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

[SirBannedAlot]

Hmmmm.....About two months ago I was at a firearms instructor conference and I sat through a BATF lecture, given By a BATF Agent/Lawyer from their legal division, on dealing with SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, Firearms (shockwaves et al) and Braced Pistols vs their their illegal counterparts the saw-offed rifles/shotguns . He very clearly stated the BATF looks at the intended design of the brace to determine legality, not how it is used by the end user and the BATF doesn't considering shouldering a braced pistol illegal under any circumstance.

If that's true, then why even retain the classification of SBR? If you can buy or build an AR15 with a 10" barrel, and all that you have to do to make it "legal" is toss on an SB3 instead of a normal M4 buttstock... Why even do that?
Two identical guns, one is legal, one is not, and the only difference is what brand piece of plastic you attack to the end?

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

ATF currently has no clearly established standards and criteria to use objectively to classify something as either a shoulder stock or an arm stabilization brace.

ATF is proposing to come up with a set of factors that the agency will look at to make such a determination. It will start publishing the standards to the gun industry, and the rules will probably be tweaked as manufactures try to find loopholes so that they can sell with the public really wants --shoulder stocks that fit into some kind of loophole where the federal government doesn't demand that they be treated and shoulder stocks when mounted on a pistol.

If you say there should be no standards because no arm brace should ever be classified as a shoulder stock, then I ask you what is an arm brace?
Is it just anything that the manufactures call an arm brace?

If so, here here's a picture of another "arm brace"
that I will start building and selling if I know the ATF won't try to stop me
by calling it a shoulder stock and saying they don't believe me
when I tell them it's an arm brace.

 

[CTS Tactical]

Guessing you are arguing with someone I have on my rather long ignore list. haha

Who is it?

He is also on mine now.

 

[300_whisper]

He is also on mine now.

yeah pretty aggressive guy.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

yeah pretty aggressive guy.

Sexually? I get that all the time... they can't help themselves when I am around...

 

[CQB27]

If that's true, then why even retain the classification of SBR? If you can buy or build an AR15 with a 10" barrel, and all that you have to do to make it "legal" is toss on an SB3 instead of a normal M4 buttstock... Why even do that?
Two identical guns, one is legal, one is not, and the only difference is what brand piece of plastic you attack to the end?

Well first of all SBRs and braced pistols are both legal and according to the BATF legal office in Atlanta shouldering a braced pistol doesn't turn it into contraband. Secondly, you're looking for an explaination based in logic of why the BATF classisfies a braced pistol differently than a SBR even though they look almost identical from a distance? As if there was once a logical line of demarcation in this whole braced pistol vs SBR reality to begin with? Are you new to this argument? Comparing a braced pistol to a SBR when it comes to form and function has never made any sense. They are for all intents and purposes identical in form and function when it comes to trigger time. That has been the argument of the gun owner at large for years...."there is no pratical difference in the two, and that makes the NFA SBR Tax senseless"

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Fair enough... It just seems to me that if the ATF believes in their SBR nonsense, and they want to keep it on the books... then giving us a workaround buy saying that we can shoulder a brace... which functionally is the same thing... Just wondering why they would do that. if they don't want us having them, then why give us a loophole?

 

[300_whisper]

Fair enough... It just seems to me that if the ATF believes in their SBR nonsense, and they want to keep it on the books... then giving us a workaround buy saying that we can shoulder a brace... which functionally is the same thing... Just wondering why they would do that. if they don't want us having them, then why give us a loophole?

Well they are catching on...one thing in my 14 years dealing with the US government is that you can always add, but never take away. So instead of admitting a mistake the correct government answer is to just (not saying this is happening now) add the braces to the SBR list.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Well they are catching on...one thing in my 14 years dealing with the US government is that you can always add, but never take away. So instead of admitting a mistake the correct government answer is to just (not saying this is happening now) add the braces to the SBR list.

Yeah, hence why I will just get out of the brace game... Too much hassle, just to have a slightly shorter barrel...

And that attitude will likely piss a lot off people off, but whatever... I get the notion of never complying, and all that... But SBR's have been the law of the land for nearly a century. Braces came along and they are a good idea for their intended purpose. People with physical disabilities and handicaps...

And I am betting that not a single person that is reading this, is handicapped in such a way and using it as such.

 

[MaconGuns]

https://ebikesandmobility.co.nz/product/cane-tip-contour-foot/

https://www.collectionsetc.com/products/Rocker-Cane-Tip/


New pistol braces