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

[SirBannedAlot]

16"=ok
15.75"=felony
CTS is correct barrel length should not factor in at all.

Shouldn't. But does. :-(

 

[CTS Tactical]

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.

Right, like saying a vertical grip means you had no intention of shooting it with one hand. Understandable. I was going with the simplest way of stating it. They cannot ban pistols and they cannot ban braces. They can say that certain braces on a pistol is reconfiguring it into an SBR and in that case the simple answer is to remove said brace. Not worry about putting a longer barrel on it or getting a free stamp.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

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.

Yeah, I mean, look at how many pistols have AFG's, magnified optics with short eye relief, etc... Clearly set up for shoulder firing, brace or not.

 

[CTS Tactical]

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?

I agree with that as well but the law that is stupid and needs to be done away with is the SBR law itself and ATF is not capable of doing that. The law that made SBRs illegal was literally an act of congress. AKA the National Firearms Act of 1934 and it would take another act of congress to do away with it.
And in 1934 when it was passed, obviously there was at least a perceived need for it but at that time you had gangsters running around with Thompsons slung under their long overcoats and that sort of thing.

 

[MaconGuns]

I agree with that as well but the law that is stupid and needs to be done away with is the SBR law itself and ATF is not capable of doing that. The law that made SBRs illegal was literally an act of congress. AKA the National Firearms Act of 1934 and it would take another act of congress to do away with it.
And in 1934 when it was passed, obviously there was at least a perceived need for it but at that time you had gangsters running around with Thompsons slung under their long overcoats and that sort of thing.

If you plan on murdering several people, I dont think an extra 20 years because of a short stock is going to stop you.

 

[CTS Tactical]

If you plan on murdering several people, I dont think an extra 20 years because of a short stock is going to stop you.

Not at my age.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I guess that a lot of this is conjecture and assumptions... but in the end what I am hearing is that IF this goes forward, many of the braces, will be illegal because they were never really submitted and approved to begin with. My SBA3, is a prime example. Adjustable, fits on a standard rifle buffer tube...

So I ordered a 16" barrel and will just pop off the SBA3 and toss on a spare M4 or Magpul stock and be done with it... In my mind I knew this day was coming, that shouldering a brace was something that was being allowed for a time, but that the "loophole" would be closed at some point...

So I will just convert my only pistol to a rifle and call it a day, and start writing Representatives about getting the NFA itself modified, as that is the root cause of all this crap.

We took whatever scraps they offered us with regards to these loopholes, interpreted them the way that we wanted to, and never tackled the actual problem, the NFA.

Now it's biting us in the ass...

 

[fz1boxer]

thats it I'm shaving my barrel off at 15.999999999999" measure that batfags

 

[CTS Tactical]

I guess that a lot of this is conjecture and assumptions... but in the end what I am hearing is that IF this goes forward, many of the braces, will be illegal because they were never really submitted and approved to begin with. My SBA3, is a prime example. Adjustable, fits on a standard rifle buffer tube...

So I ordered a 16" barrel and will just pop off the SBA3 and toss on a spare M4 or Magpul stock and be done with it... In my mind I knew this day was coming, that shouldering a brace was something that was being allowed for a time, but that the "loophole" would be closed at some point...

So I will just convert my only pistol to a rifle and call it a day, and start writing Representatives about getting the NFA itself modified, as that is the root cause of all this crap.

We took whatever scraps they offered us with regards to these loopholes, interpreted them the way that we wanted to, and never tackled the actual problem, the NFA.

Now it's biting us in the ass...

Right on the money on most of it. As for the highlighted area, Shouldering a brace was never allowed. It was never said (by anyone in authority) that it was OK to build a pistol with a brace with the intent to shoulder it. There were many businesses and youtubers out their who were either unscrupulous or ignorant of the facts telling you that is what the letter meant and it wasn't true. If you build a pistol with a brace intending to shoot it with one hand as is was designed to do and inadvertantly stuck it to your shoulder and fired it then you were ok. If you built you pistol with a brace intending to shoot it from the shoulder then you built an SBR and it was never allowed. Never legal. That is where much of the problem lies. So many manufacturers were putting out videos and telling people that the ATF said it was OK to shoulder your pistol brace and it was never true. They were more interested in making a quick buck than they were with being honest about the laws. Either that or they were ignorant and misunderstood the laws themselves in which case they really should have kept their mouths shut.

 

[Bandwidth]

Right on the money on most of it. As for the highlighted area, Shouldering a brace was never allowed. It was never said (by anyone in authority) that it was OK to build a pistol with a brace with the intent to shoulder it. There were many businesses and youtubers out their who were either unscrupulous or ignorant of the facts telling you that is what the letter meant and it wasn't true. If you build a pistol with a brace intending to shoot it with one hand as is was designed to do and inadvertantly stuck it to your shoulder and fired it then you were ok. If you built you pistol with a brace intending to shoot it from the shoulder then you built an SBR and it was never allowed. Never legal. That is where much of the problem lies. So many manufacturers were putting out videos and telling people that the ATF said it was OK to shoulder your pistol brace and it was never true. They were more interested in making a quick buck than they were with being honest about the laws. Either that or they were ignorant and misunderstood the laws themselves in which case they really should have kept their mouths shut.

How do you think the ATF determined my intent when I bought a brace?