ATF and pistol braces ?

[Sharkbite]

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.
No, it doesn't.
ATF has made it abundantly clear of the options nonlicensee's and licensees have in regards to a pistol with an attached arm brace

I was on the live training that was provided by the BATFE regarding this rule. And YES, they explicitly stated a couple times that the brace did not need to be destroyed. As i said, that is in direct conflict with the written rule.

My point is that even the “experts” (those chosen to address questions about this rule) cant give a straight answer.

As i said in another post, the Thompson/center SCOTUS ruling says i can turn a pistol into a rifle by adding a16”+ barrel and then installing a stock (or now a brace). How do i do that if i am forced to alter the brace so it cant be re-installed.

I happen to have more then a few actual rifle stocks in my parts bin. Why cant i just put my braces in the parts bin and not worry about constructive possession?

 

[P Flados]

Given that the rule specifically allows owners of braced AR pistols to toss the brace and keep the existing buffer tube (with notches or setscrew indents), I see no reason to worry about any current buffer tube on an existing gun.

For companies making AR pistols going forward, the text quoted by JohnKSa is probably more meaningful.

 

[HiBC]

Whether its right or wrong....Some in the Law Enforcement biz create scenarios in their own heads then project their own thought/fears onto law abiding citizens. "How do I know you aren't...." Or You Won't ... when "Probable cause" is weak to non existent.

The "moving goalposts" have caused many of us to reconfigure guns we built on good faith to comply with BATF letters. "What? Thats not legal per the new rules? I paid $125 for it!! So it goes in the non-compliant box.
Obviously, the intent is to stay a law abiding citizen.
Along with the Tailhook brace in the "Parts" is a 16 in bbl,an upper ,a forend,and odds and ends. To actually comply with the constructive assembly rules I think I need another lower to build a 16 in carbine or I need to ditch the tailhook.

It is what it is. I don't want to be vulnerable to arrest.

 

[stagpanther]

ATF has never held that the buffer tube has to be a smooth pistol tube and in fact has held that a normal carbine tube is perfectly fine or an AR pistol.

I don't believe that is entirely correct. There have been requests for "rulings clarifications" to the ATF on the nature of braces/stocks by the industry over time--and I distinctly recall on one of them that the ability of the brace to be adjusted rapidly was a major factor in determination of whether it remained a pistol or not. This was at least implicitly recognizing the carbine buffer tubes with the the rail and detente holes were potentially not compliant (because a quick adjust stock could be easily attached) and I'm sure that's the way that many in industry took it as evidenced by the proliferation of smooth buffer tube pistol ARs.

 

[9x19]

The smooth buffer tubes were a cheaper alternative when "braces" didn't exist, plus they allowed for a soft foam sleeve, for those who liked the cheek weld method of shooting them. I don't believe they were ever a regulatory requirement on an AR pistol.

 

[stagpanther]

I don't believe they were ever a regulatory requirement on an AR pistol.

They were never a regulatory requirement--but what was expressed--again this is by my sometimes fallible recollection--was an ATF opinion on ruling that explicitly precluded the rapid adjustablity of the brace/stock. While this did not preclude a carbine buffer tube explicitly--it did suggest that the use of a carbine style buffer tube with an adjustable brace/stock would not be a conforming pistol. The very first pistol AR I had was in fact the pistol tube with foam covering--but that's the way pistol buffer tubes usually came back then. Then along came the sig rubber duckie which made it necessary to remove the foam condom but was quite difficult to move around as a way to get around the adjustability thing. I think it was KAK's blade that first opened the "floodgate" to people happily banging away with their SBR doppelgängers.

 

[JohnKSa]

...but what was expressed--again this is by my sometimes fallible recollection--was an ATF opinion on ruling that explicitly precluded the rapid adjustablity of the brace/stock. While this did not preclude a carbine buffer tube explicitly--it did suggest that the use of a carbine style buffer tube with an adjustable brace/stock would not be a conforming pistol.

That's about what I see in the rule.

There is no direct prohibition against a buffer tubes with detents/stops or a rifle or a carbine buffer tubes.

There is definitely wording that makes a brace that is easily adjustable in length legally problematic, as well as wording that suggests that a tube that is longer than it needs to be for function is questionable.

 

[Metal god]

Longer then “needs” to be for function- seems like a very exploitable term for both sides . I don’t really have that much gunsmithing knowledge and even I can think of any number of designs that would allow any length buffer tube that by “design” needs to be that long . Like a long buffer which needs a longer buffer tube to allow for the extra length . I bring this up because it seem that part of the regulation would allow the atf to dictate ar design . Do you “need” a heavier or lighter buffer for the firearm to function for example . My AR works “fine” with a standard buffer but is better with an H2 .

No it probably doesn’t mean what Im saying now but can it be interpreted that way in the future by the atf when they feel the need . I just don’t like that wording. My rifle functions just fine with either a carbine or rifle buffer tubes . Which means the rifle buffer tube could be banned because it’s not necessary for function . I know it’s a rifle not a pistol but the point is the same .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There have been requests for "rulings clarifications" to the ATF on the nature of braces/stocks by the industry over time--and I distinctly recall on one of them that the ability of the brace to be adjusted rapidly was a major factor in determination of whether it remained a pistol or not.

The new rule says all prior determinations [on this topic] are void, so it really doesn't matter what any previous rulings clarifications may have said. We now have to go by the language in the new rule.

 

[stagpanther]

so it really doesn't matter what any previous rulings clarifications may have said.

It does when it comes to the "history" of your AR pistol--in other words how you built it to begin with. All you're saying is "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." You are now faced with retroactive non-compliance if you built something that you made every attempt to maintain current compliance with.

 

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa

Quote:
ATF has never held that the buffer tube has to be a smooth pistol tube and in fact has held that a normal carbine tube is perfectly fine or an AR pistol.

The new rule makes it sound like a buffer tube that is longer than it needs to be for function could be an issue.

"In contrast, material on a firearm that extends the rear surface area of the firearm toward the shooter but is required for the cycle of operations, such as an AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6–1⁄2 inch buffer tube, may be an indicator that the firearm is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. "

"may be" is not the same as "is".

 

[dogtown tom]

Sharkbite

Quote:
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.

No, it doesn't.
ATF has made it abundantly clear of the options nonlicensee's and licensees have in regards to a pistol with an attached arm brace

I was on the live training that was provided by the BATFE regarding this rule. And YES, they explicitly stated a couple times that the brace did not need to be destroyed. As i said, that is in direct conflict with the written rule.

Im not disagreeing with what was said in the ATF training, just pointing out that what you believe is in "direct conflict with the written rule" is simply not true. ATF materials give nonlicensees and licensees options that do not require destruction of the arm brace or firearm. I attached the ATF document above.

My point is that even the “experts” (those chosen to address questions about this rule) cant give a straight answer.

That you dont understand, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

As i said in another post, the Thompson/center SCOTUS ruling says i can turn a pistol into a rifle by adding a16”+ barrel and then installing a stock (or now a brace). How do i do that if i am forced to alter the brace so it cant be re-installed.

It's been posted multiple times that you do not have to destroy the brace IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL MEANS TO ATTACH IT. You have other AR rifles it can certainly be swapped in as a shoulder stock on any of those.

I happen to have more then a few actual rifle stocks in my parts bin. Why cant i just put my braces in the parts bin and not worry about constructive possession?

Which is exactly what we have been saying. "Constructive possession" means you have no possible configuration other than as an SBR.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

so it really doesn't matter what any previous rulings clarifications may have said.

It does when it comes to the "history" of your AR pistol--in other words how you built it to begin with. All you're saying is "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." You are now faced with retroactive non-compliance if you built something that you made every attempt to maintain current compliance with.

Yes, exactly. That's why so many people are concerned about this new rule.

And it's not I who is saying "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." It's the BATFE. The new rule specifically states that prior determinations are void. That means (to me -- IANAL) that any history of building with the intent of compliance is now moot and irrelevant. What matters now is whether or not the firearm complies with the new rule.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Some posts have gone walk-about.

Stick to facts and take any personal confrontations to PM.

 

[JohnKSa]

"may be" is not the same as "is".

Very true. I worded it that way very specifically because I don't see anything definite in the rule but I do see some "hints".

Longer then “needs” to be for function- seems like a very exploitable term for both sides .

Everybody decides what level of risk they want to take on. If you can afford the legal costs and think you can convince a judge jury then go for it.

If you want the safest route, my opinion is to go with a standard pistol length buffer tube (the document mentions the length of 6" to 6.5") without any stops/detents, padding, extensions or attachment points.

What matters now is whether or not the firearm complies with the new rule.

To take a larger view, one could say that the first step is to determine whether the new rule is consistent with federal law. That's what the lawsuits will determine.

If one has a strong grasp of federal law and feels that this rule is not consistent with federal law, then maybe they want to wait to see how the lawsuits pan out.

Ignoring that factor, the statement is correct. It doesn't matter how things were under the previous (now invalidated) rulings. The new rule is what matters. There's no point at all in bringing up the old rulings except to rant.

 

[stagpanther]

On a different thread the possibility of a pinned muzzle device is mentioned as a way to increase length of barrel. I suspect this is yet another "loophole" that will eventually be closed. Here's a very creative adaptation from Odin which is essentially a super-long barrel shroud integrated into the barrel. If it were not for my pessimistic take on the general direction of AR pistol regulation, I'd be tempted to try this out of curiosity.

 

[JohnKSa]

Pinning alone is not sufficient to increase barrel length from a legal standpoint--it will need to be pinned and then welded so the pin can't be removed.

 

[stagpanther]

These reportedly are both pinned and welded. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to make a (illegal) short barrel AR out of a legal rifle it's pretty easy to simply cut down the length of any barrel.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Pinning alone is not sufficient to increase barrel length from a legal standpoint--it will need to be pinned and then welded so the pin can't be removed.

Correct, but for clarification: this doesn't mean the muzzle brake or flash hider has to be welded all around after pinning. It only means the head of the pin has to be welded over to prevent removal.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/pinning-a-muzzle-brake-to-your-rifle/

Silver soldering is another acceptable method.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have only seen one advertisement for permanently attaching a bloop tube to an existing brace gun barrel, seems like there would be more shops doing it. Maybe as the 120 days wears down with no courtroom win.