wild cat mccane said:
While the injunction in Britto v. BATFE is not final or permanent, the Fifth Circuit essentially put a spike through the heart of the ATF rule in Mock v. Garland:
Pistol Braces legal again ??
- Thread starter kymasabe
- Start date
- Status
While the injunction in Britto v. BATFE is not final or permanent, the Fifth Circuit essentially put a spike through the heart of the ATF rule in Mock v. Garland:
I'm similarly as critical of the ones who made videos (and marketed) of "pistols" being shoulder fired. It's saying the quiet part out loud.
On the other side of the coin, this has been going on for years and the ATF has turned a blind eye. Sure the first brace was an actual brace, and very ill suited as a stock. Sure it could be shouldered. Better than a bare buffer tube. But it was a real pistol brace and was terrible as a stock.
McCane, I don't completely disagree with you. Or 44amp. In fact, I largely agree that the gun community was a bit too callous and nonchalant about flouting the brace "loophole." At the same time, it wasn't lost on the ATF how the majority of "braced pistols" were actually used (as SBRs) going back to the Obama presidency. It's easy to criticize the fact that they ultimately approved something, looked the other way for 10 years when people obviously exceeded the technical scope of the approval, wait for hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of them to be sold out into the wild, and then all of a sudden blow the whistle and cry foul because the chief executive at the time wants to "look tough on guns" 10 years later.
Sure, gun owners were stupid in overtly flouting the the NFA with the braces on video. The ATF was pretty stupid for looking the other way and pretending it wasn't happening (and that's how that happened, you bet the ATF was privy to the real use of pistol braces) until they were in such common use, and after so much time had passed.
Exactly.
The purpose of SBR was to prevent people from turning their non-NFA rifles into NFA pistols. The dimensions of a rifle were included so everyone would know they could not avoid the tax on pistols by cutting-down a rifle to handgun size.
It has nothing to do with concealability or "deadliness" of a short barrel.
Swifty Morgan
New member
Poking the bear is never smart.
People in the government generally care very little about doing their jobs, but they really hate it when people make them look bad or challenge their dominance. That's when they start showing something resembling zeal.
People in the government generally care very little about doing their jobs, but they really hate it when people make them look bad or challenge their dominance. That's when they start showing something resembling zeal.
I would point out that lumping the entire "gun community" into the same group as the UTube yammerheads isn't particularly fair, or accurate.
While there are a large number of people who own AR pistols and I guess quite a few of them have braces, they are a small percentage of the gun community, and the morons who thumbed their noses at the ATF with their videos are a much, much smaller percentage of AR pistol owners.
I went through a version of this a couple decades ago, with an actual "stocked pistol". It was a Broomhandle Mauser, made to take and be used with the wooden stock/holster.
For many, many years the ATF position was fixed, if you had a stocked pistol (or the pistol and the stock together where they could be assembled) it was an NFA item. SO, I had the pistol, and no stock.
Then they changed the ruling and allowed "curio & relic" class to have a stock without being an NFA item. Since my pistol was now in that class, I got a reproduction stock/holster. I assume it was a reproduction, there were no markings on it, and while it obviously wasn't new, there was no way to determine it was of the 1920s vintage that my pistol was.
And, THAT is the reason I had to get rid of the stock about a decade later when the ATF changed their rules AGAIN, and decided that ONLY original curio & relic shoulder stocks were exempt from the NFA requirments, and a reproduction stock (even though physically identical to the original) made the combination an NFA item.
SO, I sold the stock, and a few years after, sold the pistol as well. Point here is that the ATF changed their rules, back and forth, and that left more than just a sour taste in my mouth about them. SO, I can sympathize with the AR pistols owners being screwed with over what is a brace, and what is a stock.
I think the ATF would have gone on the way they had been for years, essentially ignoring the "brace" issue, even with pressure from the upper administration, had it not been for the adult "children" using their videos to taunt the ATF for the entire world to see. (yes the entire world who could log into UTube)
There are very few things bureaucrats and politicians hate worse than losing their authority & control is that being shown in public.
just my personal opinion, and worth what you paid for it, or possibly less.
While there are a large number of people who own AR pistols and I guess quite a few of them have braces, they are a small percentage of the gun community, and the morons who thumbed their noses at the ATF with their videos are a much, much smaller percentage of AR pistol owners.
I went through a version of this a couple decades ago, with an actual "stocked pistol". It was a Broomhandle Mauser, made to take and be used with the wooden stock/holster.
For many, many years the ATF position was fixed, if you had a stocked pistol (or the pistol and the stock together where they could be assembled) it was an NFA item. SO, I had the pistol, and no stock.
Then they changed the ruling and allowed "curio & relic" class to have a stock without being an NFA item. Since my pistol was now in that class, I got a reproduction stock/holster. I assume it was a reproduction, there were no markings on it, and while it obviously wasn't new, there was no way to determine it was of the 1920s vintage that my pistol was.
And, THAT is the reason I had to get rid of the stock about a decade later when the ATF changed their rules AGAIN, and decided that ONLY original curio & relic shoulder stocks were exempt from the NFA requirments, and a reproduction stock (even though physically identical to the original) made the combination an NFA item.
SO, I sold the stock, and a few years after, sold the pistol as well. Point here is that the ATF changed their rules, back and forth, and that left more than just a sour taste in my mouth about them. SO, I can sympathize with the AR pistols owners being screwed with over what is a brace, and what is a stock.
I think the ATF would have gone on the way they had been for years, essentially ignoring the "brace" issue, even with pressure from the upper administration, had it not been for the adult "children" using their videos to taunt the ATF for the entire world to see. (yes the entire world who could log into UTube)
There are very few things bureaucrats and politicians hate worse than losing their authority & control is that being shown in public.
just my personal opinion, and worth what you paid for it, or possibly less.
Swifty Morgan
New member
In any case, the SB Tactical FS1913 brace, which used to be easy to find, is now unobtainable, so I guess people were waiting for this injunction.
While I wouldn’t personally take and post video of myself shooting firearms in a questionable state (I wouldn’t take and post video of myself shooting any firearms if I’m honest), I don’t necessarily hold the people that posted to YouTube responsible. I’m not a fan of things that are legal with a wink and a nod or are legal when people aren’t looking your way. This is especially true when the punishment for the violation of laws related to firearms is often a felony with years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. As has been covered, the ATF has already changed its mind on things multiple times. Owning a thing that is legal as long as I don’t “taunt” the ATF has little to no appeal to me. I would rather the ATF be required to make a decision, and if that decision doesn’t seem legal/reasonable then to support those challenging them in court. This situation isn’t over yet, but I’d personally rather be in the position we are today than where we were a year ago.
Last edited:
1st - the "most" and "most" above is fairly incorrect.. SB's are the original and most common I've seen and they all have velcro and do function as a forearm brace.
2nd - there are issues regarding the NFA and having SBR's in it to begin with. But, its not illegal if you pay up and register. How does that rectify with the 2nd? It doesn't.
3rd - Fact, disabled people legitimately do use the braces, velcro and all. And the ATF has previously a) approved the product, b) ok'd the shouldering of it, and c) allowed them to accumulate in the millions for more than a decade. Now comes a senile old man with his minion hoard of Constitution haters and here we are with a half-baked cobbled up nonsensical "rule" created with their bountiful power of ineptitude.
What is the "valid point" here? That we're not supposed to buy and use what they've said was ok for a decade? Now we're supposed to cower to the partisan bureaucrats? I think not.
I don't agree with their "valid point" nor have any respect for it.
The reality is the ATF has overstepped.
Last edited:
HighValleyRanch
New member
wild cat mccane
New member
Roni.
100% constructed to obfuscate the laws of the United States because that thing makes zero sense in the world of shooting and modifies an existing product beyond it's intended purpose.
100% constructed to obfuscate the laws of the United States because that thing makes zero sense in the world of shooting and modifies an existing product beyond it's intended purpose.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Call me making a simple resolution for a complicated issue. But I'm pretty baffled by comments in the firearm community not supporting pistol braces, whether their opinion of not seeing any reason to have one or outright not covered under the 2A.
On one side piling up on the scaleplate, I'm hearing people claiming they see no need, thinks it doesn't serve a purpose, think it's idiotic to use one when there are other options/platforms, it stirs the pot and aggravates the almighty BATF and hurts our chances of advancing other gun rights, etc.
The other scaleplate is severely out-weighing that pile of excuses that I believe some individuals are either slowly being brainwashed or completely forgot what the 2A covers. NONE of it covers someone supporting a firearm, or component thereof, to be illegal for reasons stated in the prior paragraph. That should be full stop.
Somebody wants to support the BATF's final rule on pistol braces to be illegal and our courts to back it with their opinion? OK. You do you. Don't forget that's how we ended up in the mess we're in today as a whole. I find it pathetic, IMO, that people on both sides of the 2A are deciding what laws/rights should be in the books (or removed from the books) based on their own personal opinion of an issue instead of what our Constitution, BOR, and Founding Fathers have written.
On one side piling up on the scaleplate, I'm hearing people claiming they see no need, thinks it doesn't serve a purpose, think it's idiotic to use one when there are other options/platforms, it stirs the pot and aggravates the almighty BATF and hurts our chances of advancing other gun rights, etc.
The other scaleplate is severely out-weighing that pile of excuses that I believe some individuals are either slowly being brainwashed or completely forgot what the 2A covers. NONE of it covers someone supporting a firearm, or component thereof, to be illegal for reasons stated in the prior paragraph. That should be full stop.
Somebody wants to support the BATF's final rule on pistol braces to be illegal and our courts to back it with their opinion? OK. You do you. Don't forget that's how we ended up in the mess we're in today as a whole. I find it pathetic, IMO, that people on both sides of the 2A are deciding what laws/rights should be in the books (or removed from the books) based on their own personal opinion of an issue instead of what our Constitution, BOR, and Founding Fathers have written.
Bill DeShivs
New member
According to MY interpretation of the 2 A, ALL firearms laws are illegal. Proving that in court may be a challenge, though.
If push came to shove, the Supreme Court would have to rule that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.
That said, I took the brace off of my pistol and destroyed it.
If push came to shove, the Supreme Court would have to rule that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.
That said, I took the brace off of my pistol and destroyed it.
Bill DeShivs
New member
And, with friends like old Wildcat, who needs enemies?
jetinteriorguy
New member
Couldn’t have stated this better myself. Everyone has and is entitled to their personal opinion which is also protected by the same BOR as our supposed ‘inalienable’ rights under the 2A. Just because you have an opinion doesn’t give you the right to impose any restrictions on our basic rights. If you don’t like something, don’t do it but leave me the heck alone.
Mike Irwin
Staff
OK, thanks Shane, for that statement.
I think that's a good place to close this discussion as it's clear that there are very divergent opinions on this issue and no one's going to change their views.
Everyone has been polite to this point and I want to make sure we keep it that way.
I think that's a good place to close this discussion as it's clear that there are very divergent opinions on this issue and no one's going to change their views.
Everyone has been polite to this point and I want to make sure we keep it that way.
- Status