What confuses me about this is who actually classifies the item in question according to the "guides" they would set up? Taken literally, the smaller pistol calibered items with wrap around the forearm braces may qualify as exempt, if their lop is short enough. I can easily shoot one with one hand.
ATF seeks to reclassify pistol braces as NFA items
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
The ATF does the classification. Their technical department determines that.
As I understand it (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong) someone wanting to make a firearm or certain accessories submits their design to the ATF.
The ATF reviews it, and decides where the item fits under existing law, thereby "classifying" it.
the problem we are having is that we feel this should be a one time and done thing, and it isn't. The ATF may re-review and re-classify things when they feel like it, provided they follow the established procedure for that.
Which is, (I think) the proposed rule change is published in certain documents (Federal register???) with a request for comments to be submitted, for a set period of time. After that, the ATF reviews the comments, and decided to make the change, or not. (supposedly based on the input recieved, but you and I know how the world works, so what they actually base their decision on could be something else...)
There is a general perception that the ATF is out to get us, and while there may be individuals with that as their personal agenda the Agency's mission if to enforce compliance with the law. Not to judge the law, but to enforce compliance with every stupid, twisted confusing part of the various laws.
They don't hate us, but they don't give us the benefit of the doubt very often, either. If you want to blame anyone for an "out of control" agency, blame the out of control CONGRESSes (past, current, and most likely future) for giving them the authority and the tools to work with.
And, of course also the Executive Branch (which they are part of) for their specific marching orders...
And, yes, we are partly to blame, as the children amongst us can't seem to help but stir up crap that is better left alone.
I Have a TINY bit of sympathy for the ATF in this matter, simply because that while they ruled on Braces based on the maker's intent (which is not shouldering the brace) countless morons on internet Video showing that people are actually ignoring the maker's intent and using then AS STOCKS puts the ATF in a bit of a tough spot.
Using it as a stock without it being registered as a stocked pistol is against the law. but they can hardly be busting people in the act, congratulations, you were legal, but if you allow this thing to touch your shoulder now you're a federal felon (as soon as we can get you to court) is hardly something that goes over well with the American public.
the people doing those videos, like the people bragging about "ghost guns" quite literally created the problem, by sticking out their tongues, sticking their thumbs in the ears and waggling their fingers DARING the ATF to do something about it.
Well guess what kids, the ATF IS doing something about it.
And you don't like it...
If you carefully read the 2017 (???) BATF "letter of guidance" the the BATF, said "How a part or accessory is used does not re-engineer or redesign the part or accessory" Thats from memory not a direct quote.
They further said "incidental or occasional use" of a brace against the shoulder was not a problem.
Mine has no brace on it so this is moot,but this issue is the reason mine has no brace.
A while back I started a thread about assembling an AR pistol in 300 Blackout.
I included some steps I took for myself based on my interpretation of the BATF memo.
I paid attention to the part about the gun not being engineered to be shoulder fired.
That,IMO,meant paying attention to factors like eye relief..A short eye relief scope could be construed as engineering the gun to be shoulder fired.
I was not telling anyone what to do,I was not telling anyone their gun was wrong.
I was just sharing my experience and considerations.
I could not believe the amount of negative crap I got for it.
I did not get any "Hmmm,thanks! I had not thought about that"
Could be its not about the guys who built pistols with legit braces.(No matter how they hold them) It might be
about guys who designed and built the gun to be an SBR with the minor workaround of a brace instead of a buttstock.
You guys who gave me the most negative posts.
I'd give you some honest feedback now,but the Mods would tell me I'm not supposed to talk that way.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=608605&highlight=300+blackout+ar+pistol&page=2
They further said "incidental or occasional use" of a brace against the shoulder was not a problem.
Mine has no brace on it so this is moot,but this issue is the reason mine has no brace.
A while back I started a thread about assembling an AR pistol in 300 Blackout.
I included some steps I took for myself based on my interpretation of the BATF memo.
I paid attention to the part about the gun not being engineered to be shoulder fired.
That,IMO,meant paying attention to factors like eye relief..A short eye relief scope could be construed as engineering the gun to be shoulder fired.
I was not telling anyone what to do,I was not telling anyone their gun was wrong.
I was just sharing my experience and considerations.
I could not believe the amount of negative crap I got for it.
I did not get any "Hmmm,thanks! I had not thought about that"
Could be its not about the guys who built pistols with legit braces.(No matter how they hold them) It might be
about guys who designed and built the gun to be an SBR with the minor workaround of a brace instead of a buttstock.
You guys who gave me the most negative posts.
I'd give you some honest feedback now,but the Mods would tell me I'm not supposed to talk that way.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=608605&highlight=300+blackout+ar+pistol&page=2
Last edited:
None of my AR pistols have magnified scopes with short eye relief and i can see that being an indication of being shoulder fired.
Truthfully, i never considered a forward handstop or angled foregrip as a sign of the same. Now that it has been pointed out, it makes sense. If the gun is designed to be fired with one hand...why install a place to put a second hand.
Truthfully, i never considered a forward handstop or angled foregrip as a sign of the same. Now that it has been pointed out, it makes sense. If the gun is designed to be fired with one hand...why install a place to put a second hand.
The goalposts can move. Thats a large part of this thread.
As far as I know,a vertical foregrip is not OK. IMO,its a "looks" thing .
An angled foregrip,or handstop,as far as I know,is OK. IMO,a definite landmark place for the hand is important (to me) with the short barrel. I don't want to shoot my fingers off. I'd also be concerned about gas injury from brakes,comps.or flash hiders. I learned about revolver cylinder gaps the hard way,resting my RSBH on my knees,sitting.
Between the front sight post and the AFG,my hand has a home.
I'm not the BATF,but IMO...on the "Firing one handed" criteria...I can fire my AR pistol one handed. Just as I can fire my 1911 or my S+W one handed. Just as the BATF Agent can fire his Glock one handed.
But I bet the "normal" way to fire the 1911,the S+W,or the Glock is two handed,whatever works best. A 1911 does not stop being a handgun if fired two handed.
A lot of handguns have a squared of trigger guard,the plan being its a spot for the weak hand finger. Its a support place for the weak hand that is not the handgun's grip.
My bull barreled MOA Maximum single shot with a 14 in bbl ,a scope,in .260 Remington CAN be fired one handed,but not accurately. It is unquestionably a handgun,but nobody shoots it held out one handed.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But with 1911s, S&W Model 29s, Glocks, Berettas, when using two hands both hands go in the same place -- one the handgrip, not on a vertical or angled protrusion from a foregrip or fore end.HiBC said:
Let's consider the legal (not dictionary) definition of a "pistol." From the BATFE web site, which references two federal regulations:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol
How many years have pistols been around? They had them at the time of the American Revolution, so at least 250 years, probably more than 300 years. When did people start shooting them with a two-hand hold -- maybe 25 or 30 years ago, at most? I enlisted in the Army in 1966. 1911s were still shot one-handed when I was in the Army. Which is a way of pointing out that what you youngsters now consider the "normal" way to fire a handgun is, historically, not the norm. If the legal definition were to be revised to account for that modern two-hand hold, it's very likely that it would incorporate some sort of language to limit the use to two hands to placing them both on the same part of the firearm, not on a vertical protrusion hung off the forward part of the firearm below the barrel.
From the second federal regulation mentioned in the BATFE definition:
That's them just making things up correct ? Good faith or not they said the bump stocks ok then bump stocks not ok .
Oh they can move alright , sometimes to a completely different sport . This next part may sound like a joke but I'm dead serious . If boys can be girls and girls can be boys now . How any of us thinks a brace can't be a stock is beyond me .
As for a firearm intending to be fired with one hand ?? I use two hands 99% of the time when shooting my handguns and if it were safe I'd likely try holding the barrel of a 8" revolver to steady it .
IMHO this is not about the braces , scope or forward grip . It's the stupidity of a short barreled rifle in the first place . If pistol calibers can be rifles and rifle calibers can be pistols . Why is there a short barreled regulation ? It seems moot to me or maybe I'm looking at it with to much simplicity .
EDIT : I was writing as Aguila was posting and that's a good point about the history of one hand being used to shoot pistols .
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I suspect it goes back to a concern about "powerful" weapons that are capable of being concealed on the person. If we look back at the language from the NFA of 1934, we find the following definition of what was considered to be a "firearm" under the NFA:Metal god said:
(emphasis added)
OK,what about a Contender 14 ,or the big TC Encores,or an XP-100 clone.
Do people typically shoot 14 in + barreled single shot handguns one handed?
Is there any threat to reclassify them?
What about a clutch pedal slide stop on a 1911 race gun?
What about an 89 yr old Granny who cannot hold her handgun out one handed,does the gun become a non handgun?
What does the strength of the hand/forearm have to do with the classification f a firearm?
If you read the BAF 2017 guidelines,it clearly accepts handguns being built on a AR platform. It clearly states they have no issue with the buffer tube/receiver extension.
From the 2017 BATF guideline:
From the BATF:
"The receiver extension/buffer tube on an AR-type pistol serves a legitimate, vital function in the operation of the weapon system; and if utilized as originally designed is not considered to be a shoulder stock. Further, a pistol that has an AR-t1pe buffer tube or similar component assembled to it, which consequently allows for the installation of a saddle/cheek enhancement accessory, is not classified as a SBR; nor unlawful to possess.
However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in tum, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. $ 58a5(a)(3); has been made."
End quote.
Note the clear and specific OK for a saddle or cheekpiece on the buffer tube.
Is it OK to make the leap that says its OK to place the cheek enhancement against my cheek??? I don't have any "enhancement" but I do spotweld the buffer tube against my cheek.
No brace. Note the buffer tube is just below my earlobe. I do have a neck,so the buffertube is higher than my shoulder.
Now,lets get Gray's Anatomy out and look carefully at the definition of "Shoulder", Is breastbone "Shoulder"? Is mid clavicle ,under the eye,"Shoulder"?
If you say it is,please offer an authoritive reference beyond your opinion.
And lets not forget the 14 in plus barreled single shot handguns. Are you seriously telling me that if I put my hand on the forend for support it becomes an SBR? How does that work out for the folks who shoot steel rams?
Another point,different topic. I prefer my AR pistol remain classified as a pistol. Some jurisdictions permit open carry of a pistol,but not a long gun. My concealed carry permit allows me to carry a concealed pistol,but not a short barreled rifle. I can have a round chambered in a vehicle with a pistol,not a rifle. No,I don't do those things,but I like the option open.Another thing about registering as a SBR NFA weapon,If you want to cross a state line,you have to notify the BATF and get permission.
I don't know anything about using NFA weapons for self defense. Is that frowned on? An AR pistol is not an NFA weapon. A SBR is.
Do people typically shoot 14 in + barreled single shot handguns one handed?
Is there any threat to reclassify them?
What about a clutch pedal slide stop on a 1911 race gun?
What about an 89 yr old Granny who cannot hold her handgun out one handed,does the gun become a non handgun?
What does the strength of the hand/forearm have to do with the classification f a firearm?
If you read the BAF 2017 guidelines,it clearly accepts handguns being built on a AR platform. It clearly states they have no issue with the buffer tube/receiver extension.
From the 2017 BATF guideline:
From the BATF:
"The receiver extension/buffer tube on an AR-type pistol serves a legitimate, vital function in the operation of the weapon system; and if utilized as originally designed is not considered to be a shoulder stock. Further, a pistol that has an AR-t1pe buffer tube or similar component assembled to it, which consequently allows for the installation of a saddle/cheek enhancement accessory, is not classified as a SBR; nor unlawful to possess.
However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in tum, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. $ 58a5(a)(3); has been made."
End quote.
Note the clear and specific OK for a saddle or cheekpiece on the buffer tube.
Is it OK to make the leap that says its OK to place the cheek enhancement against my cheek??? I don't have any "enhancement" but I do spotweld the buffer tube against my cheek.
No brace. Note the buffer tube is just below my earlobe. I do have a neck,so the buffertube is higher than my shoulder.
Now,lets get Gray's Anatomy out and look carefully at the definition of "Shoulder", Is breastbone "Shoulder"? Is mid clavicle ,under the eye,"Shoulder"?
If you say it is,please offer an authoritive reference beyond your opinion.
And lets not forget the 14 in plus barreled single shot handguns. Are you seriously telling me that if I put my hand on the forend for support it becomes an SBR? How does that work out for the folks who shoot steel rams?
Another point,different topic. I prefer my AR pistol remain classified as a pistol. Some jurisdictions permit open carry of a pistol,but not a long gun. My concealed carry permit allows me to carry a concealed pistol,but not a short barreled rifle. I can have a round chambered in a vehicle with a pistol,not a rifle. No,I don't do those things,but I like the option open.Another thing about registering as a SBR NFA weapon,If you want to cross a state line,you have to notify the BATF and get permission.
I don't know anything about using NFA weapons for self defense. Is that frowned on? An AR pistol is not an NFA weapon. A SBR is.
Last edited:
"The ATF does the classification. Their technical department determines that."
Then wouldn't they then need adequate time/process to classify all the varying makes/models/manufacturers before requiring compliance? As of yet, am not seeing any real clear answer/discussion of this.
Already have several, and am listed as the manufacturer. Lot's of braced pistols were sold in complete form.
Then wouldn't they then need adequate time/process to classify all the varying makes/models/manufacturers before requiring compliance? As of yet, am not seeing any real clear answer/discussion of this.
Already have several, and am listed as the manufacturer. Lot's of braced pistols were sold in complete form.
I have a strong hunch that ATF's classification and subsequent definitions / enforcement are largely decided by Federal Prosecutors, much akin to State LEO agency's going to their State Attorney General's office and local Police seek out their County District Attorney's advice pertaining to legal definitions / enforcement. CYA is the name of the game.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The problem is that, as often happens, the law lags behind technical innovation/evolution. Laws are written based on what the people writing the laws are thinking at that time. A good example, unrelated to AR pistols but related to firearms, is the FOPA travel provisions. We know from records of the discussions that the legislative intent was to allow lawful owners of firearms to travel freely from one state to another with their firearms. But ... the language appears to address only travel by private automobile, and doesn't even address what the lawful traveler is supposed to do with his securely cased firearm if, in the course of driving from Presque Isle, Maine to San Diego, California, he/she has to stop overnight and sleep in a motel. Taken at face value, the law appears to require that the firearm(s) must be left locked in their cases in the vehicle overnight ... yet we know that's an open invitation for them to be stolen. And then there's the issue of travel through airports, as highlighted by the Greg Revell case a few years ago.HiBC said:
Back to AR pistols. The buffer tube is a necessary, integral part of the AR-15 mechanism. It houses what might be referred to and regarded as the recoil spring. And, in fact, the weight of the buffer tube and spring assembly helps to equalize the balance of an AR pistol when equipped with a short barrel. Consequently, it's not a surprise that the BATFE would decide that
"The receiver extension/buffer tube on an AR-type pistol serves a legitimate, vital function in the operation of the weapon system; and if utilized as originally designed is not considered to be a shoulder stock."
The first AR pistols were basically just a receiver with a bare buffer tube hanging out the back -- with nothing on it. So that's all that's required -- mechanically -- to make the firearm work.
The next statement gets into a slightly (??) grayer area:
"Further, a pistol that has an AR-type buffer tube or similar component assembled to it, which consequently allows for the installation of a saddle/cheek enhancement accessory, is not classified as a SBR; nor unlawful to possess."
Not being at all into AR pistols, I have no idea what a "saddle/cheek enhancement" is so I'll assume it's something on the end of the buffer tube that you rest your cheek against. Fine. Cheek =/= shoulder. The laws the BATFE enforces consider rifles to be firearms designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Pretty much by definition, a cheek rest is designed and intended to rest the cheek against, and not to be placed against the shoulder.
So then look at the next part of what you cited from the BATFE:
"However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in tum, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. $ 58a5(a)(3); has been made."
That seems pretty clear to me. If you (not necessarily HiBC, but "you" meaning a hypothetical someone) put a "wrist brace" (wink, wink -- nudge, nudge) on an AR "pistol" knowing that you intend to use it as a shoulder stock, IMHO you (hypothetical someone) have knowingly violated the law. You knew when you did it you were pulling the tiger's tail, and now you're upset because the tiger wants to bite you.
Sometimes we (gun owners as a whole) are our own worst enemy.
Its not quite correct to assume the cheekpiece or saddle goes at the end of the buffer tube. In picture in the above posts,you see a rubber sleeve over the tube.That is what they are talking about.
If it extended to the rear of the tube,and increased the surface area at the end of the tube,it might be a problem. You cannot use a crutch tip,I have been told.
I had a discussion with a Gentleman very well versed in all aspects of the AR platform. Its best I don't identify him.
I told him I was focused on my M-1 carbine folder as a compact SD piece. He suggested an AR pistol 300 BLK would be a good idea. I had a NIB lower,so I was interested.
I did NOT want anything that would get me in trouble. Its just not worth it to me. Better I would stick with the M-1 carbine.I researched all I could find. I was not looking for what I could get away with. I was looking for how to build a squeaky clean compliant AR pistol.
With the uncertainty,I have a naked pistol buffer tube. Based on the statement a cheek rest is permissable,I assume the buffer tube may rest against my cheek. My positioning is such the rear surface of the buffer tube does not contact my shoulder. I do not have a cheek rest.
While right now today,I believe a Magpul AFG is OK, I took it off.I have no form of fore grip.
My length of pull is well under 12 inches. If an AR pistol is legal at all,mine is squeaky clean.
I'll say it again,within the context of barrels less than 16 inches,so long as no shoulder stock is attached, I don't see a reason I cant hold an AR pistol any way I could hold a TC Encore or an XP-100 or my 14 in MOA handgun,regarding where I put my hand or hands.All of those singleshots have useable forends. I can reliably hit clay birds at 200 yds with my MOA handgun,but not shooting it one handed. Its useless one handed.
I offer a LuckyGunner video on ths topic. Its 4 months old. There are videos only a couple of days old. They were more venting than good ,useful info.
Lucky Gunner's is IMO,more educational.
Note at about 9:30 he describes some about "indicators" regarding how the BATF assesses "intent" to use an AR pistol as a SBR. They DO consider factors like short eye relief magnified scopes. That would be an "indicator" the gun was designed to be used as an SBR.
What I have been told is my "Over thinking" ,,is exactly appropriate to the way the BATF looks at it.
https://youtu.be/0EjkIBD3Vrs
If it extended to the rear of the tube,and increased the surface area at the end of the tube,it might be a problem. You cannot use a crutch tip,I have been told.
I had a discussion with a Gentleman very well versed in all aspects of the AR platform. Its best I don't identify him.
I told him I was focused on my M-1 carbine folder as a compact SD piece. He suggested an AR pistol 300 BLK would be a good idea. I had a NIB lower,so I was interested.
I did NOT want anything that would get me in trouble. Its just not worth it to me. Better I would stick with the M-1 carbine.I researched all I could find. I was not looking for what I could get away with. I was looking for how to build a squeaky clean compliant AR pistol.
With the uncertainty,I have a naked pistol buffer tube. Based on the statement a cheek rest is permissable,I assume the buffer tube may rest against my cheek. My positioning is such the rear surface of the buffer tube does not contact my shoulder. I do not have a cheek rest.
While right now today,I believe a Magpul AFG is OK, I took it off.I have no form of fore grip.
My length of pull is well under 12 inches. If an AR pistol is legal at all,mine is squeaky clean.
I'll say it again,within the context of barrels less than 16 inches,so long as no shoulder stock is attached, I don't see a reason I cant hold an AR pistol any way I could hold a TC Encore or an XP-100 or my 14 in MOA handgun,regarding where I put my hand or hands.All of those singleshots have useable forends. I can reliably hit clay birds at 200 yds with my MOA handgun,but not shooting it one handed. Its useless one handed.
I offer a LuckyGunner video on ths topic. Its 4 months old. There are videos only a couple of days old. They were more venting than good ,useful info.
Lucky Gunner's is IMO,more educational.
Note at about 9:30 he describes some about "indicators" regarding how the BATF assesses "intent" to use an AR pistol as a SBR. They DO consider factors like short eye relief magnified scopes. That would be an "indicator" the gun was designed to be used as an SBR.
What I have been told is my "Over thinking" ,,is exactly appropriate to the way the BATF looks at it.
https://youtu.be/0EjkIBD3Vrs
Last edited:
Can someone please explain to me why I keep hearing this argument ? If the manufacture makes a muzzle brake that just so happens to mute the firing report of the firearm . That's ok because they called it a muzzle brake instead of a silencer ? We have that same thing going on in CA . Flash hiders are a no no here . So guys are making "compensators" that reduce the flash . How is that NOT going to come back and bite us in the butt ? Maybe not today but at some point the law makers here will just outlaw all muzzle devices putting an end to this word game so many like to play .
Anyone think that's not exactly what the BATF is doing with pistol braces . I'm sure they see the word games we are playing and are saying . OK , how do you like our new words in the form of new regulations , we can play word games too !
Aguila Blanca
Staff
HiBC said:
I just looked again -- I don't see any pictures in any of the posts in this thread.
You are not the problem. The problem is the people who buy and install "wrist braces" knowing full well that they will probably never shoot their AR "pistol" one-handed, and knowing full well that their intent is to use the "wrist brace" as a butt stock.HiBC said:
And those people cause the BATFE to take action, thereby ruining things for the gun owners who just want to know what the law allows and NOT pull the tiger's tail.
stagpanther
New member
I knew this was a disaster right from the start and quickly chose to learn to use just the bare buffer tube. It's not rocket science.
Chipperman
New member
Well I sent letters to ATF, Trump, both Senators, and Congresswoman.
Hope it helps some.
Hope it helps some.
- Status