Pistol Braces legal again ??
- Thread starter kymasabe
- Start date
- Status
Adventurer 2
New member
I see Palmetto State Armory is selling pistols with braces again.
Next, instead of fighting it in the 5th, our overlords will - after a decade saying its Ok - circle back around and say shouldering a brace makes you a felon holding a SBR (again). Those of us in red and 2nd sanctuary states are fairly safe, but those of you with democrat prosecutors better watch out*.
Read about Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St Louis.
Also, I for example, am surrounded by BLM land - that's federal - Do not take your braced pistols into the BLM (or any federal land/park) even if you're in a solid red state. The federal Ranger you run into may not be 2a friendly*.
*Remember, the brace issue is political and the law is on the books, the case is in the courts, they can still arrest you and let a court sort it out later - much later and many thousands of $$ later if its not dismissed right away at arraignment by a well-informed and fair judge (roll the dice).
Lastly, until one of these cases clears the SCOTUS don't be videoing yourself with any braced pistol, especially if you're not an FFL or already have a stamp.
Read about Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St Louis.
Also, I for example, am surrounded by BLM land - that's federal - Do not take your braced pistols into the BLM (or any federal land/park) even if you're in a solid red state. The federal Ranger you run into may not be 2a friendly*.
*Remember, the brace issue is political and the law is on the books, the case is in the courts, they can still arrest you and let a court sort it out later - much later and many thousands of $$ later if its not dismissed right away at arraignment by a well-informed and fair judge (roll the dice).
Lastly, until one of these cases clears the SCOTUS don't be videoing yourself with any braced pistol, especially if you're not an FFL or already have a stamp.
Last edited:
I’m pretty pro 2A. I don’t consider them a good example of practically anything in terms of the actions private citizens should take.
Not to put too fine a point on it, there is a law, and then there is the ATF's authority under the law.
The ATF reviews designs and makes determinations where they fit, under the law. This is not the issue.
But, when something they previously ruled non regulated is "redetermined" to be an NFA item after some years have passed and without any obvious change in anything but their reclassification of the object, it calls into question both their credibility and legal authority to do so.
They have played this sort of game with stocked pistols before, several times over the years, but since their flip flopping only affected a relatively small number of people there wasn't enough interest or outrage to generate legal action against it.
Because there are a great many more people with AR pistols than folks with the "curio & relic" handguns that take stocks it makes a difference. While I have no personal interest or stake in AR pistol braces /stocks I am pleased that legal action is underway and hopefully the ATF will be spanked for their inconsistencies this time, at least.
The ATF reviews designs and makes determinations where they fit, under the law. This is not the issue.
But, when something they previously ruled non regulated is "redetermined" to be an NFA item after some years have passed and without any obvious change in anything but their reclassification of the object, it calls into question both their credibility and legal authority to do so.
They have played this sort of game with stocked pistols before, several times over the years, but since their flip flopping only affected a relatively small number of people there wasn't enough interest or outrage to generate legal action against it.
Because there are a great many more people with AR pistols than folks with the "curio & relic" handguns that take stocks it makes a difference. While I have no personal interest or stake in AR pistol braces /stocks I am pleased that legal action is underway and hopefully the ATF will be spanked for their inconsistencies this time, at least.
stagpanther
New member
I yanked my pistol barrels and converted my AR pistols to carbines--even though I had nothing but bare buffer tubes which had no means of attaching anything that could be adjustable. It was a cool little fad while it lasted, but having a weapon who's chief advantage from my point of view was concealability anyway, just wasn't worth it to me. The argument of brace vs stock on a pistol is as rigidly unambiguous as why some people say to-may-tow--and others say tow-mah-tow.
FrankenMauser
New member
Indeed.
I thought pistol braces were stupid, but tried one to be sure.
Even stupider than I expected.
I find SBRs to be more useful, and went that route.
But that doesn't mean that I don't care. I am happy to see someone finally trying to get the ATF to abide by the law and stay within its limits.
I thought pistol braces were stupid, but tried one to be sure.
Even stupider than I expected.
I find SBRs to be more useful, and went that route.
But that doesn't mean that I don't care. I am happy to see someone finally trying to get the ATF to abide by the law and stay within its limits.
wild cat mccane
New member
Most braces can't even function as a brace. Most don't even come with a velco attachment.
Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...
I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.
Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.
Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...
I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.
Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.
There are actually 3+ states where SBRs are illegal, including mine. And count me as at least one person who actually uses a brace for its intended purpose because my support hand, which I've had three surgeries on, is still all screwed up, making me unable to shoot a rifle normally. I did convert my AR pistol to a carbine because of the ATF ruling, but haven't been able to shoot it since. It was my only option in order to be in compliance.
Frank
wild cat mccane
New member
So...wouldn't it make more sense to special class a brace for those with need vs opening fake braces out there that 99.9% use as an SBR? Brace makers used the veteran in their advertisement. Let's see some genuineness from the makers.
In fact, we see more and more than braces are just actually stocks and functionally impossible to be a forearm brace. The velco strap is where on all braces at this point? no where. So forearm attachment is where?
So while you have a use, the makers are just straight up trying to break the intent of the NFA laws on SBR. Shame on them.
In fact, we see more and more than braces are just actually stocks and functionally impossible to be a forearm brace. The velco strap is where on all braces at this point? no where. So forearm attachment is where?
So while you have a use, the makers are just straight up trying to break the intent of the NFA laws on SBR. Shame on them.
wild cat mccane said:
Whether the arguments for or against braces are valid is currently irrelevant.
The current ruling on braces (Britto v. BATFE) and the injunction against the ATF rule are based on the ATF failing to follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act in adopting the rule. Simply put, government agencies must follow the process established by Congress and cannot just dream up regulations
The SBR/SBS part of the NFA makes little to no sense to me in a world where the NFA didn’t include handguns as being under its regulation, which per my understanding was the original intent.
Besides the cost of the tax stamp of an SBR, the larger annoyance is, imo, the regulations regarding interstate travel, especially for folks that live close to borders on other states and travel on routes that cross those borders. I am somewhat skeptical that the NFA stops crime when talking specifically about SBRs/SBSes. The Washington Naval Yard shooter made an illegal SBS when he went on his rampage. He used a hacksaw to cut the barrel and stock. In the realm of it adding an additional charge to a person already being charged with committing a crime, I guess it’s something, but I’m not sure how much additional criminal behavior laws about SBRs/SBSes prevent.
FrankenMauser
New member
The NFA was meant to ban or severely restrict all handguns.
But someone involved questioned, "What if someone just cuts down a rifle?"
So, SBRs and SBSs were created (and "banned") as classes of weapons.
The the handguns got taken out before it passed, but a vestigial limb remained - SBRs and SBSs.
But someone involved questioned, "What if someone just cuts down a rifle?"
So, SBRs and SBSs were created (and "banned") as classes of weapons.
The the handguns got taken out before it passed, but a vestigial limb remained - SBRs and SBSs.
Most of this whole issue turns on definitions, and even more specifically items made to be mounted on AR pistols, ALONG with the blurring of intended designed use vs. the way people ARE using them.
stir in a dollop of manufacturers making anything for a buck and (potentially) false advertising claims and its a pretty stinky stew.
Under the Fed law, if its a pistol BRACE, its not an NFA item. If it is a pistol STOCK it is.
I think it might have been in the Pogo comic, originally not sure, but there's a line that goes "we has met the enemy and they is us!"
And in this case, I think there is an element of truth to that.
the ATF looked at several brace designs, and ruled that they were braces, NOT STOCKS, using the designer's/makers intent and instructions for use. They were not wrong doing that.
Then along comes a bunch of grown up children putting those braces to their shoulders, and showing off on UTube, chanting neener neener, we can do this and get what amounts to an SBR without paying the tax or getting approved, its legal and you can't do anything about it!!!
In other words, due to the actions of some shooters, and specifically their "in your face" videos on the net, this matter became something affecting the power, prestige and PRIDE of a branch of the Fed govt.
I'm sure there was pressure from the top administration to act on this, and the ATF's response was, essentially, "fine, if you're going to use it as a stock, we will redefine it AS a stock, and THAT makes it an NFA item".
"you can remove it (lose it) or register it as an NFA item, and to sweeten the deal, we're offering a free "amnesty period" to do it in."
The big point to the legal challenges are that a regulatory agency (ATF or any other) doesn't get to change the rules as they see fit and make up stuff as they go along or swap positions to please the current elected administration all on their own.
CONGRESS can change the law, using their due process, but unless/until they do, the law is fixed at what it is and various enforcement agencies are limited in what they may do enforcing the law, and are not allowed to "make law" with their regulations.
It does make we wonder where we would be today, if the ATF had chosen the more difficult, time consuming and more expensive option of sending agents to track down the U Tube (etc) posters and charge them, individually, with violating the law using a brace as a stock in order to avoid the laws registration and tax requirements. They have the videos as proof the violation occurred, seems like a slam dunk case to me.
Instead they chose to make a rule change affecting those who were "misbehaving" and those who were not.
Right now, we have court ruling putting a hold on the ATF enforcing their rule until court challenges are settled. Get some fresh popcorn and watch the show....because it is political theater, as much as anything else.
stir in a dollop of manufacturers making anything for a buck and (potentially) false advertising claims and its a pretty stinky stew.
Under the Fed law, if its a pistol BRACE, its not an NFA item. If it is a pistol STOCK it is.
I think it might have been in the Pogo comic, originally not sure, but there's a line that goes "we has met the enemy and they is us!"
And in this case, I think there is an element of truth to that.
the ATF looked at several brace designs, and ruled that they were braces, NOT STOCKS, using the designer's/makers intent and instructions for use. They were not wrong doing that.
Then along comes a bunch of grown up children putting those braces to their shoulders, and showing off on UTube, chanting neener neener, we can do this and get what amounts to an SBR without paying the tax or getting approved, its legal and you can't do anything about it!!!
In other words, due to the actions of some shooters, and specifically their "in your face" videos on the net, this matter became something affecting the power, prestige and PRIDE of a branch of the Fed govt.
I'm sure there was pressure from the top administration to act on this, and the ATF's response was, essentially, "fine, if you're going to use it as a stock, we will redefine it AS a stock, and THAT makes it an NFA item".
"you can remove it (lose it) or register it as an NFA item, and to sweeten the deal, we're offering a free "amnesty period" to do it in."
The big point to the legal challenges are that a regulatory agency (ATF or any other) doesn't get to change the rules as they see fit and make up stuff as they go along or swap positions to please the current elected administration all on their own.
CONGRESS can change the law, using their due process, but unless/until they do, the law is fixed at what it is and various enforcement agencies are limited in what they may do enforcing the law, and are not allowed to "make law" with their regulations.
It does make we wonder where we would be today, if the ATF had chosen the more difficult, time consuming and more expensive option of sending agents to track down the U Tube (etc) posters and charge them, individually, with violating the law using a brace as a stock in order to avoid the laws registration and tax requirements. They have the videos as proof the violation occurred, seems like a slam dunk case to me.
Instead they chose to make a rule change affecting those who were "misbehaving" and those who were not.
Right now, we have court ruling putting a hold on the ATF enforcing their rule until court challenges are settled. Get some fresh popcorn and watch the show....because it is political theater, as much as anything else.
wild cat mccane
New member
I'll not indiana jones it, but;
is an sbr legal? yes.
is anyone using the brace as a brace? not really, no.
Arguing in between is a loser for the gun community. Winning on technicalities and not substance is kinda...well, you don't win support with that method. So original question, are braces used as braces, patently no as many out there right now can't even function as a brace.
Take the injunction win. War lost.
is an sbr legal? yes.
is anyone using the brace as a brace? not really, no.
Arguing in between is a loser for the gun community. Winning on technicalities and not substance is kinda...well, you don't win support with that method. So original question, are braces used as braces, patently no as many out there right now can't even function as a brace.
Take the injunction win. War lost.
The entirety of gun laws in this country is based on technicalities, even if the general populace is unaware. When I explain existing gun laws to most “non-gun” people they almost without an exception have little to no idea of the existing laws, especially when we get into nuances like the implications of barrel length on the legality of a firearm.
In terms of winning support, the only people who know these nuances are the people who have to live within them, and even a good number of those people don’t even know. It’s hard to win support among people that are often ignorant about the topic, especially when those same people generally view the people trying to educate others as spewing propaganda.
As far as this decision costing the “war”, many gun owners I know have no idea this injunction is even a thing. I’m extremely skeptical that most non gun owners even know about this, so I don’t see this “battle” as having much of any impact among those folks. I haven’t even seen this covered prominently by larger news organizations.
Last edited:
wild cat mccane
New member
I hear you.
On the same vein, everything you read on pro brace posts act as if the TX injunction is a permanent stay.
It is not.
On the same vein, everything you read on pro brace posts act as if the TX injunction is a permanent stay.
It is not.
- Status