I'm right there with you. The problem is that it can't happen under the current circumstances.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.
Gonna politely/strongly disagree that their purpose of trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal. Mainly because i fail to see them provide ANY EXAMPLE of a stabilizing brace that would keep an under 16 in barreled firearm from having to be registered/stamped. They do say they are not regulating stabilizing braces that are attached to over 16 in barrels, or kept if they are no under 16 in barreled firearm's they could be attached to present (paraphrasing).I'm right there with you. The problem is that it can't happen under the current circumstances.
With pistols that look like rifles in every respect except for not having a shoulder stock and having a short barrel, and with things that look like shoulder stocks but are called something else, and with shoulder stock not being defined in federal law or listed as a necessary feature for a rifle, there is not going to be a simple rule.
I take it back. There could be simple rules, but the gun community would not like them at all.
One option would be to say that any firearm with a forward handguard or that is designed to accept a forward handguard, or that is substantially similar to a firearm designed to accept a forward handguard is obviously not intended/designed/made/remade to be fired with one hand and therefore isn't a pistol under the definition in federal law.
The reason that the rule is complicated is that they are trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal and they don't see turning all AR pistols into SBRs as a reasonable option. They could make very simple rules if they were willing to take that approach.
I suspect the same thing--even though I still think the rule has no bearing on a "baretube" AR pistol and is why I'm simply preemptively converting to rifle my AR pistols. Years ago when I built my pistols I had a hunch there was no way this would last.ban all AR-15 style pistols that aren't registered
If the Army gave you a 10% disability, you are "disabled."MTT TL said:I'm not sure shooting AR pistols qualifies as a major life activity. Other than not being able to do a correct push up back when I was in the military my biggest problem is when I need to do something that normally requires a straight arm. Not too much in life requires that.
Although the Army did give me 10% on the arm when I retired, so there is that.
They could just say that stabilizing braces are illegal to attach to pistols if they wanted to outlaw all of them. One sentence, no need for ~300pp of discussion, examples, photos, Q&A, definitions, etc. No need for a list of "other factors" that need to be present in addition to surface area for shouldering a firearm. Might not stand up to challenge, but that's never a certain thing anyway.Gonna politely/strongly disagree that their purpose of trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal.
Mainly because i fail to see them provide ANY EXAMPLE of a stabilizing brace that would keep an under 16 in barreled firearm from having to be registered/stamped.
Sorry but your responses on this subject have long since gotten to the point of non-sensical, non productive, irrelevant and not even worth replying to.First point, why do you think it is their responsibility to provide an example of what is legal?? As pointed out numerous times in this thread, its not their function to tell you what you can do, its their job to tell us what you can't do.
Next point, the mixing of general statements about pistol braces and the specifics of the braces used on AR pistols can be different things.
I would point out that the common popular designs of braces used on AR pistols are not the only kind of braces that are, or ever were. There were pistol braces before AR pistols existed. Those designs are not common, and in production today, but other than popularity, there's no reason they couldn't be.
Making statements about the AR braces as if they applied to every brace design that exists or existed is overly broad and inaccurate because of that.
It is entirely possible, and has been done, to create a brace that absolutely is intended to function as a stock, but is immune to ATF rule changes and NFA regulation. I've seen them.
Correct.Aguila Blanca .... I have seen no guidance anywhere, from any source, that suggests the ADA covers firearms.
While i am hoping you're right, and very well might be for the immediate future. However i tried a little experiment tonight, and removed the brace and attempted to shoulder it. And mine is a 45 acp radial blow back with only a 6 in buffer tube. Granted my arms are short. I suspect a 223 direct impingement AR-15 type pistol has a longer buffer tube, but am not sure.I suspect the same thing--even though I still think the rule has no bearing on a "baretube" AR pistol and is why I'm simply preemptively converting to rifle my AR pistols. Years ago when I built my pistols I had a hunch there was no way this would last.
Once you started deliberately miss stating....
Your 45 blow-back carrier is likely not only longer but also likely heavier than a 223 carrier. Same with the buffers I believe. I'm not a home at the moment to measure them though. When you say radial--do you mean a delayed unlock bolt like CMMG uses (I don't consider that "true" blowback)?While i am hoping you're right, and very well might be for the immediate future. However i tried a little experiment tonight, and removed the brace and attempted to shoulder it. And mine is a 45 acp radial blow back with only a 6 in buffer tube. Granted my arms are short. I suspect a 223 direct impingement AR-15 type pistol has a longer buffer tube, but am not sure.
me at post 97 said:Three things make this topic hard, at least for today. First is knowing what the agency says on the topic. It's almost 300 pages, and that's a bunch to skim, but that's the easy part. Second is how the agency with behave over the next several months. As with individual people, what is said and what is done may differ. The third, verging on impossible, is anticipating what the next position of the agency will be.
Thanks for answering, and CMMG calls it a radial delayed blow back. The tube itself only extends 6 inches past the rear. Likely the buffer is heavier as i have the added weight in it. Not sure how long a regular AR-15 pistol buffer is, and perhaps they seem to come in differing lengths. Seem to remember past history where atf was insisting on perfectly round/bare buffer tubes for AR pistols? Wasn't paying close enough attention back when, but google searches indicate such.Your 45 blow-back carrier is likely not only longer but also likely heavier than a 223 carrier. Same with the buffers I believe. I'm not a home at the moment to measure them though. When you say radial--do you mean a delayed unlock bolt like CMMG uses (I don't consider that "true" blowback)?
OK--that's a different ballgame since I believe the unlocking of bolt to extension lugs provides the delay that is otherwise made up for in a non-lugged blow back with a heavier carrier and buffer. I'm guessing CMMG has a standard--or perhaps even shorter--carrier and buffer system but I think it's not representative of non-lugged "unimpeded" blow back carbines.Thanks for answering, and CMMG calls it a radial delayed blow back. The tube itself only extends 6 inches past the rear. Likely the buffer is heavier as i have the added weight in it. Not sure how long a regular AR-15 pistol buffer is, and perhaps they seem to come in differing lengths. Seem to remember past history where atf was insisting on perfectly round/bare buffer tubes for AR pistols? Wasn't paying close enough attention back when, but google searches indicate such.