ATF and pistol braces ?

[JohnKSa]

There's no need to try to add that additional complication into the mix.

This regulation/rule doesn't change state laws.

State laws can't legalize anything that this rule regulates.

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says.

I agree that the rule is not hard to understand. What people are having difficulty with is that they don't like what it says.

The confusion I'm seeing is that people want the law to tell them clearly that their firearm is not regulated and can't find that information. It's not going to happen. Laws generally don't define the legal/unregulated, they define the illegal/regulated and everything else is automatically legal/unregulated.

Well, then, let's look at what's illegal/regulated. That can't include my "braced pistol", right?

Yeah...

When the federal code in question was written, everyone knew what a "stock" was and that rifles had them and pistols didn't. So there's not even a definition for "stock" in federal law.

Everyone knew what a rifle was and what a pistol was and there wasn't any confusion. So the definitions in federal law are not super-specific. There was simply no need.

But now we have pistols that are exactly like rifles in every respect except for not having stocks and having shorter barrels.

No problem, right? We can tell them apart because rifles have stocks and pistols don't. Except that federal law doesn't actually say that. And it also doesn't define "stock".

Hmmm... What about the short barrels? Nope, that doesn't work either because a short barrel can be present on a rifle (SBR) OR a pistol.

So just how DO we tell them apart, now that we have things that look and function exactly like rifles but that are supposedly pistols and things that look and function like stocks but that are supposedly something else? 300 pages later...

 

[stagpanther]

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.

I wonder what is meant by "remove the brace so that it cannot be reattached." Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it. If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.

 

[JohnKSa]

Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it.

If that's how you think the BATF is going to play it, then after you remove it, you should grind the brace up into dust and then put the dust out for the garbage man to carry away.

Practically speaking, I don't think it's that hard to understand what the difference is between being able to directly reinstall an item on something you removed it from vs. modifying it so that it can't be reinstalled.

Think about it like this. If it becomes an issue, then someone would likely demonstrate installing the brace onto the firearm to show that there is a violation.

How do you think it would play for a jury/judge if they have to get out a welder and power tools to get it to fit?

How do you think it would play for a jury or judge if they slide it into place and tighten a nut or it clicks into place?

Act accordingly...

If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.

Disposing of the brace is one option, but it doesn't say that's what you have to do. It certainly doesn't say you have to modify the firearm.

If you're already having trouble with the rule, as written, I would recommend not altering it and then trying to figure out what the altered version means.

 

[stagpanther]

My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is. Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one. But I realize this strays off into the minefield of semantics.

 

[HiBC]

I was initially going to use a Tailhook brace. Its aluminum with a hole bored through to be a snug fit on a pistol buffer tube. There is a pinch bolt feature to secure it. I have not installed it.

My machinist experience tells me that if I put a band of knurling around the buffer tube at the "butt" or closed end, the outside diameter of the buffer tube will increase,by perhaps .010 in. This will make it impossible to install the Tailhook on that buffer tube without cutting the knurling off.
I'm trying to cope with the "constructive possession" thing. The AR pistol in question has a bare pistol buffer tube with no brace. I have no intent to install a brace.

 

[stagpanther]

All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law. Rather than being detained and having to call in a lawyer while they figure it out, I'm just going to 16" rebarrel and forget it about it. That's just me and my avoidance nature--not saying anyone else should "cave" and do that as well.

 

[zeke]

All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law. Rather than being detained and having to call in a lawyer while they figure it out, I'm just going to 16" rebarrel and forget it about it. That's just me and my avoidance nature--not saying anyone else should "cave" and do that as well.

While i think the rule is ambiguous at best, am certainly not going to flaunt it. The rule does not even clearly define what is illegal (surface area), and that is only part of the problem, as it appears some can indeed use a buffer tube to shoulder. Then there are the buffer tubes that have the capability to use an adjustable length brace, in which some have a greater surface area than a consistent dia buffer tube.

 

[JohnKSa]

My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is.

Look back at my post. If this ever becomes an issue, someone's going to have to show that it can be reattached to get you into trouble. The demonstration is going to be important. If it fits right back on, that's not good. If they have to do a bunch of work to make it fit, that's good, and the harder it is, the better it is.

Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one.

That's completely irrelevant. You can't be held responsible for the fact that somewhere out there in the wide, wide world, there's a part that can be installed on your firearm that would make it illegal, or a specially regulated item. You absolutely CAN be held responsible for the fact that you possess such a part along with the firearm that it can be installed on.

The rule does not even clearly define what is illegal (surface area), and that is only part of the problem, as it appears some can indeed use a buffer tube to shoulder. Then there are the buffer tubes that have the capability to use an adjustable length brace, in which some have a greater surface area than a consistent dia buffer tube.

There's no way to do this without pages of text, but here's the best I can do:

If you possess a part for a pistol (along with the pistol that it fits) and the part makes the pistol easy/easier to shoulder, or the part can be used to shoulder the pistol and would normally be found on a rifle version of that firearm, or the part has been marketed as performing the function of a stock (i.e. for shouldering the gun), or the part is commonly used as a stock (i.e. for shouldering the gun) then you need to pay special attention to the rule.

Otherwise, not so much.

 

[stagpanther]

You absolutely CAN be held responsible for the fact that you possess such a part along with the firearm that it can be installed on.

Your wording does not explicitly say possession is evidenced by being physically installed to the pistol as the only condition of "intent." Let's say you go to the range with your AR pistol and just happen to have a spare stock in your kit--or even one that can be quickly swapped from another AR--does that explicitly exclude the possibility of "intent" as long as it remains off of the buffer (as Mr ATF emerges from the bushes)?

BTW--I believe the notion of "We're in this dilemma because everyone talked about and flaunted it on social media" is the reason this has happened is complete BS. It happened because people in the industry saw a way to exploit loopholes to make a weapon analogous to a licensed firearm IMO. Always follow the bouncing dollar sign.

 

[44 AMP]

BTW--I believe the notion of "We're in this dilemma because everyone talked about and flaunted it on social media" is the reason this has happened is complete BS. It happened because people in the industry saw a way to exploit loopholes to make a weapon analogous to a licensed firearm IMO. Always follow the bouncing dollar sign.

I don't think its total BS. Flaunting it on social media is part of the circle, and I feel that it was essentially "rolling rocks downhill starting an avalanche" It is absolutely a follow the $ thing. Show something off, get people interested, interested people spend money, manufactures want the money, they make stuff, and so the circle turns.

Another way to make something popular is to try and BAN IT.

Or have it featured in a popular movie/tv show,

OR have it featured in the press being used in horrifying crime...

 

[Metal god]

Not BS at all , in fact I’ve seen manufacturers display people shouldering there pistol braces on the front page of there advertisements . That’s flaunting and I’m not even sure why this is even debated. Is it the only reason, can’t think it would be but I’d bet dollars to donuts it’s the majority reason.

Being told it’s happening is a whole lot different then seeing it happening. Pick any number of stories we have heard about and how little we cared . However once seeing it happen changes how you feel about it .

I have one example of hearing about citizens being gassed in Syria . I thought that’s not good can’t believe they’d do that . I was not upset , really kinda indifferent. Then I saw video of children gasping for air looking half dead and everything changed on how I felt about it .

I’ll give another one not so tragic. An NFL player knocked out his girlfriend on a elevator. Story went around for a couple months with not much of a reaction by the press or the masses . To include him not being charged and a full disciplinary, hearing by the NFL with sanctions . Then the video came out of a 6’ 240lb dude punching a woman unconscious on a elevator and all hell broke loose . Like we don’t know it’s bad for a man to knock out a woman and yet people seeing it is what caused the huge reaction not simply knowing about .

Seeing it , changes your perception because in your mind you often don’t think the worst but you can’t avoid it when you see it . To think the ATF seeing Youtubers and manufacturers daily shouldering pistols with what looks no different then a stock did not push this regulation is at best naïve .

 

[44 AMP]

There you go. When you poke the bear enough, eventually the bear wakes up and does something about it.

And, its usually something we're not going to like....

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogtown Tom
Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.

You're in Texas. I'm not.

Every state is different, and the "fit" between federal and state laws is different for each combination.

It doesn't matter where I am or where you are.
What matters is you believe someone is a preeminent lawyer and he didn't bother reading the rule.

 

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa
I agree that the rule is not hard to understand. What people are having difficulty with is that they don't like what it says.

ATF took a couple of sheets of paper to issue that first determination letter.
Ten years later it takes a couple of hundred more to basically say "oops we changed our mind".

 

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

I wonder what is meant by "remove the brace so that it cannot be reattached."

Yes it is an odd phrasing. They could have written "smash it into iddy biddy bits".

 

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is.

The object is to not have a firearm that ATF has determined to be an NFA firearm.

Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one.

And?
If you do, you are in the same situation you were in when you removed the arm brace the first time.

 

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law.

Local LE doesn't enforce federal law, never has.

 

[dogtown tom]

HiBC I was initially going to use a Tailhook brace. Its aluminum with a hole bored through to be a snug fit on a pistol buffer tube. There is a pinch bolt feature to secure it. I have not installed it.

My machinist experience tells me that if I put a band of knurling around the buffer tube at the "butt" or closed end, the outside diameter of the buffer tube will increase,by perhaps .010 in. This will make it impossible to install the Tailhook on that buffer tube without cutting the knurling off.
I'm trying to cope with the "constructive possession" thing. The AR pistol in question has a bare pistol buffer tube with no brace. I have no intent to install a brace.

If you have possession of a pistol and an arm brace you are in "constructive possession" of an SBR even if the arm brace is not attached. This is because you have no legal means to configure the two.

If you have a legal means to attach that arm brace to another firearm, such as an AR rifle......you are not in constructive possession.

 

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

Your wording does not explicitly say possession is evidenced by being physically installed to the pistol as the only condition of "intent." Let's say you go to the range with your AR pistol and just happen to have a spare stock in your kit--or even one that can be quickly swapped from another AR--does that explicitly exclude the possibility of "intent" as long as it remains off of the buffer (as Mr ATF emerges from the bushes)?

You would be in possession of a shoulder stock and a pistol....and thats called constructive possession of an SBR. Does not matter if attached or not.

If you are dumb enough to have them out on display for all the world to see, it might draw attention you don't want or need.

 

[Sharkbite]

And the BATFE, in their “training for FFL’s” Q&A…says there is no need to destroy the brace. So that conflicts directly with the written rule.

Also, under the Thompson/Center ruling. You can turn a pistol into a rifle anytime you want. Install a 16”+ barrel and then a stock=Rifle.