While I agree the ATF is an active party in the current situation, the ATF approved very specific braces. The manufacturers of those braces then created new versions of those that were notably different, seemingly operating under the assumption that because braces in the past had been approved these new versions were approved as well.
ATF and pistol braces ?
- Thread starter kymasabe
- Start date
While I agree the ATF is an active party in the current situation, the ATF approved very specific braces. The manufacturers of those braces then created new versions of those that were notably different, seemingly operating under the assumption that because braces in the past had been approved these new versions were approved as well.
I'm not aware of what the original devices looked like. Would they be allowable under the new rules?
Since we won't know the new rules until they are released (at the end of this month) NO ONE can answer that question at this time.
I think going down the rabbit hole claiming the new ATF ruling (when we know what it is) will discriminate against disabled people will only leave you in the bottom of a hole.
Our laws are supposed to ensure equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME.
Given what we know at the moment, and what we expect the ATF to rule, pistol "braces" will not be banned or made illegal, no matter what the ruling is. What can happen is that SOME items, currently classified as a brace and NOT a stock, will be reclassified as stocks. That does not make them prohibited items, it makes them REGULATED under the NFA, instead of non NFA regulated as they currently are.
Popular, easy, and convenient are generally of little or no concern to the law (and not just firearms laws). People often claim otherwise, but take a look at how the courts rule.
SOME braces may be affected by a change in the ATF ruling. ALL braces, and the idea of a brace will not and cannot be. It would require more than an ATF rule change to do that.
I remember a gadget I saw back in the 70s, (I've forgotten the name, and its probably long gone now) that was, literally a "universal" pistol brace. AND, it was designed to fit against your shoulder, it had a buttplate and a part of it even acted as a cheekpiece.
It would work for every handgun out there. It was not regulated, and there was never a hint of talk about NFA item. Because, it did not attach to the gun! The forward end of the "stock" was a steel rod ending with a ball, which fitted into a socket on a wristband the shooter wore. Literally, the pistol wasn't braced, the shooter's ARM was.
That kind of system wouldn't appeal much to the UTubers who want to play SBR games using braces to avoid NFA regulation, but it is a fully functional brace allowing the benefits of rifle stock stability, and since it is neither a firearm, or part of one, avoids all firearms laws (that I know of).
I was under the impression the ATF form 4999 was the worksheet that was going to be used to determine the status of the firearm / brace combo.
I linked the form 4999 on the first page. Even if you dont have a brace, depending on the configuration, it could be considered a sbr. My suspicion is that they are trying to regulate the pistol format entirely, making the brace a component, to side step the legality of the brace itself.
stinkeypete
New member
I'm old. Everyone used to know that you can't have a sawed off shotgun or a short barrel rifle, stemming all the way back to gangster days and prohibition of alcohol.
Then some guys looked at the rules and said "Wait a minute... what if instead of putting a short barrel on a shotgun receiver, we make a whole new "firearm" with these characteristics. TECHNICALLY, it's inside the rules, right?"
The BATF says "Well, technically yeah. I guess you got around our intentions, but you're technically correct."
The post office says "Is this a long arm?" and you've got to say "no, it's not." And according to their rules, you can't ship it.
Then you talk to the private shipping companies and they say "Is this a long arm?" and you say "no". They ask "Is this a pistol?" And you say "no." And then they tell you they don't have rules for firearms like that and they don't care to ship it.
So... I am old. The Lone Ranger has a couple of pistols. You hold them in your hand. Nowadays, John Wick has a huge pistol, but you hold it in your hand. These things look like pistols.
But someone takes an AR receiver, registers it as a pistol, then puts a goofy crappy stock on the back and says "Oh! Wink! Wink! This is an 'arm brace!' Can we sell it?"
and the BATF says "Well, I dunno. As we rule now, I guess so."
The rest of us look at it and say "Well, it LOOKS exactly like a short barreled rifle to me."
So... if the rules change, you'll have a receiver registered as a pistol and you'll need to do what we used to do with Contenders- Never have a butt stock on and the short barrel on at the same time.
You can take off the buttstock and have a pistol (since the receiver is registered as such), or
You can put on an 18" barrel and have a rifle.
You can't do that if your receiver is registered as a rifle.
But since it's a pistol, I would say man up, shoot it one handed like a pistol and enjoy your pistol. 'Arm brace? I don't need no stinkin' arm brace to shoot a pistol! Me? I'm not interested in such things as they are not light and handy, nor accurate like a rifle.
Then some guys looked at the rules and said "Wait a minute... what if instead of putting a short barrel on a shotgun receiver, we make a whole new "firearm" with these characteristics. TECHNICALLY, it's inside the rules, right?"
The BATF says "Well, technically yeah. I guess you got around our intentions, but you're technically correct."
The post office says "Is this a long arm?" and you've got to say "no, it's not." And according to their rules, you can't ship it.
Then you talk to the private shipping companies and they say "Is this a long arm?" and you say "no". They ask "Is this a pistol?" And you say "no." And then they tell you they don't have rules for firearms like that and they don't care to ship it.
So... I am old. The Lone Ranger has a couple of pistols. You hold them in your hand. Nowadays, John Wick has a huge pistol, but you hold it in your hand. These things look like pistols.
But someone takes an AR receiver, registers it as a pistol, then puts a goofy crappy stock on the back and says "Oh! Wink! Wink! This is an 'arm brace!' Can we sell it?"
and the BATF says "Well, I dunno. As we rule now, I guess so."
The rest of us look at it and say "Well, it LOOKS exactly like a short barreled rifle to me."
So... if the rules change, you'll have a receiver registered as a pistol and you'll need to do what we used to do with Contenders- Never have a butt stock on and the short barrel on at the same time.
You can take off the buttstock and have a pistol (since the receiver is registered as such), or
You can put on an 18" barrel and have a rifle.
You can't do that if your receiver is registered as a rifle.
But since it's a pistol, I would say man up, shoot it one handed like a pistol and enjoy your pistol. 'Arm brace? I don't need no stinkin' arm brace to shoot a pistol! Me? I'm not interested in such things as they are not light and handy, nor accurate like a rifle.
At least one person here has linked the worksheet. When you look at the worksheet you realize it’s not just about the brace by itself. The entire configuration of the firearm, including optics and foregrips, are part of the evaluation.
The original devices by SB Tactical that were approved were the SB15 and MPX PSB. This is a subjective assessment, but to me they are notably different than a number of SB products sold today that are more stock like in appearance and function than those original products. You can read some of the communications between the ATF and SB Tactical here: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...races-that-do-not-have-determination-letters/.
I don’t personally blame people for reacting to bureaucracy by trying to find loopholes in that bureaucracy. To me it’s somewhat of a natural reaction. I think there is an element that sees the NFA as a construct meant to combat a form of crime that to a large part doesn’t exist anymore and can be combatted in other ways that don’t mean taking ~2” off of a barrel (in certain instances) turns a legally owned rifle into a class of firearm that, without the appropriate approval and tax, would now see that owner guilty of a felony. Especially as the loss of barrel length in that case likely doesn’t dramatically impact concealability (subjective opinion to be fair) and generally decreases lethality (I fully admit there are cases of much greater reduction in overall length, but this example shows the difficulty in picking a threshold). It also hasn’t stopped criminals from going that route (the Washington Naval Yard shooter made a short barreled shotgun, illegally), though it does create a potential charge when/if that person is caught.
I don’t think and I’ve never thought that pistol braces were any form of solution. Some people see using those loopholes as a form of defiance, and I get that, but if you take issue with the NFA then your goal should be working on the NFA. An admitted problem on that is in a Congressional environment where passing any form of legal changes as it relates to gun control is seemingly impossible (on both sides), that’s not an option. These loopholes become the target and people will exploit them, not really for nefarious intent but because they are often the path of least resistance.
Bill DeShivs
New member
There are no "loopholes." That's a liberal term for anything they don't like.
Things are either illegal, or legal. If they aren't illegal, they are legal. There is no grey area.
The fact that "firearms" are neither pistol or shotgun, is because the law says so.
The ATF agreed that arm braces are legal. Many millions have been sold legally on THEIR ruling. To suddenly change that ruling for any reason-much less because our executive branch is anti gun, and make millions of law abiding citizens felons is absurd.
Things are either illegal, or legal. If they aren't illegal, they are legal. There is no grey area.
The fact that "firearms" are neither pistol or shotgun, is because the law says so.
The ATF agreed that arm braces are legal. Many millions have been sold legally on THEIR ruling. To suddenly change that ruling for any reason-much less because our executive branch is anti gun, and make millions of law abiding citizens felons is absurd.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
No, the FFLs I deal with don't give me a copy of the 4473, but I do know what the item I'm buying is classified as.reddog81 said:
Link to the new (December 2022) 4473: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
The classification of the firearm is question #24, the first item after the buyer's signature and date. Note that above question 24 it says, "Section C - Must Be Completed By Transferor/Seller Prior To The Transfer Of The Firearm(s)". It was also question #24, just below the buyer's signature, on the 2020 edition of the 4473.
That means before you -- the buyer -- take possession, and before you walk out the door with your new toy. The FFLs typically fill that out while waiting for the authorization on the phone, and they have usually filled out the information about me and my identification before I sign the 4473.
On the 2016 version of the 4473, this was question #16, and that section was Section B. The classification question (#16) was also the first question below my signature.
Are you actually suggesting that you have bought firearms without knowing what type of firearms they were? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?
The term loophole has been in use since before either the Democratic or Republican parties existed in this country. In fact the term has been in use since before this country was even established. The term isn’t owned by either political party and I have seen people on “both sides of the aisle” use it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
I think it’s reasonable that people disagree on this issue. When we start arguing that the use of a common term is in itself political is where I think we go from reasonable argument to ridiculous. YMMV.
If the legal world really was black and white then we wouldn’t need the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws and determine their Constitutionality. Fortunately the founding fathers were able to predict that disagreements would happen and incorporate that branch of government.
Last edited:
You know, for a bunch of land owners, shop owners and tradesmen, our founding fathers were brilliant. I wish that kind of strength, courage, and common sense existed in politics today.
stinkeypete
New member
I am not a history scholar, but I am sure that if you research this deeply you'll find that the founding fathers were not simple farmers and tradesmen, but were in fact wealthy men, well read in philosophy and political science of the day. Benjamin Franklin was a scientist, etc. They were all 'liberals' of the day, the 'conservatives' supported King George.
This sort of notion is the same as the general population's notion of 'How the West was Won, by the Cowboy!"
These are good stories for entertainment or propaganda, but serious adults should want to know the more complicated truth of these matters.
As for my calling the mechanism by which something like a Shockwave or "AR Pistol with Armbrace" can be sold a 'loophole'- well, they look like sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles to me, and to anyone. You can not tell the difference, visually.
Yes, I am a liberal. I'm a little to the left of Karl Marx. I like blued steel and hardwood and have no interest in machine guns, sawed off shotguns or short barreled rifles, and I will stand by my opinion:
These things which are allowed by an rule interpretation can be changed by a rule interpretation.
My reasoning is the example of bump stocks.
My conclusion is- if you want it, go ahead and buy it. The worst that happens is you have to put it into compliance with the later interpretations.
I don't think that interpretation has anything to do with politics, but rather the rule of law.
This sort of notion is the same as the general population's notion of 'How the West was Won, by the Cowboy!"
These are good stories for entertainment or propaganda, but serious adults should want to know the more complicated truth of these matters.
As for my calling the mechanism by which something like a Shockwave or "AR Pistol with Armbrace" can be sold a 'loophole'- well, they look like sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles to me, and to anyone. You can not tell the difference, visually.
Yes, I am a liberal. I'm a little to the left of Karl Marx. I like blued steel and hardwood and have no interest in machine guns, sawed off shotguns or short barreled rifles, and I will stand by my opinion:
These things which are allowed by an rule interpretation can be changed by a rule interpretation.
My reasoning is the example of bump stocks.
My conclusion is- if you want it, go ahead and buy it. The worst that happens is you have to put it into compliance with the later interpretations.
I don't think that interpretation has anything to do with politics, but rather the rule of law.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The problem with the rule of law is that the laws are written by mortals, who are imperfect. And the imperfect mortals who write the laws often (usually? always?) have political reasons behind their drafting of the laws. The fact that laws (in general) are not perfect, despite being in black and white, is demonstrated by the path laws take to get to the Supreme Court.stinkeypete said:
A typical law might be ruled constitutional by a lower court, then ruled unconstitutional by a 3-judge panel at the appellate level, then reversed and ruled constitutional by a full en banc hearing at the appellate level, and then decided (whichever way it goes) by a split decision (possibly 5-4) at the Supreme Court. If the law was perfect and crystal clear, it would seem that every judge along the way would agree on whether or not said law is in accord with the Constitution.
And we have seen that even at the SCOTUS level, some of the decisions, and certainly some of the votes of individual justices, are clearly influenced by politics. Remember, our Constitution states that it is the highest law of the land. Yet the late Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg thought our Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of what courts in Europe are doing. There is ZERO support for that opinion in the Constitution -- that's a purely political opinion, and it was shocking (to me) that a Supreme Court Justice would say (or even think) that.
And this is why we will continue to lose our rights. Everyone is bickering back and forth about what they think and we can't even come together to agree and say this is wrong that the ATF approved the braces as a legal item and is now back peddling and changing the rules after millions of braces have been sold. Fudds on one side saying braces are wrong and tac ta cool people saying it should be legal because (insert reason here). If we fail to come together and fight for gun rights as a whole, the other side will keep picking our rights away and we will end up like Australia or Canada, death by a 1000 cuts.
That's all correct but typically the FFL fills out their info after I fill out my info. I don't review what they record. I have watched them fill out the section before a few times but never with the intent of auditing them. I have purchased a few AR lowers years ago and have no idea how they were recorded. I'd be willing to bet more than a few others on this thread couldn't verify how the lowers they purchased were recorded by their FFL.
In these scenarios I knew what I was purchasing but not necessarily aware of what the FFL was recording.
dogtown tom
New member
You should.
There's a very good reason that ATF redesigned the 4473 in 2020 and instructs dealers to complete Section A before the transferee/buyer completes section B.
True.
But being a full 80% of buyers can't complete a 4473 without me handing it back for corrections or missed questions, I don't think most buyers give a hoot.
Adventurer 2
New member
December 28, 2022 has passed. What was determined? Pistol brace owners want to know.
Bill DeShivs
New member
Well, a federal judge just ruled that the bump stock ruling was unconstitutional-so I imagine ATF is rethinking the brace situation.