a guy at the range was shooting illegal SBRs

Yes, the latest known ATF interpretation is that shouldering a pistol brace "redesigns" the firearm into a rifle.
...So, it is a legal pistol, as long as you don't hold it the wrong way...
 
There is a letter out from the ATF that states that using a pistol brace at the shoulder does not make it an SBR its just using it wrong.

I don't have a link but if provoked I could probably produce it ;)

I also don't have the applicable pistol. If i did I'd be damn sure I wasn't taking some Internet guys word for it ;)
 
If shouldering a pistol with a brace redesigns it into a SBR, then does removing it from the shoulder then redesign it back into a pistol ? If it's then a pistol, how can the ATF confiscate it as an illegal SBR when it's really just a pistol ? Looking at it on an evidence table- would reveal that it's indeed just merely a pistol, and not a SBR like the ATF wants to infer that it is..
Additionally, an AR pistol with a brace- is illegal to shoulder; but an AR pistol with a pistol buffer tube is OK to shoulder .. Hmm???

The whole redesign thing is stupid. And what's worse, the ATF knows it. It's as stupid as the ATF agent that confiscated a bunch of air soft pistols claiming that they could be turned into fully automatic firearms..

Here's another example of the bureaucratic wisdom of the ATF. According to them, a pistol is designed to be shot with one hand. A rifle is designed to use two hands. From there, it's illegal to put a forward vertical grip on a pistol..

Most people I know shoot their semi-auto pistols, like a typical glock pistol- with both hands. Did they turn their pistol into a short barreled rifle because they used two hands to hold it ? Is firing a rifle, outstretched, with a single hand- redesigning a rifle into a pistol (which is by definition illegal )?

While a vertical foregrip is illegal to add to a pistol, an angled foregrip is OK to add. Hmm.. Isn't an angled foregrip meant to use the second hand on a pistol ? Why the stupid ruling ?

There is no way that the folks at the ATF cannot know how stupid the stuff that they "rule on" sounds in real life. What really should happen is that anyone arrested for the stupid rules-well, they should demand a jury of their peers, and the jurors should find them innocent by Jury Nullification. If I ever were to sit on such a jury, I'd vote in favor of innocent by Jury Nullification..
 
There is a letter out from the ATF that states that using a pistol brace at the shoulder does not make it an SBR its just using it wrong.
Click to expand...

Unless this is new, no such letter exists and the old rule is still in effect. There is a white paper out saying what you said, but no mention that the ATF has changed their actual position on using such stocks. The same white paper was in favor of removing the tax stamp encumbrance from suppressors.

Can you produce this letter?
 
FL Rich, the ATF reversed their original opinion on braces. First they said it was based on design, not how you hold it...Then, they said holding it wrong "redesigns" it.
 
IMO, "redesigns" is a poor way to phrase the problem. What shouldering such a pistol does is potentially show intent to build a de facto short barreled rifle.

In this case, maybe use redefines the firearm. It's not a good way to define things for legal purposes but this is an odd case. We are adding a part to the butt of a "pistol" which actually forms a pretty fair buttstock, while making the specific claim that it is not a buttstock.
 
It's definitely a frustrating interpretation from the ATF. The mystical non-SBR, until it's an SBR, but then maybe-not-again-SBR...
 
Technically, just minding one's own business can be a felony. Knowing of a felonious act and not reporting it is itself a felony, ("misprision of a felony") though violations are hard to prove and prosecutions are not common.

The whole law is essentially stupid and the ATF has to try to enforce it as best they can because they took an oath to do so. And smart people keep trying to invent absolutely useless things that will "almost but not quite" violate the law - for no reason other than to be able to say they are almost but not quite violating the law.

Jim
 
Yup

Some of us enjoy "yanking the chain" of people who don't mind their own business.

I think Tony got it right.
 
The owner said that the guns were pistols.

He was either wrong and committing a felony or he was right and on solid legal ground. Doesn't sound like he was playing games though.

Unless they were stamped SBRs and he was denying it to cause alarm.
 
misprison--I learned a new word--thanks for that! : )

I used to shoot a lot in TN wildlife area ranges--while they may not have a range officer present, they ALL have a state ranger assigned to oversight of the district If you really had any questions--you shoulda called them if you felt the law was being broken and it really bothered you that much. Somebody once called and reported my rear-end while I was firing my 44 mag blackhawk in the pistol pit at 25 yds, and I hoisted my rifle to look at the target through my scope at the target--next thing you know a ranger showed up ready to cite me and fine me for firing a rifle in a pistol-only pit.

There is so much buffoonery that goes on at these unsupervised ranges that I've learned from experience to keep my nose out of everyone's business UNLESS someone stupidly does something that endangers themselves or others with getting shot--then I'd jump on em without hesitation (and I'm a small wimpy guy). Your choice--but I go with the mind-your-own-business crowd unless you are absolutely sure you want to get into the part-time ATF informant business. Gangs fronted by drug cartels are also very active in TN--you may want to think twice about walking up to and hassling someone about their weapon.
 
I would feel like Diogenes looking for an honest man trying to find an "arm brace" that had not been shouldered at one time or another.
When the search for Kewl Faktor clashes with repressive government, you get nonsense like "arm braces."
 
wow--if understand correctly the "leaked" paper suggests elimination of the "redesign" language, which for all practical purposes removes the "mystical transformation" aspect of a brace-equipped firearm--but I wonder if that necessarily means the brace thing is going away altogether?
 
I'm not going to debate the legality of the situation.

I'll examine some clues to the situation.

According to your story...

1. The guy knew enough that you needed 'papers'

2. He knew certain distinctions of ARs enough to call it a 'pistol'.

When people don't know, they really don't know much at all. Any guy who was Cabelas who just happened to buy an AR pistol and then ignorantly slap on a stock wouldn't even know about 'papers'. He would just be like, 'what's that?'

Hardcore gangsters who don't care about NFA laws don't go target shooting with their kids.

This guy was almost certainly jerking your chain.

When I'm at the range, I always very patiently try to speak and convert every person who is not knowledgeable about NFA firearms. Most people who are inquisitive don't know much at all, but are thoroughly excited that they, too, can buy such toys.

But every once in a while, I'll get the indignant person who has no interest and is just being nosy. In which case, the conversation will go something like

Q: is that legal?

A: Huh? You can get this stuff online!

Or

A: I just made my full auto AR an hour ago! (with a RDIAS)

Both answers above are absolutely true, btw.
 
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Misprision of a felony is not a mandatory crime reporting law. Under federal law, misprision not only requires actual knowledge of the crime, but you have to also take some action to conceal the criminal conduct (e.g. lie to the feds). In the OP's example, or any gun range empirically gathered evidence example, you cannot possibly have actual knowledge of an "SBR crime". Furthermore, a person is only charged with knowing the law to extent they must comply with the law - you are not charged with knowing whether or not someone else is complying with the law. Unlike complying with the laws (i.e. ignorance is not an excuse), you are not required to know the law in the imprision context. In other words, ignorance absolutely can be an excuse as to whether someone else is committing a felony. The common people are not law enforcement or judiciary agents. Minding your own business is not a crime unless you are a person who, by law, is under a heightened standard (e.g. child abuse reporting statutes for health professionals). Misprision is essentially an aiding and abetting or obstruction related charge, and nothing more. If you could go to prison for simply being in the vicinity of someone feloniously violating any weapons related laws, then no rational person would go to any gun range or be around anyone who has a weapon unless they are 1,000% vetted by you.

I concur with the "mind your own business" crowd. The OP is presuming that the guy is in violation of the law based on some empirical evidence and what the guy said. Who really knows if he was legally compliant or not other than the feds. If the OP is really worried about it, then file a complaint with the authorities. If the OP is not, then move on (i.e. what's the point of this discussion?).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top