Proposed Criteria for Braces

[WobblyPossum]

So I’m reading through the whole document linked in the OP. After an explanation of the criteria used in the form, there are examples provided of firearms in several different configurations and an evaluation according to the scoring standards. The second example is a pistol using an unmodified SBA3 brace. By default, it scored 8 points in section II and would be classified as being intended to be fired from the shoulder. The third example uses a Shockwave brace mounted to a KAK pistol receiver extension. They determined the KAK extension counts as “adjustable” for length of pull due to the multiple detent locations. It scored a 5 in section II. Guess the Shockwave is out too if you mounted it on the KAK extension.

I seems to me that the multiple point options for length of pull are what might hem up many configurations. If that portion of section III was limited to an either-or proposition of is LOP less than 13.5”, it wouldn’t automatically hammer so many people. That would also remove the possible additional points for mounting spacers or a Law Folder because they increase LOP.

[CleverNickname]

I’m predicting a run on 13.7” barrels and Warcomps.

My only braced AR15 pistol became a 13.7" rifle with a permanent KX5 about 6 months ago.

[GJM]

https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcm-pist...-ar15-pistols/

[WDR]

https://bravocompanyusa.com/bcm-pist...-ar15-pistols/

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.

Frankly, trying to find more loopholes to utilize is the wrong approach to this baloney.

[GyroF-16]

So I’m reading through the whole document linked in the OP. After an explanation of the criteria used in the form, there are examples provided of firearms in several different configurations and an evaluation according to the scoring standards. The second example is a pistol using an unmodified SBA3 brace. By default, it scored 8 points in section II and would be classified as being intended to be fired from the shoulder. The third example uses a Shockwave brace mounted to a KAK pistol receiver extension. They determined the KAK extension counts as “adjustable” for length of pull due to the multiple detent locations. It scored a 5 in section II. Guess the Shockwave is out too if you mounted it on the KAK extension.

I seems to me that the multiple point options for length of pull are what might hem up many configurations. If that portion of section III was limited to an either-or proposition of is LOP less than 13.5”, it wouldn’t automatically hammer so many people. That would also remove the possible additional points for mounting spacers or a Law Folder because they increase LOP.

Concur with all of the above...
The varying penalty points for “LOP” (which, by definition requires a stock, which pistols don’t have) is a killer. And the points for variable “LOP” are a pile-on. Why shouldn’t a brace be adjustable to fit the size of the shooter’s arm? And for his wife’s arm? My brace with a 13.4” “LOP” reaches to just short of my elbow, making it a good way to stabilize the pistol. If it were 2” shorter it would be less effective for me. Collapsing it down makes it work better for my wife. And makes it easier to store and transport. Folding the LAW folder makes it even more portable- Something that handguns are supposed to be - portable.
It’s particularly frustrating that the SBA3 fails so miserably. I’m pretty sure that the SBA3 manufacturer had official ATF approval as an “accessory” for his original product. This goes to the crux of the issue for me. The braces were legal when purchased. The pistols were legal when purchased. The LAW (USC, as amended, blah blah blah) hasn’t changed. The ATF seems to be trying to change the rules by fiat. If this action goes into effect as written, things I own legally today will be illegal sometime in the fall. Without a new law passed by Congress, this seems fundamentally wrong.
Never mind that there’s been no argument that these pistols are a major cause of blood in the streets. This isn’t like the 1930s, when mobsters were using Tommy guns in high-profile murders. Because then Congress acted. This is a “because we can” thing, not a “because the people demand it” thing. There’s a big difference.

I realize that I’m largely preaching to the choir here. But let’s throw these ideas out and bat them around. It will help make our comments more well-reasoned when it comes time to submit them.

[Caballoflaco]

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.

Frankly, trying to find more loopholes to utilize is the wrong approach to this baloney.

If they’re saying that all pistols sold with a “brace” were actually a rifle because a brace is a butt stock then you might be correct and the only remedy would be to add a 16” bbl.

In the In order to comply section there’s this:

Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.

Also, I’m still not clear on if weight even without a brace is a disqualifier, but the other quote I posted sure makes it seem like here are the rules, but the real rules are anything we say is a rifle is a rifle because we said it was.

As mentioned we need to either here, or in another thread brainstorm some strong arguments to send to both the ATF and our elected representatives in opposition to this.

[BillSWPA]

If they’re saying that all pistols sold with a “brace” were actually a rifle because a brace is a butt stock then you might be correct and the only remedy would be to add a 16” bbl.

In the In order to comply section there’s this:



Also, I’m still not clear on if weight even without a brace is a disqualifier, but the other quote I posted sure makes it seem like here are the rules, but the real rules are anything we say is a rifle is a rifle because we said it was.

As mentioned we need to either here, or in another thread brainstorm some strong arguments to send to both the ATF and our elected representatives in opposition to this.

I saw that section, and it muddies the waters. I would argue that a pistol purchased as a pistol with a brace and which is unmodified has never had a stock. The fact that removing the brace is an acceptable remedy implies that for this purpose, they are not considering the brace to be a stock. This ambiguity definitely needs to be brought up in the comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

No doubt, BCM will soon be selling AR pistol lowers again, with a pistol buffer tube, just as they used to.

[Cacafuego]

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.

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.

[BillSWPA]

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.

This could become a very serious issue in a state with red flag laws, a state which requires informing police officers of any guns being carried upon being stopped, use in a self-defense situation, showing up at a shooting range with the wrong gun and the wrong people present, etc.