ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

[kevin9]

Take the brace off and put a rainbow sticker on it. If questioned, just assert that your pistol now identifies as a pistol. If they insist that it's a rifle claim trans-discrimination under Title VII and MGLs.
YMMV. IANAL.
Yes, it sounds silly, but it's just as logically valid the ATF's rule changes.

 

[Kevin_NH]

So, if you do an amnesty with a braced gun, are the brace and the gun married, or once it's an SBR can you upgrade to a real stock?

Since this is all being done under ATF rulemaking, and the ability to change out parts on an SBR goes beyond what the ATF can decide as a "rule" without legislative changes, it would appear that once registered, the receiver is the NFA item, and you would be able to swap in a real stock, add a forward grip, etc.

You're not going to be able to remove the stock and claim its not an SBR. The ATF has always enforced "once an SBR, always and SBR".

You are thinking of the rule regarding a firearm originally produced as a Title I rifle (or originally produced as a Title II NFA firearm)

ATF has repeatedly acknowledged that a SBR/SBS is only a NFA item while configured/configurable as such, and that reconfiguring a SBR/SBS to a non-NFA configuration (e.g. taking an AR back to the original "pistol" configuration) makes it a non-NFA item for all purposes, including interstate transport.

 

[pinefd]

I started a separate thread about this in the RI Gun Laws section, but figured I'd bring it up here, as well. It's my understanding that in RI, all NFA items are illegal, so anyone who currently has an AR pistol, won't have this amnesty period as an option. An AR pistol would either have to have its brace removed entirely, or it would have to be converted to a rifle in order stay legal. Here's a link to that aforementioned thread: No NFA guns in RI; what happens now with AR/AK pistols?

If anyone could add anything else to that thread, or to my understanding of the situation, it would be appreciated. Not that it impacts me at all, of course; just asking for a friend.


Frank

 

[xtry51]

Since this is all being done under ATF rulemaking, and the ability to change out parts on an SBR goes beyond what the ATF can decide as a "rule" without legislative changes, it would appear that once registered, the receiver is the NFA item, and you would be able to swap in a real stock, add a forward grip, etc.


You are thinking of the rule regarding a firearm originally produced as a Title I rifle (or originally produced as a Title II NFA firearm)

ATF has repeatedly acknowledged that a SBR/SBS is only a NFA item while configured/configurable as such, and that reconfiguring a SBR/SBS to a non-NFA configuration (e.g. taking an AR back to the original "pistol" configuration) makes it a non-NFA item for all purposes, including interstate transport.

I hear what you are saying. They aren't going to enforce it that way. They will change the ruling on the fly just like they did here.

Please understand previous rulings MEAN NOTHING.

 

[Kevin_NH]

I hear what you are saying. They aren't going to enforce it that way. They will change the ruling on the fly just like they did here.
Please understand previous rulings MEAN NOTHING.

If they're just going to ignore the language of the controlling US Code (law), then there's no point in any speculation

 

[Bonesinium]

If they're just going to ignore the language of the controlling US Code (law), then there's no point in any speculation

Poor take. We know their motives. The “speculation” is highly grounded.

 

[MGnoob]

Since this is all being done under ATF rulemaking, and the ability to change out parts on an SBR goes beyond what the ATF can decide as a "rule" without legislative changes, it would appear that once registered, the receiver is the NFA item, and you would be able to swap in a real stock, add a forward grip, etc.


You are thinking of the rule regarding a firearm originally produced as a Title I rifle (or originally produced as a Title II NFA firearm)

ATF has repeatedly acknowledged that a SBR/SBS is only a NFA item while configured/configurable as such, and that reconfiguring a SBR/SBS to a non-NFA configuration (e.g. taking an AR back to the original "pistol" configuration) makes it a non-NFA item for all purposes, including interstate transport.

It’s just silly that a pistol brace would have to be registered, Which then makes it completely obsolete. Because unless it was used for its original purpose (shooting one armed) it would have no value. Show me this sounds like a legalizing something without properly passing a law.

 

[Kevin_NH]

It’s just silly that a pistol brace would have to be registered, Which then makes it completely obsolete. Because unless it was used for its original purpose (shooting one armed) it would have no value. Show me this sounds like a legalizing something without properly passing a law.

I don't see where in the US Code the ATF could require serializing and registering the "pistol brace", rather it'd be the receiver.

The original rulemaking request was titled “a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.”, which appears to acknowledge that devices to turn pistols into short-barreled rifles are not regulated items in 18 U.S. Code § 921 -- for example,

While the law around AOW, machine guns and destructive devices (26 U.S. Code § 5845) and also silencers (18 U.S. Code § 921) have language such as "including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating", no such phrasing exists in the SBR/SBS/AOW law, thus the ATF has no authority to do rulemaking requiring registration or marking of SBR/SBS/AOW "parts"

They can still claim that possessing a "brace" at the same time as an AR pistol is equivalent to possessing a SBR, but the brace itself isn't a controlled item subject to registration.

 

[pastera]

Can we look at this from a different direction?
The pistol brace was developed to allow a disabled person to shoot effectively.
By adding braces to the NFA the ATF is effectively taxing and restricting a person for being disabled.
Lawsuit to either remove them from the NFA rules (restoring the status quo) or allow anyone with wrist or hand strength issues to register with no cost at any time and with expedited processing.
Once that is established, then go after silencers for anyone with a hint of hearing damage.

 

[Mtn_Guy]

… anyone with wrist or hand strength issues.

millions of gun owners claiming “self-gratification” injuries while faking a sick day (or two) in grade school…

 

[42!]

Can we look at this from a different direction?
The pistol brace was developed to allow a disabled person to shoot effectively.
By adding braces to the NFA the ATF is effectively taxing and restricting a person for being disabled.
Lawsuit to either remove them from the NFA rules (restoring the status quo) or allow anyone with wrist or hand strength issues to register with no cost at any time and with expedited processing.
Once that is established, then go after silencers for anyone with a hint of hearing damage.

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything. All those videos of people using them as stocks drew attention and provided the ATF with everything they needed to get away with a change. Everyone new they were going around the law, what did you expect? That they wouldn't respond?

I don't like the NFA/SBR BS but people are people and you can't slap them in the face like that and claim not to expect a response.

So now we've got the fight in the open, so fight it on the SBR level.

 

[Mesatchornug]

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything. All those videos of people using them as stocks drew attention and provided the ATF with everything they needed to get away with a change. Everyone new they were going around the law, what did you expect? That they wouldn't respond?

I don't like the NFA/SBR BS but people are people and you can't slap them in the face like that and claim not to expect a response.

So now we've got the fight in the open, so fight it on the SBR level.

First there was	until
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org	Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org	Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org	???

Bruen hasn't got there yet, but here's hoping someone does soon

 

[PappyM3]

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything. All those videos of people using them as stocks drew attention and provided the ATF with everything they needed to get away with a change. Everyone new they were going around the law, what did you expect? That they wouldn't respond?

…

The ATF specifically said it was okay if they were used against the shoulder.

 

[Bonesinium]

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything.

That’s what you think?

 

[42!]

The ATF specifically said it was okay if they were used against the shoulder.

Way back they said you couldn't then later said you could, I never saw the actual statement from the ATF so while I hope you are correct, there is such a long line of "I heard from" that I'd really love to see the actual ATF statement. If you happen to have a link I would appreciate sending it along.

In the end it doesn't matter, they are going with it is a stock now. And they will still use the video as "proof".

 

[42!]

some clarity

 

[xtry51]

Are they changing the "law" at their own whim? Yes.

That's all you need to know.

 

[KBCraig]

some clarity

He no longer works for FPC?

I guess that explains the relative silence on his channel about FPC issues.

 

[KBCraig]

Since this is all being done under ATF rulemaking, and the ability to change out parts on an SBR goes beyond what the ATF can decide as a "rule" without legislative changes, it would appear that once registered, the receiver is the NFA item, and you would be able to swap in a real stock, add a forward grip, etc.

I said this earlier. If a brace makes it NFA, might as well replace the brace with a real stock and make it functional as an SBR.

 

[T-Unit]

I don't see where in the US Code the ATF could require serializing and registering the "pistol brace", rather it'd be the receiver.

The original rulemaking request was titled “a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.”, which appears to acknowledge that devices to turn pistols into short-barreled rifles are not regulated items in 18 U.S. Code § 921 -- for example,

While the law around AOW, machine guns and destructive devices (26 U.S. Code § 5845) and also silencers (18 U.S. Code § 921) have language such as "including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating", no such phrasing exists in the SBR/SBS/AOW law, thus the ATF has no authority to do rulemaking requiring registration or marking of SBR/SBS/AOW "parts"

They can still claim that possessing a "brace" at the same time as an AR pistol is equivalent to possessing a SBR, but the brace itself isn't a controlled item subject to registration.

If so then why are braces allowed to be sold? What, people are buying braces without having any gun to attach them to just because they look nice?

Everything about the braces and all the shit being proposed by the ATF flies in opposition to what SCOTUS ruled in the recent EPA case.

The ATF has ruled that braces aren't buttstocks, has said firing them in a manner that wasn't recommended by the manufacturer or designed to be fired from didn't make them an SBR.

The ATF has played the Texas Two Step with braces too many times that they're getting close to not only getting a judicial smackdown on them, but the entire short barrel NFA law as a whole thanks to Bruen and the EPA case.

 

[pastera]

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything. All those videos of people using them as stocks drew attention and provided the ATF with everything they needed to get away with a change. Everyone new they were going around the law, what did you expect? That they wouldn't respond?

I don't like the NFA/SBR BS but people are people and you can't slap them in the face like that and claim not to expect a response.

So now we've got the fight in the open, so fight it on the SBR level.

Just because people misuse them it doesn't allow discrimination against the disabled - they don't take handicap placards away simply because they are widely abused

 

[42!]

Just because people misuse them it doesn't allow discrimination against the disabled - they don't take handicap placards away simply because they are widely abused

This is a good example of the "wink wink, nudge nudge" talk I see as hypocritical BS. Everyone knows that this isn't a case of "misuse". Look at the braces, most of them would offer little support for the truly handicapped, some would even be painful to use in that manner. They are, by design, made to be shouldered and give the manufacturer some kind of twisted logic BS that they believe lets they lie about their intent.

And, again, I'm against the whole SBR BS rules. I just, also, have a strong view about vomiting hypocritical BS that extends to, well, everything. I see it's use as a demeaning character trait. I have a lot more respect for someone who says "yup, its a stock, but the law is so poorly written that I can use it and not register SBR", as opposed to "No, No, it's a brace, ya that's right, just a brace (wink wink)" Let's be honest with ourselves.

 

[pastera]

This is a good example of the "wink wink, nudge nudge" talk I see as hypocritical BS. Everyone knows that this isn't a case of "misuse". Look at the braces, most of them would offer little support for the truly handicapped, some would even be painful to use in that manner. They are, by design, made to be shouldered and give the manufacturer some kind of twisted logic BS that they believe lets they lie about their intent.

And, again, I'm against the whole SBR BS rules. I just, also, have a strong view about vomiting hypocritical BS that extends to, well, everything. I see it's use as a demeaning character trait. I have a lot more respect for someone who says "yup, its a stock, but the law is so poorly written that I can use it and not register SBR", as opposed to "No, No, it's a brace, ya that's right, just a brace (wink wink)" Let's be honest with ourselves.

But that wink job went both ways.
A well designed brace absolutely will help a person with grip issues retain control of the pistol.
The real issue is that the ATF did not do its job when analyzing the braces during approval and allowed units that had no utility for the specified purpose.
Now they are punishing everyone for their failure.

The truth is the ATF has outlived its usefulness. Restricting the availability of firearms that were disproportionately used in organized crime may have had some utility in past when manufacturing or modifying took specialized equipment and skills but with the easy availability of Chinese giggle switches the entire concept of the NFA has been overtaken by events.

The only restrictions we should have now are background checks since we can't understand that a person too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be allowed to roam free.

 

[42!]

But that wink job went both ways.
A well designed brace absolutely will help a person with grip issues retain control of the pistol.
The real issue is that the ATF did not do its job when analyzing the braces during approval and allowed units that had no utility for the specified purpose.
Now they are punishing everyone for their failure.

The truth is the ATF has outlived its usefulness. Restricting the availability of firearms that were disproportionately used in organized crime may have had some utility in past when manufacturing or modifying took specialized equipment and skills but with the easy availability of Chinese giggle switches the entire concept of the NFA has been overtaken by events.

The only restrictions we should have now are background checks since we can't understand that a person too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be allowed to roam free.

Agree

 

[Kevin_NH]

If so then why are braces allowed to be sold? What, people are buying braces without having any gun to attach them to just because they look nice?

A person (with zero taste) could put one on a rifle with a 16.5" barrel because they think it looks nice.

Ultimately, ATF was able to forbid bump stocks from being sold because 26 U.S. Code § 5845 (not rulemaking) gives ATF authority to ban "...any … combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun…." . There is no equivalent controlling law giving ATF authority to write rules banning braces when possessed "without having any gun pistol to attach them to". ATF knows that, which is why their request for rulemaking is written with such wishy-washy language.

 

[allen-1]

A person (with zero taste) could put one on a rifle with a 16.5" barrel because they think it looks nice.

Ultimately, ATF was able to forbid bump stocks from being sold because 26 U.S. Code § 5845 (not rulemaking) gives ATF authority to ban "...any … combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun…." . There is no equivalent controlling law giving ATF authority to write rules banning braces when possessed "without having any gun pistol to attach them to". ATF knows that, which is why their request for rulemaking is written with such wishy-washy language.

Or they could be purchasing an "other" in CT.

 

[KBCraig]

A person (with zero taste) could put one on a rifle with a 16.5" barrel because they think it looks nice.

Ultimately, ATF was able to forbid bump stocks from being sold because 26 U.S. Code § 5845 (not rulemaking) gives ATF authority to ban "...any … combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun…." . There is no equivalent controlling law giving ATF authority to write rules banning braces when possessed "without having any gun pistol to attach them to". ATF knows that, which is why their request for rulemaking is written with such wishy-washy language.

But, bump stocks do not convert a weapon into a machinegun. Bump stocks still require a separate function of the trigger for every single shot fired. The judges who have ruled otherwise either could not, or would not, recognize the distinction.

 

[MGnoob]

If they were only used for that reason, they wouldn't be changing anything. All those videos of people using them as stocks drew attention and provided the ATF with everything they needed to get away with a change. Everyone new they were going around the law, what did you expect? That they wouldn't respond?

I don't like the NFA/SBR BS but people are people and you can't slap them in the face like that and claim not to expect a response.

So now we've got the fight in the open, so fight it on the SBR level.

I find it similar to need a doctors note to be able to use a crossbow to hunt in Massachusetts. I thought all people are equal.(Sarcasm)

If you’re a doctor and tell people to trust the science you’re a f***ing total dip shit. Hence why I don’t go to the doctor

 

[hunt4riches]

or take the brace off and it stays a pistol, no need to register.

Cheaper too.... I have two legal giggle-guns and haven't shot them in over 5 years due to ammo prices (but I chartered a Challenger 850 this year so I guess I have no right to bitch about what stuff costs...)

 

[hunt4riches]

Can we look at this from a different direction?
The pistol brace was developed to allow a disabled person to shoot effectively.
By adding braces to the NFA the ATF is effectively taxing and restricting a person for being disabled.
Lawsuit to either remove them from the NFA rules (restoring the status quo) or allow anyone with wrist or hand strength issues to register with no cost at any time and with expedited processing.
Once that is established, then go after silencers for anyone with a hint of hearing damage.

I would trade braces for suppressors any day....