I fully understand how it works and vehemently disagree with it, particularly when it comes to the regulation of a God given right.Originally Posted by HCM
I fully understand how it works and vehemently disagree with it, particularly when it comes to the regulation of a God given right.
In my state, if a law is poorly written, and vague, it typically goes unenforced.
In my agency, we don’t just take it upon ourselves to come up with “what they really mean” at the statehouse, change our mind every 4 months, and charge people with 10+ year felonies based upon it.
That is correct Re the LAW folder part of it with one big “words mean things” exception.
The key difference between pistols and AOW vs “other firearms” is whether or not they are “concealable” ATF has previously (and consistently) set 26” as the length that makes a gun “concealable” or not.
An AR pistol is a “pistol” because it is <26” and therefore “concealable.” If you want to add a VFG to you AR pistol you need to do a form 1 because adding a VFG makes it an AOW.
An AR with a brace, that is >26” overall length is not “concealable” therefore it is not a “pistol” it is an “other firearm” - adding a VFG to an “other firearm” does not make it an AOW because and AOW, by definition is “concealable” aka <26”.
The other part of the letter was that since braces are accessories and not stocks, they are not “part of the gun” and don’t count towards OAL. With the various collapsible braces which are adjustable for length of pull, you can have a gun which is a pistol/AOW with the brace collapsed and a an other firearm with the brace extended. That sort of ambiguity is problematic for industry, prosecutors and people trying to comply with the law who have been getting conflicting information.
The SC legislature and the SC state system of government are not set up to give your agency that authority. The federal system is set up exactly that way and if that discretionary authority is exercised in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner the agency can be sued in federal court.
Do you think your agency is the only one that exercises prosecutorial discretion? You think ATF and the US Attorneys office takes every NFA case ? My local ATF office is so swamped with real crooks they want at least two felonies on felony in possession cases. They have issued warning /cease and desist letters in lieu of prosecution in multiple NFA cases I am aware of.
As I said, I understand that it works that way. And I don’t like it.
I am busy with real crooks too. But you don’t see me writing official opinion letters on topics that aren’t a priority, and releasing them to the public with the implication that they can be charged if they don’t match the flavor of the day.
If you work for an local or state LE Agency you mission is most likely enforcement. That it.
We tend to associate ATF as an LE Agency but the LE/CID branch with the LEOs is only one branch of an agency which overall is more a regulatory agency than LE.
The ATF LEOs don’t do these letters. That is the technical branch’s full time job. Most of what the Technical branch does is is dealing with the industry so we don’t see it. Just like ATF LEOs don’t do routine FFL inspections. They have an inspections branch with non LE regulatory inspectors that does them. Just like inspectors they have for the alcohol, tobacco and explosives industries.
And you just addressed in part the point I was going to make. If the overall length is measured from the shortest configuration, it doesn't just apply to a brace with a LAW folder. Even with a fixed receiver extension, the overall length with a brace is still variable. The brace can be adjustable (SBA3, PDW brace, etc), so you might be over 26" with the brace extended all the way, but under with it collapsed. My 8.5" barrel .300 Blackout pistol with an SBA3 brace has an overall length of 26.5" fully extended and 23.75" collapsed. So I expect at some time to see a further "clarification" that the overall length measurement is based on the receiver extension, not the brace since the brace is not permanently attached.
No further clarification neede that issue is addressed as part of this letter.
As I wrote there are two parts to this letter: RR only addressed one of them.
1) the brace is an accessory not part of the gun so the brace does not count for OAL regardless of position.
2) if you have a folder for you brace, OAL length is measured with the folder in the folded position.
Last edited by HCM; 07-06-2019 at 04:05 PM.
Might as well necro this thread to ask this:
There is an essentially universal understanding that rifles and shotguns with folding or collapsible stocks are to be measured with the stock extended. It is often stated as "fully extended." I have been unable to find anything that would clearly constitute the original reference for that.
In "atf-p-5320-8.pdf," the discussion on p. 9 includes the following:
(bold added)NOTE: One version of the Marble’s Game Getter was produced with 18-inch barrels and a folding
shoulder stock. This model of the Game Getter, as manufactured, is not subject to the provisions of the
NFA because it has barrels that are 18 inches in length and the overall length of the firearm, with stock
extended, is more than 26 inches. However, if the shoulder stock has been removed from the 18-inch
barrel version of the Game Getter, the firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches and is an
NFA weapon. Specifically, the firearm is classified as a weapon made from a rifle/shotgun.
That is the only reference I have been able to find published by the ATF. The sections on shotguns and rifles say nothing about folding or collapsible stocks. Is that what everyone relies on, or is there more?
And how, other than sloppiness, are people getting "fully extended" from "extended." Seems if you have an adjustable stock, measuring at the shortest position in which it's intended to be fired would be the safe approach for the user to take. Thus, if the stock is both folding and adjustable, measuring in the unfolded position but shortest adjustment ready to fire would be safe. It would also be consistent with the reasoning in the guidance that was the subject of this thread.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
No.
You keep using that word “Stock”
Words mean things. You were talking about guidance involving “rifles” and “shotguns” (short barrel or not). By definition rifles and shotguns have stocks and those stocks are legally an inherent part of the gun.
Arm braces on pistols are accessories and not an inherent part of the gun. As such, precedent involving Rifles, or shotguns, and their stocks is not applicable.
It’s just like how an accessory like a muzzle break does not count for barrel length or OAL unless it is pwrmenaktly attached and thus incorporated into the barrel which is part of the gun.
Reply With Quote