ATF Singles out 23 SB tactical Firearms Braces...

[HCM]

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.

[HCM]

I forgot that. Guess that answers my questions.

I forgot that as well. Doesn’t change the characteristics that define an AOW though

[HeavyDuty]

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]

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]

Link to letter:

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...0/11/58-64.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]

Moved to General Discussion.

[GJM]

Here it comes:

https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/1...-owned-braces/

[t1tan]

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.

[Duke]

Here it comes:

https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/1...-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)

[littlejerry]

How about they expedite all of the Form 4 transfers that have been in limbo?