• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Contact the ATF to keep pistol braces legal (merged threads)

It is really just as simple as I said. If it has a brace on it that they say makes it an SBR then take the brace off and it will be a pistol again. No registration required.
i understand that but in the long term i think it is the goal of the ATF/democrats to get all unsalted weapons into the NFA for registration purposes and put them under those controlling rules.they seem to be testing the waters with just regulation changes and this bypasses congress
 
i understand that but in the long term i think it is the goal of the ATF/democrats to get all unsalted weapons into the NFA for registration purposes and put them under those controlling rules.they seem to be testing the waters with just regulation changes and this bypasses congress
There have been no regulation changes as of yet. People like SB Tactical built and sold braces that they knew were illegal and claimed they had ATF approval when they didn't. That is basically what this is all about. The law has always been that if it shared common parts, IE the carbine style adjustable buffer tube then it had to require the use of tools to remove or install so that it could not be readily converted to a butt stock. It was a blatant FU by SB tactical. I even contacted them years ago when the SB A3 came out and asked them for a copy of the letter that approved that particular brace and eventually they sent me the approval letter for the SB15. They never had any approval.
This is just ATF clarifying that they are cracking down on such blatant attempts to circumvent current law.
Now as for demoncrats, I totally agree that they want to do anything they can to make life hard for gun owners.
 
It is really just as simple as I said. If it has a brace on it that they say makes it an SBR then take the brace off and it will be a pistol again. No registration required.

Right, but how many here that own these, are actually disabled folks that intend to fire these one handed?

Less than 0.5%? haha

We built these as legal(according to prior ATF opinion letters) workarounds for SBR's. If they were legal to build pistols, that could be shouldered... why not?

But if they are gonna force us to go the SBR route or risk getting into legal trouble... it's easier to just swap the barrel and make it a rifle and call it a day. Not worth risking a felony charge because I wasn't willing to go from a 10.5 inch barrel to 16 inches.

It's stupid, I shouldn't have to make such decisions and none of this should be regulated to begin with... but at the end of the day it isn't about what I think... they can, and likely would, toss my happy ass in jail and if I can avoid that for the $150 price of a barrel and 20 minutes of my time...well...
 
What type of brace do you have and where is a copy of the opinion letter that said it was acceptable? It was never OK to build a pistol with the intent of shooting it from your shoulder and there is no letter out there saying otherwise. Some people misconstrued a letter that came out saying that the inadvertent touching of it to the shoulder of situational shouldering would not reconfigure it to an SBR to mean it was OK to shoot it from the shoulder but if you built it with the intent of shouldering it has always been illegal without a stamp.
There is also nothing saying that you have to swap barrels to keep it legal or forcing you to go the SBR route. Just remove the brace. If you swap barrels then you might as well put a real stock on it.

sporadic use2.jpg
 
Well damn CT’s all I say is the law is unjust. And then you jump down my throat. And then you turn around and say people are making such a big thing about it. Wow what is it.
I haven't jumped anywhere. I agree that the SBR law is outdated and misused and should be done away with. There should be no barrel length restrictions period and that is exactly what I put in my opinion letter to the ATF.
What I am saying is this new letter is not new law. It is just the ATF telling people the manner in which they intend to enforce the laws that have been on the books for decades and they are asking for opinions about it.
 
So let's just say that this BS passes, and we either have to install a 16" barrel, or register our pistols... If I wanted to register an SBR, I would have done so already. I don't want the hassle that comes with NFA items, hence why I don't have SBR's or suppressors...

So my question is... in order to be compliant should this all come to pass... All I have to do is swap out my 10.5" barrel for a 16" barrel? At that point, it's a rifle and if I want to keep my pistol buffer and SBA3 on, just so that it's not going to waste, that would be compliant? The SBA3 is comfortable enough to shoot from the shoulder when I want, and I hate to have to replace it and spend more money... The changes, IF they happen, would say that you can't have an AR15 pistol, that it will become an SBR, and therefore that is the issue.

Once it has a 16" barrel, it's a rifle and I can use a stock, or a brace, or a big black dildo if I wanted and it's all legal?

Put a 16" barrel on it or just take the damn brace off altogether and go back to the neoprene cover on the round buffer tube. Pistols won't be banned and neither will braces. Just certain combinations.
ATF has already given approval letters for certain braces such as the Sig brace, the SB15 (basically the same thing). The problem came in when companies started selling things like the SB A3 etc that fit the standard carbine tube and used no tools to remove and install the brace itself. If you go back to a bare buffer tube or a sig brace or SB15 or shockwave blade then there should not be any problems with your legally braced AR pistol. People are really over thinking the whole thing.

Actually, if you look at the 'rule' you'll see that they include a determination as to whether or not a firearm is actually a pistol, even if there's no brace on it. From the synopsis in one of the first few posts...

==============================
Peripheral Accessories.
Installation of peripheral accessories commonly found on rifles or shotguns that may indicate that the firearm is not designed and intended to be held and fired with one hand. This includes, but is not limited to, the installation of bipods/monopods that improve the accuracy of heavy weapons designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or the inclusion of a magazine or drum that accepts so many cartridges that it increases the overall weight of the firearm to a degree that it is impractical to fire the weapon with one hand even with the assistance of a stabilizing brace.
==============================

Basically, is a firearm has too many 'rifle accessories' or simply holds too much ammo, it can lose it's designation as a pistol. Removing the brace wouldn't help at all in a situation like that.
 
What type of brace do you have and where is a copy of the opinion letter that said it was acceptable? It was never OK to build a pistol with the intent of shooting it from your shoulder and there is no letter out there saying otherwise. Some people misconstrued a letter that came out saying that the inadvertent touching of it to the shoulder of situational shouldering would not reconfigure it to an SBR to mean it was OK to shoot it from the shoulder but if you built it with the intent of shouldering it has always been illegal without a stamp.
There is also nothing saying that you have to swap barrels to keep it legal or forcing you to go the SBR route. Just remove the brace. If you swap barrels then you might as well put a real stock on it.

View attachment 2987954

I am just stating the obvious... that 99.5% or so of AR15 pistol owners, bought or built them with the intent to shoulder them, figuring that they were "good to go" because the ATF's opinion was that "occasionally shouldering it" was not making it into an SBR.

I know what you are saying with regards to intent... but we all know why we have these things... Some will play coy with semantics... I am just trying to be a realist here...
 
It is really just as simple as I said. If it has a brace on it that they say makes it an SBR then take the brace off and it will be a pistol again. No registration required.

The law itself does nothing constructive. While I'm not a fan of banning bump stocks, I at least saw their reasoning regardless of its flaws. I see no logical perspective on why this would matter to anyone other than a round about way of getting around a pointless $200 fee. Are there really enough people dropping $200 for the privilege of having an SBR to make a dent in the economy?
 
Back
Top Bottom