Owners of the "arm brace" will enjoy reading this....

The interpretation of it as SB-specific is because it is a letter ruling. The ATF used to be under the Department of the Treasury. Treasury would issue interpretations of tax law. Because tax law is so complicated and fact dependent, these were called "Private Letter Rulings" because they applied only to the specific person who asked. Treasury, of course, would attempt to make uniform rulings; but often there are tiny factual differences that are difficult to distinguish from the outside that cause different outcomes.

Interpetations of the NFA are also private letter rulings and subject to that same distinction. So while you can assume ATF will apply the law uniformly, you are still guessing as to what ATF might see as a significant fact difference.

For example, until just a few years ago, the ATF took the position that the Supreme Court ruling in Thompson Center Fire applied only to that specific firearm.
 
The interpretation of it as SB-specific is because it is a letter ruling. The ATF used to be under the Department of the Treasury. Treasury would issue interpretations of tax law. Because tax law is so complicated and fact dependent, these were called "Private Letter Rulings" because they applied only to the specific person who asked. Treasury, of course, would attempt to make uniform rulings; but often there are tiny factual differences that are difficult to distinguish from the outside that cause different outcomes.

Interpetations of the NFA are also private letter rulings and subject to that same distinction. So while you can assume ATF will apply the law uniformly, you are still guessing as to what ATF might see as a significant fact difference.

For example, until just a few years ago, the ATF took the position that the Supreme Court ruling in Thompson Center Fire applied only to that specific firearm.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is a letter ruling--but other than the requester being SB--the actual change in terms of law interpretation makes no reference at all to SB specifically, or that their design is different in any way functionally from previous designs and previous letters.

The interpretation may have been in response to SB's particular design(s) submissions--but I see nothing at all in the letter that would indicate that there is something unique to their designs that would not also be applicable to other arm/brace designs. Hence, I see this as a mere clarification of what "redesign" means--not that SB has somehow magically come up with the better widget that meets the intent of the law. Again, I read the over-all message to say that "as long as the design is substantively and primarily an arm-brace, incidental use braced on the shoulder does not constitute a redesign."
 
As someone who has read, and even written, a few rulings for regulatory agencies, my take is that ATF would like to limit the obvious utility of arm braces as improvised stocks; but they realize their second letter was indefensible in court based on current law - so they are backing off and attempting to stake out some distinction that might hold up in court. Because what's the point of a ridiculous interpretation you don't dare litigate?

Eventually, they'll catch some meth-dealing white supremacist who beats his kids with an arm brace that has been modified in some way and they'll make him a test case.
 
... but they realize their second letter was indefensible in court based on current law - so they are backing off and attempting to stake out some distinction that might hold up in court.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I think the parameters of retain primary functionality of brace while not being used as a "full-length" type of stock comes closer to being rational and defensible in court.

So, my brace will retain it's configuration in such a way that I can readily fit it to my arm and fire effectively if so challenged--but "may" occasionally use the brace on my shoulder. Anyway, I can shoot around 1.5 +/- MOA at 100 with my 300 BO pistol even with just the arm brace on my arm, so this isn't a big deal for me either way.
 
Yeah, it's likely the BATFE realized they would get laughed out of a significant number of courts if they prosecuted someone for "redesigning" a legal firearm​ by holding it differently.
 
I remember seeing an AR pistol with brace in the news some years ago as being found in a drug dealers home, or such, but very little was made of it by the media. Wonder if they just didn't know?
 
armoredman said:
I remember seeing an AR pistol with brace in the news some years ago as being found in a drug dealers home, or such, but very little was made of it by the media. Wonder if they just didn't know?
Click to expand...

We all know the media and general public are pretty ignorant of firearms in general. Unless a certain type or configuration is used in some high-profile killing, they generalize all as "high capacity pistols" or "evil, high-powered assault rifles".

Most are clueless about NFA restrictions (heck, it's confusing in the gun community). Even LEOs aren't that well versed on the continually changing BATFE interpretations.

I took a tactical carbine course south of Atlanta where several APD officers maintain their certifications. Some civilian was using a (real nice) AR pistol with arm brace and was shouldering it the whole course. Only one instructor noticed and we had a detective and two uniformed APD officers in the class who never said a thing. The view among most LEOs is that if you're not committing a violent crime, they really don't have the time to chase down every "illegal" nuance of regulations.

I wouldn't always bet on that, but after seeing all the turmoil about arm brace use in the gun-board communities, there really isn't much attention on it in the public , media or within most LEO communities. I also think with the proliferation of registered SBRs, they just can't keep up or spend time checking everybody for their NFA paperwork.

Although I plan to eventually SBR my "pistols", I love the fact that the gun industry continues to stymy BATFE regulations with new products and devices. It's just hard to do a NFA registry on firearms when Uncle Sam moves you to potentially more restrictive states.

At the end of the day, journalism is dead. The media won't repeat anti-gun stories unless someone else reports it and they rarely fact-check a good "fake-news" story that is inherently anti-gun. They couldn't tell you the difference between a semi-auto and bolt gun, everything is full-auto, every cartridge fired from a rifle is "high-power", and anything over 10-rounds is "high capacity". In other words, arm-brace pistols haven't been included in their anti-gun playbook...

ROCK6
 
Another way to look at it--maybe if the shouldering of pistols becomes widespread enough--maybe at some point the whole SBR taxation/permitting thing might go away as the boundaries become increasingly artificial? I personally will never pony up the cash for an SBR as long as I can get more or less the same results from a pistol (in the end, all we really talking about is a different buttstock and use of a vertical grip, which I never use on any of my AR configurations anyway).
 
My first AR pistol was surprisingly easy and fun to shoot without ever having to shoulder it. Plus I can conceal it and carry if I wanted. Never have or will conceal carry the AR, but having options is nice.

It's all kinda silly really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top