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

Stabilizing Brace Discussion

So basically anything except the original brace style (think the original SIG brace with the large, wrap-around sleeve and a strap) will accrue too many points to be called a 'brace', and will make a gun into an SBR.

They specifically call-out the SBA-3 and the KAK braces as being 'stocks', but give a green light to the SB-mini. Since you only get 4 points in each of two sections, and a single 'evil' feature can be 3 points it's going to be hard to have many braces pass muster.

To make matters worse they add these points to whole guns with things like hand stops on them, since that indicates two-handed shooting and a pistol is defined in law to be something shot from one hand.

And worst of all, there's some weasel wording in there that even if a brace scores an acceptably low number of points, if they see marketing that indicates the gun as a whole was built as an SBR and just shipped as a pistol to avoid going through registration, they can still classify it as an SBR.

Even if a weapon accrues less than 4 points in each section, attempts by a manufacturer or maker to circumvent Federal law by attaching purported “stabilizing braces” in lieu of shoulder stocks may result in classification of those weapons as “rifles” and “short-barreled rifles.”

While some manufacturers have recognized that there is a market advantage in designing and selling “short-barreled rifles” as “pistols” to customers seeking to avoid tax and registration requirements, “stabilizing braces” are not a method by which the Federal statutes may be circumvented.

Therefore, efforts to advertise, sell, or otherwise distribute “short-barreled rifles” as such will result in a classification as a “rifle” regardless of the points accrued on the ATF Worksheet 4999 because there is no longer any question that the intent is for the weapon to be fired from the shoulder.


I'm thinking this last was to justify their attack on the Honey Badger, although with their PDW-like stock it would fail under the new rules anyway.

As expected, no 'free' tax stamp in this rule, you have to take any offending braces off the gun. They talk about destroying or turning in the gun, but why anyone would do that when they just need to remove the brace is beyond me.

Here's the relevant verbiage:

1) 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.

2) Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.

3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.

4) Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.

5) Complete and submit an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (“Form 1”).


What will be a little tricky is dealing with existing inventory of guns in the distribution channel. I'm guessing they will all have to go back to the manufacturers.

The interesting thing is that this isn't the wholesale ban on braces I was kind of expecting. By defining the matrix of acceptable 'features' companies like KAK and SB can go back to the drawing board and create designs that will fit into the new rules.

It sounds like some of the braces out there already fit the rules, and can simply be used as-is. Like I mentioned above, the old fixed-length braces with a real 'cuff' for your arm and a useable strap will probably get by OK.
as long as there is no LPVO on the pistol, or BUIS, or a magnifier for your red dot. and not if it weighs over 120oz.
 
Oh yeah... all those RONI-braces and other 'braces' for Glock and 1911 pistols... All those are gone in this rule. They have a minimum weight (64 oz.) that a pistol has to weigh before you can attach a 'brace' at all.
 
No mention yet of all the lowers marked multi caliber vs pistol. Funny how people forget way back in the dark ages of the early 80's one could legally buy parts and kits that were legal to own but not install.
 
semi-glad I sold off what I didn't want to SBR...but I still feel like a cuck. %ATF (as I have 3 stamps pending...FML)

It was bound to come crashing down one way or another. A lot of the 'braces' out there were simply 'stocks' and didn;t even pay lip service to using them as a forearm brace.

I'm guessing there will be a list of 'acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' braces put together by SB and the other companies for various configurations.

I have a few I was planning on SBR-ing anyways, but I wanted to see how bad this rule would be.
 
It was bound to come crashing down one way or another. A lot of the 'braces' out there were simply 'stocks' and didn;t even pay lip service to using them as a forearm brace.

I'm guessing there will be a list of 'acceptable' versus 'unacceptable' braces put together by SB and the other companies for various configurations.

I have a few I was planning on SBR-ing anyways, but I wanted to see how bad this rule would be.
I jumped the gun...pun intended. I bought 2 b&t apc9's...filed the form 1's before I ever shot them...mainly so I wouldn't get the trade bug and move them...I got them for a good deal. SBR'd a BCM lower as well. still have some form 4's in "pending" status...

just further erosion of our rights. and I know it was gonna happen at some point in time.
 
Back
Top Bottom