Proposed Criteria for Braces

[GJM]

The new ATF director ought to have to testify and explain to Congress the difference between a legal AR pistol and an illegal NFA rifle. Wonder if he would do better than when he tried to describe what an assault rifle was.

[olstyn]

The new ATF director ought to have to testify and explain to Congress the difference between a legal AR pistol and an illegal NFA rifle.

Given that they're legally different but cosmetically and functionally VERY similar, I imagine it would be pretty tough to get a lot of congresspeople to understand the nuances.

[DDTSGM]

No, the real victims are the hundreds of thousands? millions? of people who bought perfectly legal items, who will NEVER HEAR about this tyrannical jackassery, and will be walking around with (what the piece of shit ATF considers) NFA violations, completely unaware.

This has nothing to do with crime or safety, or "getting around" the law. It's a fit of institutional pique.

I tend to agree that there are many folks who were uninformed about the brace legality/illegality issues and that they are at risk by this action.

That being said, the manufacturers knew fvcking well what they were doing, so I shed no tears for them.

I do agree that most of the NFA has little impact on actual criminality, so we need to try to get the portions that we have a reasonable chance of changing, changed.

[Rex G]

Adding that wont make it "not a rifle"... if it was a rifle before (IE: built with a standard carbine extension ala SBA3 etc). Might work on "new" pistol builds. I suspect the ATF will still call your gun a "short barreled rifle", and make you fight it in court anyway, if they for some reason go after you. They left themselves a weasel worded cop out in there too.

I am glad that my DDM4 V7P was document-ably equipped with a pistol RE, with no potential rifle “features,” of its own, while being manufactured, as I, too, have been thinking that “pistols” manufactured with carbine REs might end up being legal problems, for folks who bought them. (Of course, my DDM4 V7P may have too many points, in other ways, such as the massive added “LOP” due to having a LAW folder, so may end up living as a rifle, anyway, if I want to keep the LAW folder installed, either as an NFA SBR, or, transitioning to non-NFA.)

[Oldherkpilot]

That being said, the manufacturers knew fvcking well what they were doing, so I shed no tears for them.

Seems to me they were just building legal products to sell to background-checked customers. Now, If they were funneling guns to Mexico, that would be wrong. The fact that the agency which perpetrated that bullshit will be the one to send me to jail over a piece of aluminum makes me wish I was 30 years younger.

[BillSWPA]

I tend to agree that there are many folks who were uninformed about the brace legality/illegality issues and that they are at risk by this action.

That being said, the manufacturers knew fvcking well what they were doing, so I shed no tears for them.

I do agree that most of the NFA has little impact on actual criminality, so we need to try to get the portions that we have a reasonable chance of changing, changed.

At least some of these manufacturers sought and received approval from BATFE for their AR braced pistols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jandbj]

At least some of these manufacturers sought and received approval from BATFE for their AR braced pistols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Approval” was never approval.

They were opinion letters from FTB.

Which no longer does them for “accessories”, and also has a history of reversing their own prior opinion letters.

[WDR]

“Approval” was never approval.

They were opinion letters from FTB.

Which no longer does them for “accessories”, and also has a history of reversing their own prior opinion letters.

This is the whole problem. They make up the "law" as they go, and apply it as they see fit. The idea isn't to make it easy to comply, the idea is to jam up whoever they want to. Selective enforcement is going to become more and more obvious, IMHO.

[DDTSGM]

At least some of these manufacturers sought and received approval from BATFE for their AR braced pistols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a great point. I'm not saying the ATF is right or rational, just that the manufacturers knew that their braces were workarounds.

The part's of NFA that I think we could reasonably hope to impact are length and and sound suppression.

Probably get the suppressors first - if there was a national ad campaign with commercials depicting the sound of a suppressed versus an un-suppressed rifle and pistol, most citizens would get the point that they don't actually silence the weapon.

I think MG's are a bridge too far.

I know many believe the NFA is unconstitutional on it's face, but at the present it is the law.

[joshs]

That is a great point. I'm not saying the ATF is right or rational, just that the manufacturers knew that their braces were workarounds.

Again, just because something is a "workaround" doesn't mean that the government can prohibit it without statutory change.

Industry always attempts to adapt around the law. Sometimes it is very obvious. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/mar...-flna1c7100983

If the government wants to prohibit braces, they should amend the GCA and NFA.