User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 12:07:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: frankjt]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Just thinking out loud, but why is the ATF suggesting destruction or turn-in for any braces? Made sense in the case of bumpstocks, they said the stock itself is a MG, therefore you can’t legally possess one. In this case, though, they’re simply saying “braces are not really braces, they’re buttstocks.” If that’s the case, then your pistol stabilizing brace is no different from a Magpul CTR. Why would you destroy a CTR? Now, I understand the vast majority of braces are not as good as a traditional buttstock, but that’s really beside the point. Just find it odd they didn’t list “put a 16”+ barrel on it” as a suitable course of action. As an aside, and what really got me thinking about this is while comparing my two MCX platforms (one an SBR, one a pistol), I actually find the Tailhook Mod-1C setup on my pistol as more comfortable for the occasional shouldering (because I really installed it for braced, one handed firing) than the PMM Skeleton stock on the SBR. Regardless of which way I go with my pistols, I may switch the brace setup over to the already registered SBR to cause a few head explosions.  FWIW swapping to a 16"+ barrel is listed as an option to comply on ATFs site under the FAQs, Question 6, 3rd bullet point |
|
|
RUS
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:01:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. |
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:35:56 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Scrapple: https://i.ibb.co/sgKBBdV/received-751372426412910.jpg I was sent here to ask this. A good Marine friend of mine is missing an arm and a leg, and is wondering what is going to happen for him with pistol braces. He currently has an AR with KAK brace, as seen above. He was planning on changing to a different brace that better supports his one firing arm, and was looking at the Tailhook. What is he to do? He'd like to be able to continue using it as a pistol, and he legitimately only has one arm. For legal purposes, he lives in Florida. Additionally, I have heard that maybe the Tailhook is excluded? Or is that false? If all his weapons have barrels less than 16" then he can register them as SBR's and he keeps them. No $200 per weapon needed during the 120 days. They say they are not banning or making possession of a brace illegal, but who knows how that works with constructive possession. Either way brace by itself isn't illegal, but putting it on a weapon with a shorter than 16" barrel makes it a SBR which if unregistered is illegal. Or......He can add 16" barrels to each weapon which will make them rifles in the ATF's eyes and they won't care that they have a braces on them. I know which method would cost him less, but then you have the hassle of owning a NFA weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:46:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: j3_]
[#4]
Is this guy talking to a brace? Interviews with sig at shot I guess start around 1:40
https://youtu.be/w4f2VSkFOJ4 |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:51:39 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I live in an "Other" firearm state. If sold or built as an "Other". Removing the brace puts it right back to "Other" status, the same as free states removing it from a pistol reverts it back to pistol status. Folks with "Other" firearms need to be mindful that they are using a plain pistol buffer tube within the ATF's range of 6 to 6.5 inches (page 162) and not having a rifle's length of pull the ATF recognizes as 13.5 to 14.5 inches for AR's (page 155). All while maintaining an OAL of more than 26". I converted my weapon already. After making sure I hit the benchmarks, my weapon is still sitting at an OAL of 27 inches. Now I have to wait and see if my state does. |
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By j3_: Is this guy talking to a brace? Interviews with sig at shot I guess start around 1:40 https://youtu.be/w4f2VSkFOJ4 Yes. Yes he is. I guess we can all repurpose our braces then? |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 3:23:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By s4s4u: I am truly amazed at your level of trust in the government. I don't necessarily trust the Government, the problem is they own the game and the marbles too........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:30:35 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.”  I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:27:58 AM EDT
[#9]
I already own other NFA items, so I DGAF about the registry. What I do care about the the interstate bullshit. That was my only purpose for owning an AR pistol. I travel out of state a lot for work and to visit family and the gun range where I shoot is over the state line.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:42:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By triburst1: I already own other NFA items, so I DGAF about the registry. What I do care about the the interstate bullshit. That was my only purpose for owning an AR pistol. I travel out of state a lot for work and to visit family and the gun range where I shoot is over the state line. Agreed. It was also good for CCW: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:54:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Agreed. It was also good for CCW: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/4E43AA6F-5A2E-458D-8C2D-2A636F9633D1-2674105.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By triburst1: I already own other NFA items, so I DGAF about the registry. What I do care about the the interstate bullshit. That was my only purpose for owning an AR pistol. I travel out of state a lot for work and to visit family and the gun range where I shoot is over the state line. Agreed. It was also good for CCW: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/4E43AA6F-5A2E-458D-8C2D-2A636F9633D1-2674105.jpg Yep. I’ve carried a 7.5” AR pistol in a tennis racket case all over the place. |
|
|
|
RUS
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 12:11:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JohnClarkUSN]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. The previous letters authorizing selling these weapons as "firearms" go through the entire thought process I summarized above. The reclassification of a brace as a stock is the crux of the change in definition. Those "firearms" letters indicating braces are not shoulder stocks will be some of the most significant pieces of evidence in the coming lawsuits. They EXPRESSLEY ruled braces are not stocks. They established precedent. The law does not address manner in which a firearm is fired, only mechanical features. Otherwise a Glock would be an AOW when fired with two hands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:16:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Can you simply take the brace off an AR-15 pistol and run with the buffer tube?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 1:20:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: I can't hold your hand anymore than that. The previous letters authorizing selling these weapons as "firearms" go through the entire thought process I summarized above. The reclassification of a brace as a stock is the crux of the change in definition. Those "firearms" letters indicating braces are not shoulder stocks will be some of the most significant pieces of evidence in the coming lawsuits. They EXPRESSLEY ruled braces are not stocks. They established precedent. The law does not address manner in which a firearm is fired, only mechanical features. Otherwise a Glock would be an AOW when fired with two hands. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. I can't hold your hand anymore than that. The previous letters authorizing selling these weapons as "firearms" go through the entire thought process I summarized above. The reclassification of a brace as a stock is the crux of the change in definition. Those "firearms" letters indicating braces are not shoulder stocks will be some of the most significant pieces of evidence in the coming lawsuits. They EXPRESSLEY ruled braces are not stocks. They established precedent. The law does not address manner in which a firearm is fired, only mechanical features. Otherwise a Glock would be an AOW when fired with two hands. It sounds like we are in 100% agreement with the way a “firearm” HAD BEEN defined, and in how the “brace” has been Redefined. But as it has been observed here and in other threads, the new issuance does not address the status of a “firearm” (or “other”) directly -only through extrapolation. Given the impact this has on “firearm” owners in states such as CT, NJ, RI, etc, that’s irresponsible. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 2:09:06 PM EDT
[#15]
So how would a person comply with any of this. The ATF still has the weight and support hand thing basically de factoing it to a SBR even before the points chart. A Galil ACE pistol even if you take off a brace or it doesn’t have one is going to be over weight. You cannot realistically add a barrel length or change out the barrel without destroying the weapon. It’s not a matter of unscrewing a barrel or changing an upper receiver.
|
|
|
RUS
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 3:33:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: It sounds like we are in 100% agreement with the way a “firearm” HAD BEEN defined, and in how the “brace” has been Redefined. But as it has been observed here and in other threads, the new issuance does not address the status of a “firearm” (or “other”) directly -only through extrapolation. Given the impact this has on “firearm” owners in states such as CT, NJ, RI, etc, that’s irresponsible. I don't think they're going to issue a specific ruling, they'd be painting themselves into a corner like they did with the first letters regarding firearms. That precedent is going to torpedo them. Or should. If they took someone to court, they would present the definition of a rifle, and a short barreled rifle, state that a brace is a stock, note the barrel was under 16" and declare it an SBR. The other elements of its OAL and not being designed to be fired with one hand no longer apply since if the brace is a stock, it now its the definition of a rifle and the short barrel makes it an SBR. The primary defense would be that they said it was ok and that a brace was not a stock, and there has been no new legislation written causing them to initiate a revised ruling. They're using the same set of criteria they had when they made the original approval ruling as not a stock (just as they did with bump stocks). |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 5:14:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ColtSeavers]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: I don't think they're going to issue a specific ruling, they'd be painting themselves into a corner like they did with the first letters regarding firearms. That precedent is going to torpedo them. Or should. If they took someone to court, they would present the definition of a rifle, and a short barreled rifle, state that a brace is a stock, note the barrel was under 16" and declare it an SBR. The other elements of its OAL and not being designed to be fired with one hand no longer apply since if the brace is a stock, it now its the definition of a rifle and the short barrel makes it an SBR. The primary defense would be that they said it was ok and that a brace was not a stock, and there has been no new legislation written causing them to initiate a revised ruling. They're using the same set of criteria they had when they made the original approval ruling as not a stock (just as they did with bump stocks). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It sounds like we are in 100% agreement with the way a “firearm” HAD BEEN defined, and in how the “brace” has been Redefined. But as it has been observed here and in other threads, the new issuance does not address the status of a “firearm” (or “other”) directly -only through extrapolation. Given the impact this has on “firearm” owners in states such as CT, NJ, RI, etc, that’s irresponsible. I don't think they're going to issue a specific ruling, they'd be painting themselves into a corner like they did with the first letters regarding firearms. That precedent is going to torpedo them. Or should. If they took someone to court, they would present the definition of a rifle, and a short barreled rifle, state that a brace is a stock, note the barrel was under 16" and declare it an SBR. The other elements of its OAL and not being designed to be fired with one hand no longer apply since if the brace is a stock, it now its the definition of a rifle and the short barrel makes it an SBR. The primary defense would be that they said it was ok and that a brace was not a stock, and there has been no new legislation written causing them to initiate a revised ruling. They're using the same set of criteria they had when they made the original approval ruling as not a stock (just as they did with bump stocks). Sorry, but I'm still reading bare buffer tubes/receiver extension pistols (and therefore 'firearms' as well) as may not be considered SBRs as long as the buffer tube/receiver extension is not too long, doesn't provide enough surface area to shoulder and is necessary for the proper function. Too long seems to be based on their 6.5" measurement and is assumed to be from castle nut to end of carbine/pistol buffer tube/receiver extension for some weird reason, but is it? Can an AFT agent turn around and measure from the rear of the lower receiver and now you're screwed unless you act now and buy one of those SI short pistol buffer tubes? How much surface area is too much? Necessary for function, holy shit, something objective and definitive. |
|
|
RUS
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 5:56:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JohnClarkUSN]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ColtSeavers: Sorry, but I'm still reading bare buffer tubes/receiver extension pistols (and therefore 'firearms' as well) as may not be considered SBRs as long as the buffer tube/receiver extension is not too long, doesn't provide enough surface area to shoulder and is necessary for the proper function. Too long seems to be based on their 6.5" measurement and is assumed to be from castle nut to end of carbine/pistol buffer tube/receiver extension for some weird reason, but is it? Can an AFT agent turn around and measure from the rear of the lower receiver and now you're screwed unless you act now and buy one of those SI short pistol buffer tubes? How much surface area is too much? Necessary for function, holy shit, something objective and definitive. I'd agree with that assessment after removing the brace. But that's a big IF regarding the naked receiver extension that they are refusing to clarify, that should be another point of vulnerability in this ruling - ambiguity invokes the lenity principle. Or should. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 7:29:04 PM EDT
[#19]
So when can we start efiling? I want to get mine going asap, for 2 free stamps I am game.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:33:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dubagel: The ATF still has the weight and support hand thing basically de factoing it to a SBR even before the points chart. A Galil ACE pistol even if you take off a brace or it doesn’t have one is going to be over weight. @dubagel what ‘weight thing’ are you referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 8:40:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By catcatcher1: There will be a tax free amnesty period............120 days........... I thought congress was the only ones who could open up the registry and also wave the tax! |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 9:34:00 PM EDT
[#22]
What about stuff like the ruger charger? It isn't sold with a brace, and if no brace is on it, is it considered a pistol since it has a handguard? Is it considered a 2 handed weapon even without a brace and not a pistol?
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:08:11 PM EDT
[#23]
This 'destroy the brace' thing makes no sense at all. If a guy has a regular stock laying around why would he not be ordered to destroy that too, as it could be used to make a SBR? why is no one talking about that aspect?
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:33:49 PM EDT
[#24]
And mares leg lever actions? Do they all have to be sbr stamped too?
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:38:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Just thinking out loud, but why is the ATF suggesting destruction or turn-in for any braces? Made sense in the case of bumpstocks, they said the stock itself is a MG, therefore you can’t legally possess one. In this case, though, they’re simply saying “braces are not really braces, they’re buttstocks.” If that’s the case, then your pistol stabilizing brace is no different from a Magpul CTR. Why would you destroy a CTR? Now, I understand the vast majority of braces are not as good as a traditional buttstock, but that’s really beside the point. Just find it odd they didn’t list “put a 16”+ barrel on it” as a suitable course of action. As an aside, and what really got me thinking about this is while comparing my two MCX platforms (one an SBR, one a pistol), I actually find the Tailhook Mod-1C setup on my pistol as more comfortable for the occasional shouldering (because I really installed it for braced, one handed firing) than the PMM Skeleton stock on the SBR. Regardless of which way I go with my pistols, I may switch the brace setup over to the already registered SBR to cause a few head explosions. You are the only other person I have seen posting about how it makes absolutely no sense to destroy the brace but we don't have to destroy real stocks. Trolling with a brace on a registered SBR... I know someone who thought of that |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 10:41:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: So when can we start efiling? I want to get mine going asap, for 2 free stamps I am game. As soon as those jackboot pricks sign it into the Federal Register. Could be as early as this week. The 120 day clock starts ticking then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:05:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Maxx702: As soon as those jackboot pricks sign it into the Federal Register. Could be as early as this week. The 120 day clock starts ticking then. Ok thanks. I will be registering mine as I was going to sbr them anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:12:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rorshach1980: What about stuff like the ruger charger? It isn't sold with a brace, and if no brace is on it, is it considered a pistol since it has a handguard? Is it considered a 2 handed weapon even without a brace and not a pistol? The charger is a pistol. It don’t matter that it’s designed to be fired 2 handed. What matters is that it’s not shouldered to be fired. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:14:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rorshach1980: And mares leg lever actions? Do they all have to be sbr stamped too? The Mares leg is not designed nor intended to be fired from the shoulder nor is it wildly seen as fired from the shoulder. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:16:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz: This 'destroy the brace' thing makes no sense at all. If a guy has a regular stock laying around why would he not be ordered to destroy that too, as it could be used to make a SBR? why is no one talking about that aspect? Why in the world would you destroy a brace? Just use it on your new sbr if you want or sell it. Heck this it in a drawer and have a good day. Your not being forced to destroy it unless you feel you don’t want to comply in any other way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:20:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Why in the world would you destroy a brace? Just use it on your new sbr if you want or sell it. Heck this it in a drawer and have a good day. Your not being forced to destroy it unless you feel you don't want to comply in any other way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz: This 'destroy the brace' thing makes no sense at all. If a guy has a regular stock laying around why would he not be ordered to destroy that too, as it could be used to make a SBR? why is no one talking about that aspect? Why in the world would you destroy a brace? Just use it on your new sbr if you want or sell it. Heck this it in a drawer and have a good day. Your not being forced to destroy it unless you feel you don't want to comply in any other way. If you have a brace or stock and do not have a registered SBR or rifle to install them on, then you can be found to be in constructive possession. The same goes for having an upper with a barrel less than 16" and no pistol or SBR lower to install it on. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:22:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VLODPG: I thought congress was the only ones who could open up the registry and also wave the tax! You thought wrong..........ATF rules.........carry the full effect of law...........okay, its not a law, its a rule.........break the rule and you break the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:38:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chumpmiester: If you have a brace or stock and do not have a registered SBR or rifle to install them on, then you can be found to be in constructive possession. The same goes for having an upper with a barrel less than 16" and no pistol or SBR lower to install it on. Can be is the key word. Legally you can have as many short barrel uppers you want. If you don’t mate them to a stocked lower or lower that has been a rifle you are not breaking a rule or law. Same goes for a brace. And why would anyone own a ar pistol and not at least one rifle? |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:49:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Glad this is my first thread read as an official member of the forum (I've been around for years.) I am going to go tomorrow and add my 3 braced pistols to my trust, at least if this thing sticks, which I don't think it will, but if it does then my Son can be in possession and won't have to pay taxes on the weapons down the road.
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:52:30 PM EDT
[#35]
So I'm good if I don't have a flat end on my buffer tube, right?
And the pistol below has a semi spherical end on the buffer tube. So it's good, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2023 11:58:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mikec3500nc: Glad this is my first thread read as an official member of the forum (I've been around for years.) I am going to go tomorrow and add my 3 braced pistols to my trust, at least if this thing sticks, which I don't think it will, but if it does then my Son can be in possession and won't have to pay taxes on the weapons down the road. You sure about that? |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:13:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chumpmiester: If you have a brace or stock and do not have a registered SBR or rifle to install them on, then you can be found to be in constructive possession. The same goes for having an upper with a barrel less than 16" and no pistol or SBR lower to install it on. You can posess gun parts in preparation of a build. A brace is a stock, or so they say, so you can put it on any rifle. As long as you have a lower with a clean pistol tube you can posess a short barreled upper, or two or three or...... They cannot prosecute you on charges of anticipation of you building something that is verboten. Your intentions are your own, well at least until they put those chips in our heads...... |
|
|
ABW
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:17:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheLASwamp: Does this include pistols like the EP9? I haven't checked yet. I thought the EPA decision specifically stated that unelected agencies like the ATF can't make law. What am I missing here? Everything apparently. Law can be made by anyone now. This is sad |
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:25:34 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ztug: So I'm good if I don't have a flat end on my buffer tube, right? And the pistol below has a semi spherical end on the buffer tube. So it's good, right? https://i.imgur.com/cOvmRmD.jpeg They would more than likely consider that tennis ball to be adding surface area for the weapon to be shoulder fired. Especially if that is a rifle or carbine length tube and not a pistol tube which generally installs at the 6 to 6.5 range. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:30:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: frankjt]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ztug: So I'm good if I don't have a flat end on my buffer tube, right? And the pistol below has a semi spherical end on the buffer tube. So it's good, right? https://i.imgur.com/cOvmRmD.jpeg Question 1 of the FAQs on the ATF page make the tennis ball very iffy IMO as it is "a rearward component that adds surface area" Edit: beat while I double checked which FAQ lol |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:33:46 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Why in the world would you destroy a brace? Just use it on your new sbr if you want or sell it. Heck this it in a drawer and have a good day. Your not being forced to destroy it unless you feel you don’t want to comply in any other way. I wouldn't. I've had SBRs for a really long time. There's this alleged 'option' of destroying the brace. I am merely pointing out that it makes no sense at all to tell people they have the 'option' to destroy a brace when the same people who own the brace probably have at least one spare stock rattling around in a parts box somewhere. |
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 2:07:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Fyrpower1972]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ColtSeavers: Sorry, but I'm still reading bare buffer tubes/receiver extension pistols (and therefore 'firearms' as well) as may not be considered SBRs as long as the buffer tube/receiver extension is not too long, doesn't provide enough surface area to shoulder and is necessary for the proper function. Too long seems to be based on their 6.5" measurement and is assumed to be from castle nut to end of carbine/pistol buffer tube/receiver extension for some weird reason, but is it? Can an AFT agent turn around and measure from the rear of the lower receiver and now you're screwed unless you act now and buy one of those SI short pistol buffer tubes? How much surface area is too much? Necessary for function, holy shit, something objective and definitive. From what I read when I reconfigured my CT "Other" firearm. There's two numbers I have to hit to avoid becoming the target of the rifle definition even without a brace. A plain pistol buffer tube 6 to 6.5 inches installed, necessary to the function of the weapon. (Page 162) A length of pull less than the ATF accepted 13.5 inches for AR rifles. (Page 155) After that I just cover all my "Firearm" requirements to make it not a pistol, not a rifle, not an AOW, and I'm good. At least until the powers that be say I'm not. I think they left surface area vague, because you know necessity is the mother of invention. And accessory manufacturers will start devising all manner of things to try and get around this new ruling too. I think ATF interests will be with how the weapon was sold. They are gonna make sure pistol owners either have a pistol or filled out that SBR form. And for "Other" firearms, they might focus on the weapons they know do not need buffers to function. As they said Mossberg Shockwave's with braces will be considered SBS's. (Page 23) Who knows? It's a waiting game now. And my opinions mean less than .02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 11:57:41 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz: I wouldn't. I've had SBRs for a really long time. There's this alleged 'option' of destroying the brace. I am merely pointing out that it makes no sense at all to tell people they have the 'option' to destroy a brace when the same people who own the brace probably have at least one spare stock rattling around in a parts box somewhere. Because some fools will destroy. They give that option because they do not want braces out there. Its gun owners own fault for all of this. If idiots would stop posting pics and videos all over the internet of a brace being shouldered this would not be that big of an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 12:44:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MemeWarfare: I should have bought even more. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 12:54:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11C1P: Many of us had little to interest in AR pistols then either. I bought my first rifle in 2006. DPMS 10.5" SBR. I said: I want that short one. Fred said: you cant buy that one. I said: Why not? Fred said: "Because you need a trust and you have to pay the ATF $200 with the approval of a form 4" I said: "Ok so do you do trusts?" Fred said: "I do" I said: "ok ill pay you for the trust and the stamp and the gun" Fred said: "Ok" I said: "Sounds like i just bought that short one" Fred said: "Yep you sure did" 6 weeks later I had a SBR to pickup and goddam every Fudd on the gun range was losing their shit because they couldnt understand how a 22 year old could own that. I saw a pistol a couple years later with the tube and laughed. Then came along the braces which I also thought was a stupid legal loophole. In summary, a rifle is a rifle and SBRs need to be removed from the NFA. That should be the focus at minimum. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 12:56:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Unless you purchased that brace cash and carry, that list is just an email or in person visit away from retailers who sold those braces. ATF shows up asking for a customer list, a large portion of retailers are gonna hand it over. It’s happened numerous times over the past few years with a number of different items. you are really giving an agency with not enough resources already a ton of credit in capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:01:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Patsfantn: When is the ruling active? I bought a receiver yesterday to build it as a pistol….then free tax stamp to SBR. Did I miss it, too late?  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:03:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cherenkov: I am curious why retailers like PSA still have inventory and today's Daily Deal with braced pistols? I would have thought many would have dropped braces like a bad habit this weekend. I wonder what they know. Hoping they had a strong response planned to counter this - they knew it was coming for some time now. Hoping there was a plan! They did. Go to their web page. Dropped them |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:03:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ONETIMER: Congress hahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha…… I’ve contacted mine. Will do again every week. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:06:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Because some fools will destroy. They give that option because they do not want braces out there. Its gun owners own fault for all of this. If idiots would stop posting pics and videos all over the internet of a brace being shouldered this would not be that big of an issue. Its not about the shouldering, its about money and control per usual. 10+ million braces x $200 = $2B No one is getting a free stamp. Once the program closes, rules will change again and submittals will be subject to $200 tax or confiscation. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
