ATF and pistol braces ?

[kymasabe]

I ordered an SBA3 brace today and was a heartbeat away from ordering a barrel, when I ran into an article about ATF ruling on December 28th about the legality of braces?
It's been a long time since I've built an AR pistol and wasn't aware of possible changes in the law.
Can someone tell me which way the topic is leaning? Should I wait before ordering a barrel I may not be able to use?

 

[buckey]

This will get interesting, ATF has changed their minds so many times I'm sure the Law Suits will start in earnest!

 

[jcj54]

Proposed rule published months ago

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment

Final rule being released on December 28, 2022.
Goes into effect next year. It seems the intent is to eliminate AR pistols, redefining
them as short barreled rifle, forcing those who wish to keep them to register them under the NFA.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This has been under discussion here:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=41

jcj54 is correct -- it's never a good idea to bet on what the BATFE will do, but most expectations are that braced AR-pattern pistols will become short-barreled rifles and require a tax stamp. In some states, this will make them into prohibited "assault weapons."

I would certainly not order a barrel until the new rule has been released, studied, and understood.

 

[TunnelRat]

t's never a god idea to bet on what the BATFE will do, but most expectations are that braced AR-pattern pistols will become short-barreled rifles and require a tax stamp.

Does anyone know if there is any allowance for people removing the braces and using them without the braces?

 

[Shadow9mm]

Heres the form that accompanies the new rule. Its like doing taxes. 4 or more points means its an sbr. Its about far more than the brace. Good luck. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/sample-atf-worksheet-4999

 

[JohnKSa]

There will be NO AR pattern pistols made illegal, regardless of how the ruling works out. It is entirely possible that some shoulder stocks that were being sold as "braces" will lose their status as "braces" and will be explicitly defined to be what everyone already knew they were.

NO ONE will be forced to register their AR pattern pistols as NFA items, no matter how the ruling works out. It is entirely possible that some owners may have to remove the shoulder stocks they installed on their pistols and dispose of them in some prescribed manner and within a given timeframe.

At this time, there does not appear to be any intent or push to regulate true arm braces or pistols equipped with them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There are a number of AR-type firearms currently being sold as "Other" -- they are not classified as either rifles or pistols. I think those are what the new regulations are going to affect.

 

[JohnKSa]

How does that work?

The NFA "Other" category specifically excludes pistols with rifled barrels, does it not?

 

[44 AMP]

I absolutey hate the mess these laws are and the confusion they create.

I THINK (and I could be wrong) that the "Other" classification is for receivers that have not yet been finished into firearms. This allows the buyer to make it either a rifle or a pistol as they choose.

IF the gun is sold as a rifle ATF does not allow it to be made into a pistol other than as an NFA item.

If it is sold as a pistol, the ATF doesn't seem to care much if you turn it into a rifle, (with a rifle length barrel AND a buttstock) If you put a rifle length barrel on it without a buttstock, they don't like that and consider it an NFA item.

I believe that, if the ruling changes braces into buttstocks for legal classification, then those pistols become "short barrel rifles" and would require NFA registration to be legally owned.

The solution is simple and obvious, remove the brace (which is now a stock) and your pistol is still a pistol and not an NFA item.

We won't know what the ruling actually is, until it is released at the end of this month, but I wouldn't expect anything good for the owners of braced pistols.

Be sure and thank all those UTube (etc) morons for putting this issue squarely in the ATF's sights....

 

[stagpanther]

There will be NO AR pattern pistols made illegal, regardless of how the ruling works out. It is entirely possible that some shoulder stocks that were being sold as "braces" will lose their status as "braces" and will be explicitly defined to be what everyone already knew they were.

NO ONE will be forced to register their AR pattern pistols as NFA items, no matter how the ruling works out. It is entirely possible that some owners may have to remove the shoulder stocks they installed on their pistols and dispose of them in some prescribed manner and within a given timeframe.

At this time, there does not appear to be any intent or push to regulate true arm braces or pistols equipped with them.

It seems to me it explicitly says they are doing this to help manufacturers and retailers avoid legal encumbrances. In addition to the brace, over-all weight and other accessory attachments have been added to the points system for ruling whether or not the pistol is not otherwise an SBR in drag.

I have some AR style pistols I built years ago and decided to ditch any kind of attachment to the buffer tube--which itself has no holes or attachment points as I thought this situation was inevitable. It's definitely slower and harder to shoot than an AR with a brace; but, with practice, at least for me, is still faster and more accurate at greater range than any handgun or pistol.

A previous ATF interpretation on braces was challenged on the basis of attributing "intent" to a component--it's interesting to see in the language here that "intent" is back and more prolific than ever.

 

[44caliberkid]

I’ve built several AR pistols, although I only have one left, a 300 Blackout. I always used “pistol buffer” tubes, which had no holes or appendages to attach anything to them. I noticed later AR pistols with braces had buffer tubes that weren’t any different than carbine tubes, which I always understood to be wrong. A few guys used rifle tubes because they were a plain tube, except for the threaded hole in the end, but that’s still an attachment point. But as long as BATF keeps moving the goal posts, who knows.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Not popular, but no one corrects me when I say not a single person uses it for the intent that was submitted to allow the brace...

 

[TunnelRat]

Not popular, but no one corrects me when I say not a single person uses it for the intent that was submitted to allow the brace...

Maybe people are simply choosing to ignore you. You've made a number of absolute statements on this forum over the years (source of government ammunition manufacture and presence of loaded chamber indicators to name a few) that were shown to be false by others within minutes of you typing them. In keeping with that tradition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngdAorS3ezc

If your point is actually that the percentage of the people using them as intended is incredibly small, I tend to agree. You can look at SB Tactical products over the years and see that the early designs were braces that could be used a stock, at least a better stock than say a naked buffer tube. Over time those designs have become almost indistinguishable from stocks in a number of cases.

My own concern with this decision is the number of years these products were allowed to be sold, by some estimates tens of millions of them https://www.gunowners.org/time-for-congress-to-crack-down-on-the-atfs-pistol-brace-rule/#:~:text=A%20Congressional%20Research%20Service%20report,braced%20firearms%20in%20common%20use., and the general lack of awareness of the National Firearm Act of 1934 among the shooting public. I've stated a number of times in the past that this forum is a very select subset of shooters. Many in the public have no idea that the braced pistol they were sold skirts the line of what is or isn't legal. Even among those that are, there is a general misunderstanding of what the future legislation may or may not do, as evidenced here. Further, many don't participate in online forums, watch YouTube videos, etc. Certainly ignorance of the law has been shown, time and time again, to not excuse a person from following the law. However, I think with the percentage of people that are likely unaware of the nature of the product they purchased (I've seen these sold as "fun" items in shops) and the difficulty of making those people aware of the resulting legislation (maybe the ATF will have a program in this regard) that some people will end up shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) simply by continuing to possess this item, even with a grace period.

The other concern I have is the logistics of registering these items after the fact with an ATF that is likely understaffed for that level of effort. Certainly many that own these now will choose to take off the brace and sell them, likely at a notable loss, but even a small percentage choosing to go forward accounts for a lot of NFA processing. I'm curious what the backlog for that will end up being.

 

[RickB]

Every road test of an AR pistol in Firearms News includes a report on the brace's effectiveness as a brace, and shows pics of the tester shooting the gun one-handed with the brace, so, SOMEOME is using the brace as a brace.

 

[wild cat mccane]

I feel totally comfortable on which side I'm falling on for being pedantic.

Despite illogical passions of what an item clearly is, the brace can go away and the shooting sport isn't hurt.

Drawing heat on this one makes almost no sense. Brace selling ads I get in email almost all show a picture of someone using it as an SBR.

Fight the SBR law. But pretending the brace is used as a brace isn't reality. That mentality hurts the shooting sport more.

I would tend to disagree that someone buying an AR15 pistol with a brace isn't in the know of what they are trying to accomplish.

 

[Adventurer 2]

Since Covid started I’ve tuned out from the news in order to have a happier day. I wasn’t aware of this pistol brace pending ruling - I don’t have a pistol braced AR but I do have a slick TC Contender w a folding Tailhook brace - I own several Contender barrels and after having the pistol brace I am hoping I can pay $200 to keep the brace.

 

[TunnelRat]

Also, despite illogical passions of what an item clearly is, the brace can go away and the shooting sport isn't hurt.

I'm not really sure to whom this refers. The video I posted is of a disabled person explaining how and why braces help him shoot. I don't think that person thinks of himself as illogical. As for who may or may not be affected, for the people that are using these as intended, they're the ones that are going to be, in my estimation, unfairly impacted. That they're a small part of the overall shooting community doesn't mean that their discomfort doesn't count and the "shooting sport isn't hurt".

Fight the SBR law. But pretending the brace is used as a brace isn't reality.

I don't really see anyone on this thread in particular that is pretending.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Fair enough. The coming rule shouldn't be a surprise to shooters is all I mean to say.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

How does that work?

The NFA "Other" category specifically excludes pistols with rifled barrels, does it not?

I think not. I'm sure Stag Arms isn't selling an entire category of AR-15 "Other" firearms with smooth bores.

https://www.stagarms.com/products/stag-15/other.html

That page includes a link to their video about what is an "other." One of my FFL friends knows someone at Stag Arms, and he told me on Saturday that Stag Arms is already gearing up to sue the BATFE over the new rules, even before they've been finalized. My guess would be that's because Stag sells a boatload of these "others" and they don't want to see a profitable product line shut off.

https://youtu.be/FvNnjK-NV8g