Proposed Criteria for Braces

[Rex G]

Just eyeballing this, without weighing anything or doing any math, yet, I am not so sure that my DDM4 V7P, which was assembled by Daniel Defense with a LAW folder, can be easily used with any brace, without reaching four or more points. As caballoflaco already observed, the LAW folder, alone, adds two points. Well, my sinus headache has just expanded to include a tension headache.

The LAW folder adds length, too, which affects LOP, with can add points, of its own. The SBT SOB brace, supplied with the weapon, also adds considerably to the LOP. It is just as well that I do not like the SBT SOB brace. I’d rather use a Tailhook, which does not add to the LOP, but it may not be enough to keep from reaching four points. Sigh.

If there is any “good” in this, it is that I had just about decided that the bulk and added RE length of the LAW folder might make it better on a rifle than a “pistol.”

Well, it is time to start composing a thoughtful comment, and also re-thinking what I would need to do to keep my DDM4 V7P legal, in a worst-case scenario.

[GJM]

Can a buffer tube with no brace avoid being classified as NFA under these proposed rules?

[JCN]

Well, it is time to start composing a thoughtful comment, and also re-thinking what I would need to do to keep my DDM4 V7P legal, in a worst-case scenario.

I thought the initial remedy was to register it as an SBR with tax stamp waived for existing builds. Mainly about stopping production of new builds.

[Rex G]

I thought the initial remedy was to register it as an SBR with tax stamp waived for existing builds. Mainly about stopping production of new builds.

Well, that would be one way to keep it legal, if that option is actually offered to us.

[CleverNickname]

Can a buffer tube with no brace avoid being classified as NFA under these proposed rules?

The whole form is titled "Factoring criteria for rifled barrel weapons with accessories commonly referred to as 'Stabilizing Braces'", so if there's no brace then it appears that there's nothing to evaluate.

I thought the initial remedy was to register it as an SBR with tax stamp waived for existing builds. Mainly about stopping production of new builds.

The ATF rejected this idea under the "Alternative 5" section on page 55 of the proposed rule.

[Caballoflaco]

The whole form is titled "Factoring criteria for rifled barrel weapons with accessories commonly referred to as 'Stabilizing Braces'", so if there's no brace then it appears that there's nothing to evaluate.


The ATF rejected this idea under the "Alternative 5" section on page 55 of the proposed rule.

If I’m reading this correctly if it weighs more than 120ozs or has a short eye relief scope it would still be illegal since it automatically gets 4 points.

[BillSWPA]

Looking at the document in more detail, it is not entirely clear that a gun which was made by the manufacturer to include a pistol brace, and was sold as a pistol by a dealer, would still be considered to be originally configured without a stock and as a pistol, making it acceptable to simply remove the brace and replace it with a buffer tube lacking the brace. This issue definitely needs to be included in comments.

[CleverNickname]

If I’m reading this correctly if it weighs more than 120ozs or has a short eye relief scope it would still be illegal since it automatically gets 4 points.

The "Is it an arm brace or is it a shoulder stock?" question is really "Is it a pistol or is it a rifle?" A rifle must either currently have a shoulder stock, or have had a shoulder stock on it at some point in the past. If the ATF intends to classify firearms without arm braces or anything else that could be used as a shoulder stock as rifles, I'd be interested in how they could do that under current law.

It seems obvious to me that the form is only supposed to be used to evaluate firearms with arm braces to determine if the arm braces are being used as shoulder stocks, but maybe they need to make that more clear.

[entropy]

Well, that would be one way to keep it legal, if that option is actually offered to us.

What about those who live in non Class III states? Where does that put them under color of law?

[DDTSGM]

Can a buffer tube with no brace avoid being classified as NFA under these proposed rules?

Looks to me as if the answer is 'yes' it would be possible to avoid classifying a rifle with a buffer tube with no brace as an SBR.

The first ass-u-me-ption I make in making this statement is the fact that the worksheet is entitled - FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES* commonly refered to as "STABILIZING BRACES." This would seem to indicate that if the tube doesn't have a brace on it, the sheet would not be applicable.

However, it is the ATF, so:

Section II - ACCESSORY CONFIGURATION:

ACCESSORY DESIGN: not based on a known shoulder stock design = 0

REAR SURFACE AREA: minimized rear surface lacking features to discourage shouldering = 1 (actually since there would be no 'accessory' attached the score should be 0, however, it is the ATF)

ADJUSTABILITY: non-adjustable, fixed design = 0

STABILIZING SUPPORT: counterbalance design, non-folding = 0

SECTION III - CONFIGURATION OF WEAPON

LENGTH OF PULL: less than 10.5 inches = 0 (carbine or pistol buffer tube)

ATTACHMENT METHOD: adjustable rifle buffer tube = 1 (pistol buffer tube = 0)

BRACE MODIFICATIONS: none = 0

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES: (you get to lose it here) handstop = 1 buis = 1

So worst case 3 or 4; actual case = 0 since a bare tube isn't a brace.

I think the key to this all just might be the places where it says 'eye-relief incompatible with one-handed fire' and 'indicating two-handed fire.'

It was a nice run while it lasted. The real victims of this are the few actual handicapped users of said braces.