ATF and pistol braces ?
- Thread starter kymasabe
- Start date
This may be nothing more than a difference of opinion and the ATF will do whatever it does without asking either of us, but consider this argument...
There is a difference between an illegal firearm and illegal possession of a firearm. A gun with an altered, defaced or removed serial number is essentially illegal to possess, under any circumstances. IT is an illegal gun.
A firearm that is not legal because it is not registered, but would be, if registered is not an illegal gun, its an illegal possession of that gun.
Look at any state that requires a permit for possession for a handgun to see this in operation. The gun is not illegal, possessing it without the required state license, is.
The "amnesty period" for the formerly braced but now "stocked" pistols is not changing the law, it is changing, for a limited time, the enforcement (and prosecution) of the law. You are still technically guilty of breaking the law by having the unregistered NFA item, but you will not be prosecuted for that, IF you "fix the problem" by registering it within the amnesty period window.
They have done this sort of thing before, and I believe it is within their legal authority to do so.
My point here is that while you have committed a crime (breaking the statute law) there are situations where you will not be prosecuted for that crime.
One example of this is justifiable homicide. Shooting and killing someone is always a crime. However, there are situations where the law finds commission of that crime legally justified. Yes, there is a world of difference in the details, I am in no way suggesting they are the same thing, only that the principle of having committed a crime and not being prosecuted for it applies in both cases.
NFA has been the law for many decades. Elected representatives of the people put it into place almost 90 years ago and have not repealed it. The Supreme Court, each member appointed by an elected official have not overturned it.
I don't think anyone here likes the NFA, but it's the law and it's going to stay the law because that's the way enough of the people in the U.S. want it.
i get your point, so let me rephrase. Imo the ATF will be breaking the law by sending you a firearm after they made a determination it is illegal to posses that specific firearm. Imo, the amnesty doesn't cover that act, which may also be covered by any applicable shipping/mailing regulations.
Last edited:
I'm reading that a bit differently than you are. What I'm getting from it is that the "other factors" are used to determine if the brace is intended to be used from the shoulder, and then not a brace, but a stock.
I'm getting that from this,
and then they list those other factors as (i-vi)
As I read it, those other factors are not disqualifiers in any way, in and of themselves, they are the factors the ATF will use along with the presence of the brace to determine if the brace is a stock.
Now, IF it is determined the weapon sent in for review has a stock, and not a brace, then what? That's not stated specifically, and we are now just speculating and what they might do under other circumstances could (probably should) be different during the amnesty period.
Keep the brace and send the pistol back? If that option is offered, OK, BUT, ONLY if you give them permission to do so. Otherwise they're stealing your property. You might WANT the entire thing returned so you can register it as and SBR during the grace period. And, I don't think its reasonable to expect the ATF to keep and track your removed brace in case you do want to register it as an SBR.
I CAN see them returning the entire thing, "Stock attached" with the legal warning that if they don't see it registered or proof the brace has been removed by the end of amnesty period, charges will be filed. After all, they do know exactly where to find you...
Braces are not high dollar items compared to the cost of the gun or the cost of NFA compliance, and probably most people who do send in guns for evaluation when told they are NFA items will approve the ATF removing the offending component (the brace) and send them their pistol back....if the ATF offers that option, probably most will do it, but they shouldn't just remove the brace on their own, until after the amnesty period expires, when the rules will change a bit.
"This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:"
i read that as multiple items that could provide a surface area, including a stabilizing brace.
From the specific line of wording " includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area"
And then it is not clear whether all the factors must be present, one factor or any combination of factors. It appears very clear to me that anything they would consider providing an unspecified amount of surface area could have the factors applied to it.
Well lets break this up a little for better understanding, and to explain my reasoning...
This describes what is being covered, the rifle with its rear features /attachments
This part covers ruling the brace/attachment as meant to be used from the shoulder, "provided" the later listed factors indicate this.
and this is a listing of the other factors.
What is not explained in the given text is whether these other factors are a Pass/Fail thing or what the determining points are.
So, we need to look at each of those factors and see if we can figure out what they might use as the basis for their decisions, unless/until we can get that information from the ATF. Until we know exactly what the ATF is using for their parameters its just speculation. Some things seem pretty obvious, but remember who (the govt) is setting the goal posts.
This describes what is being covered, the rifle with its rear features /attachments
This explains what they are looking at, the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
This part covers ruling the brace/attachment as meant to be used from the shoulder, "provided" the later listed factors indicate this.
and this is a listing of the other factors.
What is not explained in the given text is whether these other factors are a Pass/Fail thing or what the determining points are.
So, we need to look at each of those factors and see if we can figure out what they might use as the basis for their decisions, unless/until we can get that information from the ATF. Until we know exactly what the ATF is using for their parameters its just speculation. Some things seem pretty obvious, but remember who (the govt) is setting the goal posts.
It's almost like they're going to enforce the law that says pistols can't have shoulder stocks unless they're registered NFA firearms. Weird, huh.
This is really simple unless you WANT it to be complicated. If you want to use your pistol with a shoulder stock, submit the proper forms, pay the tax and be done with it. Don't want to pay the tax or do the paperwork, then don't put a shoulder stock on your pistol--not even if you call it something completely different.
You know, just like it's been for the past 80 something years.
The only confusion here comes if you want to put a shoulder stock on your pistol but avoid the NFA. Then things get tricky, as they always do when trying to skirt the very edges of the law. It can be done, but not without risk.
stagpanther
New member
Easy-conceal, highly effective CQB weapon is what the pistol with brace is.
That's about it.
That's about it.
That's what a pistol with a stock is.
The funny thing is that everyone keeps talking about braces as if they're exactly the same thing as stocks while simultaneously being upset that the BATF is going to regulate them as if they're stocks.
Braces are an innovative solution that let people one-hand large pistols (usually pistols adapted from rifle designs) that are really too big/heavy to hold/shoot one-handed. They are great for people who can't use both hands to shoot a large pistol, other than that they are not especially useful.
stagpanther
New member
Ahhhh..isn't that is essence what this regulation is all about--braces functioning as stocks? I don't see what the confusion is. Basically, ATF is saying, sorry, scout's honor that I promise not to use the whatever as a shoulder brace is no longer acceptable.
stagpanther
New member
Which gets back to my argument for ADA coverage--but I think that position was thoroughly shot down here already.
The point below isn't originally mine, but one made by the Forgotten Weapons fellow.
SBRs aren't "regulated" because they are easily concealed, but because a prior draft of the NFA included pistols and legislators didn't want anyone to be able to circumvent the NFA by just buying a rifle, hacking off the stock, cutting the barrel down, and having a pistol sized rifle.
EDIT - I found the video again. I had not known the history of reducing barrel lengths to meet market conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
Well, using all the arguments that point to the intricacies of aged rules--semantics of what really is a stock vs brace, what is the difference between an SBR and an AR pistol and declaring them all flawed/invalid--that leaves us with only they are doing it for the fun of it or they just can't stand the thought of an AR pistol. OK, if that works, go with it.
Let me rephrase what i am trying to get at. They are not just regulating what many term to be "stabilizing braces". Anything that attaches to the rear of the rifle providing surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder appears to be included. Although they appear to attempt to exempt something necessary for function of the rifle. This is why i am considering how many of the "factors" the item must meet. An AR-15 pistol with it's original length buffer in place might meet one of the factors, but not others. No way would i send it in to ATF for a determination, but that's just me.
Basically i am agreeing with you, but over 25 years dealing with state statute/code language, rewrites and application of codes makes me suspicious of anything the state agency wonks wrote. And what happened when they went beyond "interpreting" and changed definitions/meanings in codes/statutes in their interpretations without going through the legislature.
And it matters not what i think about pistols with braces, what matters more to me is the manner in which they are doing it. Especially provided their previous history in the matter. "e,g." From actual experience, changing a definition in a law changes the law and is a function of our elected representatives who make the laws.
p.s. no matter the intent, it matters more what the ruling actually says in "plain english"
While i agree with you, there are other advantages. And is a pistol without a brace easier to conceal? Certainly using a brace as a stock makes it easier to control (more effective), but so does a good pistol grip. Am guessing millions of dollars are spent annually on modifying firearms to be more "effective". Better triggers, better sights, custom stocks etc.