On one hand i understand his frustration... on another hand i'm genuinely curious to see what they say in response... if the last letter was as everyone says, there's nothing for us to worry about right? But yeah on the other hand it does come off as whiney.

Ask any pre-86 machine gun owners if they want machine guns to be pulled off the nfa anytime soon though...

I can understand though don't agree with their sentiment.  Full Auto stuff especially represents a huge investment of money and time and overnight their gun which is worth as much as a nice used pickup truck sometimes a new pickup truck would now be worth slightly more than a new AR15.

The drop in value would not be equal across the board, but you are right when it comes to the more modern and more common full auto weapons that are still produced in civilian semi-auto form.

The machine gun ban contained in the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was a last minute addition during the final hours of the house debate on the bill.  It was also very intentional to do it that way under the guise of a law that was supposed to be firearms friendly. The provision was introduced on April 10, 1986, passed by a somewhat controversial voice vote that same day, the senate agreed to the amendment on May 6, 1986 and Reagan signed it into law on May 19th, 1986 (and he signed it rather than vetoing it because he supported it).   Since the amendment banned production of new machine guns on enactment, May 19, 1986 became the date the ban started, giving basically no warning or lead time to increase supplies to meet increased demand.

That meant that if you owned a full auto weapon on mAy 19,1986, the value of that weapon skyrocketed almost immediately.  The prices continue to rise as the finite number of legal machine guns decrease, while demand increases.   In that regard, individuals who have purchased full auto weapons as an investment would almost certainly opposed to the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986 being repealed as the value of many full auto weapons would fall.  

However, the value of some full auto weapons would remain constant and even continue to appreciate in value.  For example, if you own an MG42 or similar historic and no longer produced military weapon, the supply isn't going to increase. Even if replicas were made, they would not have near the value of an original, and it's questionable if many replicas would even be produced for WWII era firearms unless they were chambered in comparatively cheap and available cartridges.  

Where the decrease in value would appear is with the AKs and AR-15s, which are already comparatively common. If the law were repealed, you'd quickly see new build full auto AK and AR-15/M16/M4s on the market at much more attractive prices.  This would particularly be true with the AK, AR-15, Uzi, etc as they could still be home built using military surplus parts - and the value of those parts would definitely increase in the short and long term as home builders sought them out as a means to avoid the premium that manufacturers would charge for a new build weapon.

I'm sure you'd also see new build full auto Uzis and Thompsons - the former because parts kits are still common and the latter because a semi-auto counterpart is still produced. In all of the above cases, ammo is also readily available and comparatively cheap.

But...I suspect even the owners of very collectible full auto weapons would still be opposed to repeal, given just the perception of a potential financial loss, even if it would not ultimately become reality.

I have an sbr.  It is not legal to hunt with, nor is it legal to have a round in the chamber while in a vehicle.  A pistol is.

I jumped through the hoops before 41P was proposed and got a suppressor via a trust. If the HPA passes I will not feel like I lost any prestige. I will just be happy to see and purchase new developments in suppressor technology that come about as a result of a greatly increased customer base.

Anyone that feels "elite" because they own an NFA item has a fragile ego.

This is the question I have. if you have a form 2'd lower BUT built into "pistol" configuration is it then an SBR or a Pistol? seems to me it should be universally covered for all uses (hunting, crossing state lines, being loaded, putting on a VFG, shouldering) except for committing crimes.

ATF will hold that you have an SBR. Forever, as long as there is a short barrel attached to it. Pulling the stock off doesn't make it a pistol, you're just using your SBR without a stock. Even if you sell it as GCA firearm with 16" barrel or stripped and the next owner puts a short barrel on it, it's an SBR again.

- OS

I was at the barber last weekend. As is the norm at this particular place (and one of the reasons I go there, besides great haircuts) the topics of conversation are usually politics (the owner is a former Marine, you can guess which way the clientele lean ;) ) firearms, motorcycles and football. During this visit the topic was firearms. One of the customers was a younger guy who has several suppressors and an SBR. I showed him a pic of my 300 pistol with an SB Tactical PDW brace and he got all bound up. He was pissed that with the latest ruling that now "just anyone" could essentially build a pistol with 95% of the functionality of an SBR. He was also pissed, for the same reason, about the HPA. "If that bill passes anyone will be able to buy a suppressor and do stupid sh*t." At that point I decided the conversation was not worth pursuing any further. There are indeed folks out there who are so wrapped up in the status of having a tax stamp that they lose sight of the bigger picture of the absurdity of the NFA in general and it's detrimental impact on our freedoms. On some level, I get it. The guy had a lot of time and money invested in his NFA items and the prospect of those efforts being diminished in his eyes is unpalatable.

Funny, as I just recently installed a shockwave blade onto my AR pistol. Oddly enough that I had six SBRs prior to doing this. Reason being is pistol vs. rifle argument in several cases. Am I pissed the peeps get the same functionality out of a arm brace that I do out of the six tax stamps I had to wait several months a piece for? Hell no. Let them have their fun too. I still plan on doing other SBRs.

Yeah, I'd like to think the guy in question is in the minority and most folks think like you do.

I showed a photo of my AR pistol, with the Shockwave Blade attached, to a buddy of mine who immediately told me he wanted me to build him one too.  Which I did a few short weeks later after he got the pistol kit and a lower.  Now most of his friends want one too.  The "arm braces" or whatever you want to call them is the new wave in the ongoing AR15 life story.  Thankfully ATF seems to recognize this and have not decided to go all rapey and pronounce them illegal.

There is no doubt a brace is 110 percent better than a SBR. I own both, legally and physically a brace can do more, and it definatly not other way around like some have suggested. Im physically disabled too.

Oh hell - Just put a vertical grip on your braced pistol & go full sbr already.

blah blah - something about poor people going home & all that...

After reading most of this thread and many other threads and letters and opinions etc. I have this opinion. =The ATF has never said in direct wording that shouldering an arm brace was illegal, only that building a gun with an arm brace intended to be used as a stock was a no no. The illegal part is just online talk with no real backing other than opinion. I have a bunch of arm braced pistols now and have never considered them illegal anyway.
Something that stands out to me now from this thread is that the brace has to be slid forward on the buffer tube to be shouldered? How does this make any sense? They are arm braces, not wrist braces. If someone used an arm brace they would know that it needs to be back some to steady the pistol on your ARM.  The type of gun and it's distance from your grip to forearm where the brace touches changes from gun to gun also.
With a Blade arm brace a strap is not needed unless someone can not hold the weight of the gun so where does ''needing'' a strap or it's a stock come into play? An arm brace strap may be needed for some people to hold the weight of the pistol, for others it is just used to steady a pistol and a strap is not needed. It still comes down to defining a gun by it's use or it's make up. The way a gun is held does not change it's classification, it's physical design does and an arm brace without a strap is still able to be used as an arm brace so where are these ideas coming from and how did they make any sense.
whether a brace is connected to a pistol with pressure or another method makes no sense either because who wants their brace sliding around no matter how they use it. Anything sliding around on a gun that is being fired is a bad idea so deliberately recommending something not being strongly attached that connects to the body to stable a gun is total stupidity and unsafe.

A forward vertical grip is fine as long as the gun is 26'' overall length.

That's precisely why I have an AR pistol rather than an SBR.  The fact that no federal form, tax stamp or 6-9 month wait is required is just a secondary benefit.

That ideology will surely flip-flop when the Dems are back in power

A pistol with a brace has MORE positives than an SBR at this point

That's why we need to build as many as we can today and have them, definitely before 2020.  Should the Democrats or other socialists get in in 2020 (God forbid) they will, without a doubt, seek revenge of the highest order on this country, conservatives and any gun owner they can find.  Build 'em and stack 'em deep.

Dunno if anyone noticed, but SB tactical does not have any images or videos of anyone shooting their braces from the shoulder, which they supposedly claim is "legal", on their facebook or website. Rather curious, considering if they're going as far to claim it's legal why wouldn't they be practicing what they preach?

probably because they are selling braces and not shoulder stocks

As it is not advertised or promoted as a shoulder stock, there is no reason to show it being used as a shoulder stock in their print or video material.  Does not matter if the BATF said that inadvertent placement at the shoulder does not constitute a violation, if it were advertised that way, the BATF could/would make a lot of trouble for a company.  It is a pistol arm brace, so that is what it is advertised as.

PS.  Just received my Sig "Arm Brace" today, ordered last week, when they were selling them for $19.95, glad I waited, it is nice but it is not $95 nice!

Nonsense.

I have a tax stamp and a suppressor.

I would LOVE the opportunity to buy a 22lr, a 30 cal, and a 9mm caliber can from walmart in a blister back.


There would still be a market for super durable full-auto rate silencers.

There would also be a market for essentially disposable 22lr cans.  And everything in between.



HPA would be awesome.  



P.S. right now my suppressor is on my AR pistol with a shockwave blade.  

Same here. I'm waiting on a tax stamp for a suppressor but would do cartwheels if the HPA passes even if I don't get the $200 back.

Well unless the 'Dems' take over the ATF it won't matter, cause that's where the decision came from.

Not saying Congress can't legislate braces but I'd be surprised if this ever showed up on their list of things to 'un-do'.

The longer it's legal, and the more braces that are sold makes it harder & harder to undo.

All this shoulder stock talk and I'm all over here like an uncool kid with my non brace.  

I'm with you but I really really like VFG's. That's the ONLY reason I might SBR one of my pistols.

Just build it out to 26"+ OAL.  Then you can VFG all the things.

The person forever responsible for the Akins Accelerator is an attorney.

ERIC LARSON..


Fuck him...

best reply on this matter!

I know, the problem with that is you're getting deeper and deeper into a law that, potentially, a lawman may be ignorant on.

So I get seen by a cop and maybe he knows about AR pistols. But then he sees the vfg and knows that's a no go. He then thinks I'm full of shit about it how I can legally have it in this config due to length. I have go through getting arrested and all of the subsequent stuff because of cop ignorance and guilty until proven innocent in this country.

I get so mad about talking about stuff like this because no one should be ok with what our legal system has turned into. 1000 guilty men should go free rather than 1 innocent man go to jail and all that.

I just make sure I keep my Texas Law Shield paid up, and that I understand the law well enough that I can articulate my actions to a Grand or Petit Jury.  I find I understand the law better than the average BATFE agent that I meet.

If we walk around afraid of doing legal things b/c we may be arrested and prosecuted for doing so, then the law is meaningless and it is time to revolt.

Depends on your state. Here in TN its legal to have loaded and chambered rifles, shotguns and handguns in your car, even if you don't have a carry permit.

Wanna see illegality?  Here's some for you.

ATF ran illegal slush fund for years, with no oversight

Although off topic, it does show those dirty little secrets and in reality are not so secret!

Same here. Gun insurance is a great thing to have which is why I have TLS as well. I'm in the process of building a pistol and may or may not vfg it depending on how long it is. (Tip of muzzle device to back of buffer tube or brace? Does the muzzle device have to be welded on to be counted towards the oal?)

No, pistols do not require the muzzle device to be welded on.

Normally no.

But to hit the 26" OAL for a VFG a pin and weld would count toward the barrel length. While a non pinned wouldn't.

Say you normally need a 12.5" barrel to pull off the 26" OAL.
A 10.5" Barrel with a pinned and welded 2" flash hider would also be good to go.

Thats what he was asking about, correct? My apologies if this is wrong. I just thought a pin/welded muzzle device essentially becomes part of the barrel as far as measuring oal is concerned.

Ironically you can use a KAK Super Tube since it is longer. That can easily come off and be switched out with a wrench. While the ATF wants a more permanent solution for barrels which is stupid

Nothing I have ever read, indicated that you have to weld a muzzle device on a pistol build to be considered as part of the OAL measurement, that is not to say, there has not been a new determination that I am unaware of!  It seems like this chit changes almost daily because so many are writing emails to the BATF to get determinations all the damn time.  It seems like every single time someone contacts the BATF, we end up with a new determination.

Nobody ever said the BATF have common sense or make rational decisions!

That is exactly what I was asking. I'm not sure if my 10.3 build will reach 26" and honestly it wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't because I'm not dead set on a vfg. I assumed it needed to be pinned and welded to be counted towards the oal but that's just a guess.

They are talking about it in another in this section that says yes, it has to be welded to be considered in the OAL measurement, I guess I have going to have to read my regulations books some more.  I am so glad I don't sell guns on my FFL!

The thread is title 26" OAL Question.

I am probably wrong and just need to read up some more.

I just browsed through that thread, thanks for posting it.

I can hardly keep up with all the arbitrary regulations myself.

It's the exact same as a rifle. Barrel length is measured to the end of the threads unless the muzzle device is permanenttly attached

You did read, I said I am probably wrong, didn't you?

I don't have an FFL because of guns, I and my partner make other NFA items.

Surprised shockwave hasnt gotten their letter yet. It's been how many months now?

It's also worth mentioning that even in the absence of NFA laws, an AR pistol has some legal advantages where concealed carry is concerned.

Yep. Still waiting. 

Right now I have a bare pistol buffer tube. If they get a real letter from the ATF saying it's ok to shoulder a Shockwave, I'll install one. I have one of the Sig SBX braces but it's ugly as all get out so I don't use it.

Same. I have both and my SBM4 is my go to for now until shockwave gets a letter. I don't buy that whole "me too" phone call bullshit.