ATF and pistol braces ?

[JohnKSa]

The problem is more in accepting what it says. It's really not that confusing.

The NFA says a rifle is " a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". That's a very broad definition. The official definition of a rifle in the NFA does not say a rifle has a shoulder stock, nor does it define what a shoulder stock is. The only mention of a gun stock in the NFA refers to the grip of a pistol.

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Question 1. If one holds a rifle exactly as they would normally hold and shoot it, with the sole exception of holding it away from their shoulder so that the stock doesn't make contact with the shoulder, does the weapon cease to be a rifle under the NFA definition?

Question 2. If one holds an AR pistol with any sort of rearward projection exactly as they would normally hold and shoot a rifle, with the sole exception of holding the rearward protection away from their shoulder so that it doesn't make contact with the shoulder, what makes it different from the rifle in Question 1?

For years, everyone was happy with the simple interpretation that you made an SBR out of a pistol when you added a shoulder stock.

Then came "pistols" (e.g. AR and AK pistols) that are basically rifles with short barrels and no stocks. Not a problem because everyone knew what a shoulder stock was and these guns didn't have them.

Then came rearward projections for such guns that weren't called stocks and now suddenly it was no longer clear if these pistols had shoulder stocks or not--or even what was a shoulder stock and what wasn't. Maybe the problem can be solved by looking at the law--but remember there's no definition for shoulder stock in the NFA and besides, the presence of a shoulder stock isn't explicitly required for a firearm to be a rifle under the NFA.

If it was your job to straighten out the resulting confusion, using the definitions and text of the NFA as a basis to distinguish between an AR SBR and an AR pistol, how would you do it? Could you do it?

 

[44 AMP]

So, is it understood that simply removing the “brace” makes this rule moot? At that point dont you have just an AR pistol? And not a braced handgun?

Pardon me for again beating what ought to be a dead horse, but one of the big points of this discussion is that words and how we understand them matter.

Under the old system and, as far as I can tell, under the new rules, a BRACED handgun is not an NFA item. A STOCKED handgun is.

When is a brace a stock?? When the ATF says it is. Period. IF you disagree, your options are go to court or to the legislature to see if you can get a ruling or a law in your favor.

Is there another option? I don't know any.

As to JohnKSa's questions, I'd say that not shouldering the gun doesn't change the design intent, and since the law says "intended to be fired from the shoulder" then it is still a rifle. OR a pistol if that's its classification.

Back when I was in the service, we called the minutiae obsessed self appointed experts "barracks lawyers". You can find them in every field of endeavor. Once in a while they are right. Most of the time, they're not.

I will admit to a degree of that myself, the difference being, most of the time, I'm right!

 

[JohnKSa]

The second question didn't ask if the gun was still a pistol, it asked how it is different from the rifle in the first question.

 

[HiBC]

Coming up with the question is not the problem. I've asked the question about a no-brace pistol and cheek weld several times.

What is a problem is no one seems to be able to give an answer.

When a Citizen is making an honest effort to comply with the law, it should not be this hard to find out exactly what the law is.

Considering the penalties are quite harsh, IMO the agencies imposing the law have a duty to write clearly or at least explain.

It would be nice if the BATF would host a Q+A or post an FAQ to cover these questions.

In the BATF's own words,the 2017 letter said "How it is used does not redesign the part or accesory"

Now,before Captain Obvious informs me (again) that all previous letters are obsolete, nevertheless it demonstrates a "Reasonable Person" interpretation of the text of the law. Thats how at least SOME of the BATF read it.

I'm not interested in arguing with the BATF. "A Cockroach who argues with a Chicken is always wrong !"

I also don't want to basket case and rebuild my current pistol if its legal.

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it. Whether the BATF "likes" an AR pistol is not the issue. For years the AR pistol (no brace) has been a lawful pistol. However the "brace" has been managed or mismanaged, the Citizen who lawfully owns an AR pistol should not pay a penalty,be harassed,persecuted or prosecuted for the ineptness or frustration of those who write the rules.

The AR platform has to have a buffer tube to function. The sights are customarily attached to the flat top rail. Looking through the sights would place the cheek on the buffer tube. How else are you supposed to shoot it?
And lets deal with the reality, aside from Bullseye Competition,almost no one with the option to shoot any pistol two handed shoots with only one hand. The "one handed" rule is archaic and obsolete. It has no basis.

Referring to the now obsolete 2017 letter again, specific mention was made that a buffer tube cheek piece was acceptable and placing the cheek on the buffer tube was acceptable.That tells me at least one BATF person was reasonable and considered the rights of the Citizen.

If you don't have a brace,none of this BS should apply.

 

[stagpanther]

If you don't have a brace, none of this BS should apply.

That's the way I see it--more specifically I use completely bare buffer tubes with no attachments of any kind on them or any way they could be attached. I have a friend that works in my state's ATF field office (the office in my state generally tends to be non-draconian and gives the benefit of the doubt to the lawful citizen if they trip up on regs inadvertently, contrary to the jack-booted break down your door in the middle of the night image you often get on forums) I'll put in an inquiry and say what they say.

 

[44 AMP]

A couple points to consider...

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it.

The Judicial has always "said that". The way its done is WHEN a bad law comes before them, they can toss it out. What they can't do, under our system is tell Congress what they can and can't put in a law. That would be beyond their legal scope of authority, as telling (requiring) Congress to do or not do something isn't their job, nor, should it be.

Literally, the courts do not write the laws. IF Congress is too stupid to write a good law, the courts can toss it out, but they can't instruct Congress, as that could be considered "writing" the law.

And lets deal with the reality, aside from Bullseye Competition,almost no one with the option to shoot any pistol two handed shoots with only one hand. The "one handed" rule is archaic and obsolete. It has no basis.

What people choose to do today has no impact on the historical basis of the law. Handguns are guns you can fire with one hand. No one ever required ONLY one hand (outside of certain games and outdated training ideals. The point is that when the law was written, the general idea was that if it could be used with only one hand, it was a handgun and if you needed both hands to use it, its wasn't a handgun.

Choosing to use two hands (as most people do today) didn't make it anything but a handgun used with both hands. NEEDING to use both hands meant it wasn't a handgun. It was a pretty simple concept back then, and I think still is.

If you don't have a brace,none of this BS should apply.

I agree completely, and as far as I can tell if you don't have a brace, none of this BS DOES apply.

I also think the people who are saying that an unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol is now going to be an NFA Item are talking out their backsides and just trying to scare people.

Note that the ATF didn't say "if you have an AR pistol send it in for evaluation" they said "If you have a brace on your AR pistol....."

The point is that CERTAIN combinations of "brace" and pistol MIGHT now be reclassified as a stock which then makes the gun an NFA item. They didn't say every brace/pistol combination IS a stocked pistol, so obviously there are some that will not be and some that are.

If you don't have a brace, I can't see where any of that applies, at all.

 

[zukiphile]

...outdated training ideals

I resemble that remark.

When a Citizen is making an honest effort to comply with the law, it should not be this hard to find out exactly what the law is.

Considering the penalties are quite harsh, IMO the agencies imposing the law have a duty to write clearly or at least explain.

It would be nice if the BATF would host a Q+A or post an FAQ to cover these questions.

In the BATF's own words,the 2017 letter said "How it is used does not redesign the part or accesory"

Now,before Captain Obvious informs me (again) that all previous letters are obsolete, nevertheless it demonstrates a "Reasonable Person" interpretation of the text of the law. Thats how at least SOME of the BATF read it.

I'm not interested in arguing with the BATF. "A Cockroach who argues with a Chicken is always wrong !"

I also don't want to basket case and rebuild my current pistol if its legal.

IMO, its time the Judicial says "You can't do that bad of a job of writing a law and get away with it. Whether the BATF "likes" an AR pistol is not the issue. For years the AR pistol (no brace) has been a lawful pistol. However the "brace" has been managed or mismanaged, the Citizen who lawfully owns an AR pistol should not pay a penalty,be harassed,persecuted or prosecuted for the ineptness or frustration of those who write the rules.

You're correct; you shouldn't have to take a stab at what the agency wants and hope your dog lives. That's why a too vague code or reg can be voided for vagueness.

You may get resolution on that from a court for the reason you've described, but it isn't likely to be quick just because that system isn't arranged for speed.

In the meantime, your specific risk might not be zero, but I believe you are unlikely to be the test case. In the game of litigation chicken, I'd see them more likely to press a claim against someone with youtube video of himself shooting his braced pistol from the shoulder.

None of the above is me telling you what to do.

 

[zeke]

The problem is more in accepting what it says. It's really not that confusing.

The NFA says a rifle is " a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". That's a very broad definition. The official definition of a rifle in the NFA does not say a rifle has a shoulder stock, nor does it define what a shoulder stock is. The only mention of a gun stock in the NFA refers to the grip of a pistol.

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Question 1. If one holds a rifle exactly as they would normally hold and shoot it, with the sole exception of holding it away from their shoulder so that the stock doesn't make contact with the shoulder, does the weapon cease to be a rifle under the NFA definition?

Question 2. If one holds an AR pistol with any sort of rearward projection exactly as they would normally hold and shoot a rifle, with the sole exception of holding the rearward protection away from their shoulder so that it doesn't make contact with the shoulder, what makes it different from the rifle in Question 1?

For years, everyone was happy with the simple interpretation that you made an SBR out of a pistol when you added a shoulder stock.

Then came "pistols" (e.g. AR and AK pistols) that are basically rifles with short barrels and no stocks. Not a problem because everyone knew what a shoulder stock was and these guns didn't have them.

Then came rearward projections for such guns that weren't called stocks and now suddenly it was no longer clear if these pistols had shoulder stocks or not--or even what was a shoulder stock and what wasn't. Maybe the problem can be solved by looking at the law--but remember there's no definition for shoulder stock in the NFA and besides, the presence of a shoulder stock isn't explicitly required for a firearm to be a rifle under the NFA.

If it was your job to straighten out the resulting confusion, using the definitions and text of the NFA as a basis to distinguish between an AR SBR and an AR pistol, how would you do it? Could you do it?

I guess there are those that might be willing to assist atf in writing a rule that they don't believe in, but i ain't one of em. Granted atf is likely just doing what it's told to do by some political appointee, and they have always been very helpful/reasonable in my applications. Doesn't mean am going to help the people running the deal.

If you want to do the work of helping atf write a decent rule, please feel free to go through all the concerns repeatedly expressed, and address them. Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.

 

[stagpanther]

There's a potential silver lining flip side to listing all kinds of different "quals"--I think that gives industry more specific data points to come up with in making a "next gen" pistol that meets the ratings and by virtue of the specificity of the new rule will be more "secure" from future scrutiny like this.

 

[zukiphile]

Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.

Conceptually, the simplest way to resolve the problems with this part of the NFA could be to void it.

The sources I see offered all put the number of braced pistols in the millions, with a low estimate of 3 million and a high estimate of 40 million.

Stun guns enjoy constitutional protection in part because they are in common use with "hundreds of thousands" having been sold.

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. §941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078

Caetano is distinguishable in that the issue presented was a ban, but it was the numerosity that lead to a conclusion that they were "in common use".

If Congress were not entitled to burden unduly the possession of either short barreled rifles (which can raise 922r compliance issues) or pistols with stocks so as to remove them from NFA regulation, the happy result would be to remove the compliance issues we've discussed, and prevent agency reclassification of pistols from triggering violations of state laws. (Yes, incorporation should solve the problem of state bans of non-NFA items in common use, but if you've an AR pistol because you live in a state that prohibits possession of NFA items, you might prefer not to have the fight rather than have it and be right.)

That sort of conceptually simple path may be frustrated by a doctrine that a challenge should be resolved on a narrower basis if that's available, judicial minimalism. Unfortunately, the 2d Am. is hardly the only possible basis for a challenge.

 

[stagpanther]

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

 

[zukiphile]

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

 

[stagpanther]

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

Bad boy, go to your room.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That might be only because not even a murderer would be brazen enough to violate revenue code.

True.

Look where it got Al Capone.

 

[HiBC]

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

I'm not 100% sure...I may be wrong but one may have been used in the Boulder,Colorado King Soopers supermarket shootings.

On another topic:

The Judicial has always "said that". The way its done is WHEN a bad law comes before them, they can toss it out. What they can't do, under our system is tell Congress what they can and can't put in a law. That would be beyond their legal scope of authority, as telling (requiring) Congress to do or not do something isn't their job, nor, should it be.

Literally, the courts do not write the laws. IF Congress is too stupid to write a good law, the courts can toss it out, but they can't instruct Congress, as that could be considered "writing" the law.

I understand and agree. Basic Constututional Separation of Powers. Ther would be several steps to getting it before the court.

I doubt the "Original Intent" included unelected bureaucrats writing regs with force of law to include felony incarceration. But yeah, the Constitution seems to be "Cafeteria Style" sometimes.
How long has it been since a budget was passed? Do you think Congress could even get that done today? Has the 2A RTKBA been "infringed?"

 

[zeke]

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

If memory holds, and sometimes it doesn't, remember hearing or reading about 2 such instances? Might have even been in the final order's preamble?

 

[zeke]

A couple points to consider...

I agree completely, and as far as I can tell if you don't have a brace, none of this BS DOES apply.

I also think the people who are saying that an unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol is now going to be an NFA Item are talking out their backsides and just trying to scare people.

Note that the ATF didn't say "if you have an AR pistol send it in for evaluation" they said "If you have a brace on your AR pistol.

If you don't have a brace, I can't see where any of that applies, at all.

"HOW DO I GET A DETERMINATION IF MY “BRACE” DEVICE MAKES A PISTOL AN SBR?
• In addition to ATF’s list of commercially available firearms sold with “stabilizing braces” and common weapon platforms equipped with “stabilizing braces” that qualify as SBR, any other firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” or rearward attachment may be submitted to ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division for classification."

To practice what we used to call "philly lawyer", in order to be correct they included "or rearward attachment"

Also checked most of the preceding comments, and couldn't find anyone stating " unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol" would be NFA regulated. Did find plenty of cautionary statements to the effect of not assuming they were excluded from NFA regulations. And how easy are the big boys reading this "scared" by people stating their opinions?

Some people may still trust the atf, but find this confusing given their long consistent history of politics changing their positions. As others probably stated, how many times ya gonna let Lucy hold the football for ya?

 

[MarkCO]

If memory holds, and sometimes it doesn't, remember hearing or reading about 2 such instances? Might have even been in the final order's preamble?

The Boulder, CO shooter used an AR15 pistol with a brace.

 

[MTT TL]

I cant get any of the links on the ATF website to work. I know this is typical of Federal Websites but disappointing none the less.

As someone with an arm injury that doesn't allow me to fully extend my left arm (it has been measured at 25 degree angle at full extension) and I have some weakness in it now, the brace is actually helpful for me. I can live without it obviously but likely will move away from heavier longer barrelled AR pistols and just go with something smaller and less effective, which I guess is the whole point of the government controls.

I don't think this would be covered under ADA as I'm not actually disabled. My arm simply doesn't work the way most arms do and this has a very small impact on my life. For example when I do a push up my strong arm pushes me all the way up and the weak side that won't extend fully is about 1-2" lower. I've certainly learned to live with it.

When using a small pistol I simply cant my body at what most people would think of as a weird angle for shooting and this works to get my arms at the same length, although my accuracy with a pistol is only mediocre.

An AR pistol weighs 5lbs+ however and since my weak side hand won't extend as far as my strong hand I can't get it out far enough to stabilize the fore end and don't have enough grip strength on the left side to hold the gun steady if I try to put both hands on the pistol grip. Also if I put both hands on the pistol grip I have to bend my strong arm at the same angle as the weak and everything become really unsteady, it is actually so bad it is unsafe for me to shoot it that way.

The brace stabilizes it and even with reduced grip strength on the other side it holds it stable enough for me to shoot safely.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think this would be covered under ADA as I'm not actually disabled.

If you have that much limitation in the use of your arm, you probably qualify as "disabled," and you probably are covered by the ADA -- for things the ADA covers. I have seen no guidance anywhere, from any source, that suggests the ADA covers firearms.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/disability-rights-guide/

To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.