Proposed Criteria for Braces

[BillSWPA]

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

As best I can determine at this point, this might be the simplest solution as long as the rifle in question has never had a shoulder stock attached and has always been configured as a handgun.

[entropy]

The fact that items such as an RDS can “change” the category of a weapon should cause a big pause. They’re planting seeds for further bans and restrictions on anything they wish down the road.

[Suvorov]

The fact that items such as an RDS can “change” the category of a weapon should cause a big pause. They’re planting seeds for further bans and restrictions on anything they wish down the road.

Yeah. I love how “flip up sights” or “lack of sights” will earn you a point.

But seeing as we have people on this very forum who wanted this and support it - I think we are screwed.

[Zincwarrior]

Why if a product "get[s] around the law" is it the fault of the manufacturers and consumers? The answer is to change the statute. Things that are "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" have stocks. If you were designing a gun to be fired from the shoulder, why would you ever put something on it that looks like any of the common brace designs. For the last 500 years, English and American courts have construed ambiguity in criminal statutes strictly against the government and in favor of the accused. Why should guns be different?

Or could they just define anything as a stock, which is where this is headed?

[ccmdfd]

Yeah. I love how “flip up sights” or “lack of sights” will earn you a point.

But seeing as we have people on this very forum who wanted this and support it - I think we are screwed.

Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " situation.

[BillSWPA]

The fact that items such as an RDS can “change” the category of a weapon should cause a big pause. They’re planting seeds for further bans and restrictions on anything they wish down the road.

It is not that simple. Only Congress determines what is banned. ATF rulemaking is constrained to those statutes. While a sight having eye relief that would require shouldering the gun can be argued to show that the user intended to shoulder the gun, and that therefore a device at the back end is intended to act as a shoulder stock, I know of no statutes directly banning sighting systems.

The reference to red dots refers to red dots in connection with magnifiers, not a red dot by itself. A red dot with unlimited eye relief would not show any intention to shoulder the gun.

[mrozowjj]

Guys this is all my fault I'm sorry. See for a long long time I avoided buying anything with a brace on it because I knew the second I did something like this would happen and well last week I finally caved and got something with a brace. I'm sorry to do this to you all with my shitty luck.

That was some sarcasm mixed in with truth about my luck.

[WobblyPossum]

Guys this is all my fault I'm sorry. See for a long long time I avoided buying anything with a brace on it because I knew the second I did something like this would happen and well last week I finally caved and got something with a brace. I'm sorry to do this to you all with my shitty luck.

That was some sarcasm mixed in with truth about my luck.

You and me both. I’m thinking of getting rid of my SBA3 setup and replacing it with a naked pistol receiver extension. It reads like none of this nonsense would apply to an AR pistol without a brace.

[mrozowjj]

You and me both. I’m thinking of getting rid of my SBA3 setup and replacing it with a naked pistol receiver extension. It reads like none of this nonsense would apply to an AR pistol without a brace.

I remember a long time ago the standard for a pistol build was a receiver extension with a foam covering, something like this
https://phase5wsi.com/ar-15-pistol-b...pad-cover.html

[texasaggie2005]

So if the prerequisites are 64+ ounces and maximum length of 26" inches, wouldn't that make a 12.5" AR completely ineligible for "braced handgun" status?