA. ATF approval from 2017 (ok shouldering braces periodically), bump stock being “machine guns” (completely incorrect when you read the NFA), no consideration of other firearms previously approved by ATF (pistol over 26”, with vertical grip and brace), ambiguity of characteristics, etc.
The comments about 7N6 were done identically to this... on Federal Registry. How big were 5.45mm AKs back then (6-8 years ago)? That is mainly the reason why people didn’t make a big deal over it.
Atf withdraws ....
Not sure What to make of this. Tap early, tap often doesn’t fit .gov MO
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
Screwball
12-23-2020, 10:02 PM
Last numbers people saw were 67,400 in five days. Probably the reason why. [emoji106]
They will be back when they figure out a way to make it stick. Probably EO...
Last numbers people saw were 67,400 in five days. Probably the reason why. [emoji106]
They will be back when they figure out a way to make it stick. Probably EO...
An EO doesn’t resolve those issues.
But they will be back.
Casual Friday
12-23-2020, 10:08 PM
This is good news. Don't get complacent though, like a bad penny they'll be back.
65090
Totem Polar
12-23-2020, 10:10 PM
Atf withdraws ....
Not sure What to make of this. Tap early, tap often doesn’t fit .gov MO
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/1086403328/h683AF3D9/whoa-didnt-see-that-one-coming
Cacafuego
12-23-2020, 11:22 PM
Last numbers people saw were 67,400 in five days. Probably the reason why. [emoji106]
They will be back when they figure out a way to make it stick. Probably EO...
The letter from like 1/4 of Congress may have had something to do with it...
Suvorov
12-23-2020, 11:54 PM
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/1086403328/h683AF3D9/whoa-didnt-see-that-one-coming
Nor did I, which only makes me more skeptical. I suspect they are just holding their fire until they have new leadership in the White House.
t1tan
12-24-2020, 12:56 AM
Don't be fooled. Made a meme to capture my feelings on this "surrender"
https://i.imgur.com/QISRWiA.png
Caballoflaco
12-24-2020, 01:12 AM
Don't be fooled. Made a meme to capture my feelings on this "surrender"
https://i.imgur.com/QISRWiA.png
If only we could get rid of the ATF by blasting some sweet Jackie Wilson tunes.
Screwball
12-24-2020, 05:11 AM
An EO doesn’t resolve those issues.
Tell that to bump stocks...
5pins
12-24-2020, 08:47 AM
Atf withdraws ....
Not sure What to make of this. Tap early, tap often doesn’t fit .gov MO
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
More then likely they realized they screwed something up in the announcement. Like a 14 day comment period instead of 90 like they were supposed to.
Tell that to bump stocks...
Bump stocks are not a 1:1 comparison.
What does "pending further Department of Justice review" mean?
Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of theDeputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justicereview
joshs
12-24-2020, 10:04 AM
Tell that to bump stocks...
When was there an EO on bump stocks? ATF created a new rule through the APA process. You may not think that rule is consistent with the statute (I don't), but it wasn't an EO
joshs
12-24-2020, 10:05 AM
What does "pending further Department of Justice review" mean?
Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of theDeputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justicereview
If you are familiar with American football, there is a play often conducted on fourth down that best explains that statement.
OlongJohnson
12-24-2020, 11:46 AM
The letter from like 1/4 of Congress may have had something to do with it...
Here's the clearest version of the letter I could find with a reasonable amount of Googling. (embedded in NRA's Twitter feed)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ep8BuTRWMAEk8xr?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Also found this page, which is interesting. I think I might have heard about it, but it sounded like some standard posturing from policritters at the time. In hindsight, perhaps it's what precipitated the "guidance," although the guidance failed to address any of the issues for which BATFE was specifically criticized in the Senators' letter:
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5479
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/2020.11.24%20-%201123%20ATF%20DOJ%20Letter.pdf
BillSWPA
12-24-2020, 03:42 PM
If/when ATF decides to begin formal rule making on pistol braces, DO NOT bring up bump stocks when submitting comments. There is absolutely no valid comparison between the two devices. Bringing up bump stocks is exactly how to ensure that your comments will not be taken seriously and will not be persuasive to those making the decisions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BehindBlueI's
12-24-2020, 04:19 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/90-house-members-reject-atf-targeting-of-popular-gun
Some 90 House members, moving with unusual speed, called this week on the Trump administration’s gun regulators to back off banning one of the most popular firearms used by sports men and women and disabled veterans.
In a letter organized by North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson and signed by 89 others, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was urged to withdraw new guidance on AR-15-style pistols.
DrkBlue
12-24-2020, 11:52 PM
I have commented on past federal rulemakings for my job. I decided to sample a few of the comments today...
Seppuku suddenly felt necessary.
The decline of America is evident in the 67000-odd comments. This particular cat strikes me as either needing his dosage adjusted upwards or is need of a mental health engagement.... I don’t blame the ATF for saying F#ck It!
65180
If you are familiar with American football, there is a play often conducted on fourth down that best explains that statement.
Oh, got it, totally tracking.
Sounds like they need a better point guard.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.