Pistol Brace Amnesty

[BillSWPA]

I saw one post this week, no idea he was being regulated.

I have thus far seen and heard:
1. I'm taking the free registration.
2. I'm making mine a "real pistol".
3. I'm making mine a rifle.
4. I'm hiding mine until the courts bail me out.
5. I got muh rihts.
6. Huh?

I wonder how many people taking the free registration fully understand the regulatory quagmire they are accepting? Participants on this site clearly understand, but I doubt everyone who registered understands

[Totem Polar]

Looks like there’s a lot of unregistered braces still out there:

[BillSWPA]

Looks like there’s a lot of unregistered braces still out there:

I am hopeful that most people not covered by on of fhe injunctions simply removed the brace and replaced the buffer tube.

Since one of the requirements of an injunction is likelihood of success on the merits, there is also a likelihood that this goes away once the court cases are completed.

[JohnO]

I am hopeful that most people not covered by on of fhe injunctions simply removed the brace and replaced the buffer tube.

? "replaced the buffer tube"? I'm not tracking.

[Suvorov]

? "replaced the buffer tube"? I'm not tracking.

As I understand it - a pistol with a standard buffer tube capable of accepting a collapsible stock is most likely a “SBR” per the powers that be.

I am hopeful that most people not covered by on of fhe injunctions simply removed the brace and replaced the buffer tube.
.

Based on my experiences with similar bans in Kalifornia I would say maybe 1/3 have modified their pistol to comply, 1/3 are simply going to defy the rule, and 1/3 are oblivious to the ruling.

[Navin Johnson]

Wow, only 255,162 brace applications submitted.

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban

https://thereload.com/atf-says-a-qua...ol-brace-rule/

I would opine the VAST majority of gun owners (although likely vote- if they vote- pro gun) do not stay up on day to day minutia of shit the ruling class levees upon its subjects.

The great state of Washington has "dry inserted" many new laws and regulations that many gun shops can not articulate so the average dude gets different answers depending on where he goes

I have fam and friends that think semi-auto anything was banned

So how can a casual dude whom bought a braced pistol 2 years ago that shot it 2 years ago likely know he is out of compliance? Thus why this law should be struck.

[fly out]

As I understand it - a pistol with a standard buffer tube capable of accepting a collapsible stock is most likely a “SBR” per the powers that be.

I hesitate to say this, because nobody should rely on it...

During one of the ATF webinars at the beginning of this fiasco, a woman from ATF opined that a standard, featureless buffer tube on an AR pistol was not a problem.

If the only feature of your buffer tube is that it is featureless, she would say you're okay. "New, from Schrödinger Arms..."

Undoubtedly, one or two of the usual suspects will come out with a "gotta-have" buffer tube with three or four splashy new features, and we'll be off to the races again.

If anyone has a different recollection of the ATF discussion, or has heard something different in the intervening months, please don't keep it to yourself.

[Darth_Uno]

Based on my experiences with similar bans in Kalifornia I would say maybe 1/3 have modified their pistol to comply, 1/3 are simply going to defy the rule, and 1/3 are oblivious to the ruling.

I would opine the VAST majority of gun owners (although likely vote- if they vote- pro gun) do not stay up on day to day minutia of shit the ruling class levees upon its subjects.
/
So how can a casual dude whom bought a braced pistol 2 years ago that shot it 2 years ago likely know he is out of compliance?

Yeah, I've mentioned the IL AW Ban to a couple people and they're like "The what?" These are not 'gun guys', despite owning AR's or AK's or whatever else. They truthfully had no idea. They certainly don't know the ins and outs of whatever braces they can and can't have.

[BillSWPA]

Replacing the buffer tube with a pistol-length tube with no indexing points to attach the brace ensures that the brace will not be reattached. Discarding the brace is also recommended to avoid constructive possession unless you also own a rifle to which the brace could be attached or a 16” upper assembly you can attach to your pistol. If you have a combination of parts that results in a legal configuration with the brace, the the Thompson Center case applies and you can keep the brace.

Hopefully a court somewhere will realize that exercising a fundamental, constitutionally recognized right without going to jail should not require a Philadelphia lawyer.

[HCM]

I hesitate to say this, because nobody should rely on it...

During one of the ATF webinars at the beginning of this fiasco, a woman from ATF opined that a standard, featureless buffer tube on an AR pistol was not a problem.

If the only feature of your buffer tube is that it is featureless, she would say you're okay. "New, from Schrödinger Arms..."

Undoubtedly, one or two of the usual suspects will come out with a "gotta-have" buffer tube with three or four splashy new features, and we'll be off to the races again.

If anyone has a different recollection of the ATF discussion, or has heard something different in the intervening months, please don't keep it to yourself.

I believe you are correct, at least regarding AR’s or other guns that require a buffer tube to function. Other designs may be more ambiguous.

Logically, regardless of the brace situation, the case law from the Thompson Contender situation is clear that if you start with a pistol, you can switch back and forth between pistol and rifle configurations. Hence is would be logical to retain that capability.