Is that a bolt face trademark violation he is wearing/selling?

The only change is the measuring of non folding braces as if they weren't attached, and from the receiver extension instead. People with Maxim Braces are going to have less OAL now instead of more than people with the SBPDW for instance.

The measuring of folding adapters in the folded position has been precedent since last year's atf raid on the freedom shoppe.

Hmm... do I give AFGs a shot again, or get a new barrel? B@ssturdz, I was actually content with my setups too...

Hopefully before I retire I'd like to run into at least one inmate who installed a VFG on a pistol, or shouldered his brace, or didnt have the correct US parts to be 922r compliant...

Say someone had a 11.5 AR pistol with a SBA3 brace with a magpul VFG attached. In this configuration the firearm is greater than 26.5 inches with the SBA3 fully extended.

A) Is it still legal in this configuration?

B) Does one still measure with SBA3 fully extended to barrel threads?

C) FATF

It's my understanding at this point you measure w/ a collapsible or folding brace at collapsed or folded to the end of the barrel threads, or end of a permanent muzzle device.  But don't violate the double secret probation rule and go over  the LOP.

My 11.5'' is over 26'', not counting the brace. 26 1/8'' actually. An 11.5'' is borderline of reaching 26'' depending on the buffer tube and the distance it is threaded into the receiver. A 10.5'' is different and will be too short with a standard receiver extension, unless counting the brace.
Basically, no one knows what's legal anymore due to the ATF 'consistently providing inconsistency information'.
I guess the ATF actually is consistent, when you think about it.

The ATF in the past has used SBS's violations to scoop up FBI targets and give them a couple years.  Same with felon in possession charges if they can tie them to possessing a handgun with a previous felony conviction...but no way in hell is someone getting convicted of possessing an SBR for shouldering a KAK blade, there is so much conflicting information provided by the regulatory agency, a defense would have a strong case...but arrested and interviewed....the agency would use it as the excuse.

Sounds expensive.

Nice clickbait title. 8/10.

yes it would be.

Best to write the ATF a letter about it. See if they contradict themselves yet again.

You are right. So now the big question of everyone asking whether you can add the Splitfix to a SBA3 is now answered. Yes you can. Because per the ATF the brace isn't a part of the firearm at all. Modify away on it!

I know right? Shockwave Blade Protectors are now legal too then in that case. Good job ATF, you contradicted yet another previous 'ruling'...

The above is sarcasm

The ATF doesn't need a successful prosecution to exert pressure and generate leverage - simply arresting someone and threatening to prosecute is often enough to accomplish their goals. And even if the charges do end up falling apart, the cost of successfully defending against them can be quite staggering - hence why 97% of federal cases end in plea deals without ever going to trial. Most cooperation deals happen without actually going to trial as well. So, the threat is quite often more than enough.

I do not see anything in the new letter that states something must be required for function? I only see the mention of the brace not counting as part of the weapon because ''it is not an element of the statutory or regulatory definition.''

Again, an arm brace is not mentioned in the definition of a ''firearm'' BUT the wording in the definition of a ''firearm'' is written in a way that considers the entire weapon and not written in a way that excludes anything.  An arm brace is a continuation of the pistol grip in my mind. There is no reason the arm brace and pistol grip could not be built as a single unit or thought of as such. An arm brace may not be part of a pistol's definition but a short stock designed to be gripped with one hand is.
If the ATF is going with the logic of 'parts not being part of a weapon unless they are essential to a definition', it opens up possible issues.
The definition of a rifle does not include a ''shoulder stock''. It is simply an 'assumption' that a shoulder stock would part of a weapon that's designed, made and intended to be shoulder fired since you need a shoulder support to do so. Just as it would be assumed that an arm brace would be part of a weapon designed to fire with one hand but it's too heavy to do so without the brace.

By not counting the arm brace we would be creating an AOW, in this specific situation (as this letter seems designed to establish). The AOW definition has no mention of a front vertical grip as an essential part. It's an AOW because it doesn't fit any other definition, just like a ''firearm''. Why count the vertical grip if we don't count the brace? Both are parts intended to aid with supporting a weapon. Without the front grip we revert back to a pistol.

Just thinking out loud here.

So, a 11.5" barrel with a bare, standard carbine buffer tube is just over the magic 26" OAL?

I dont give a shit, nor do I care anymore what they say.

My AR pistol with an SBA4 provided buffer tube (brace removed for measurement) with a PSA CHF 10.5" barrel and the (removable) A2 muzzle device is 26 1/2" so no VFG for me.  

the case out of Ohio is a good example...the ATF fought tooth and nail to keep letters and interpretations out of the trial....and they lost....

Yeah, that was exceedingly dirty along with the subject matter expert that measured LOP diagonal, and admitted it was not the normal way to measure LOP.

The last paragraph of the letter is interesting as it seems to leave open a huge window to change at will, "Finally, any conflicting information to the guidence provided in this correspondence is hereby invalid and recinded, if not issued from the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, the only ATF Division delegated the authority to provided technical guidance such as this."

Selling an illegal SBS was what kicked off Ruby Ridge, that's not what originally got their attention.  If you're not already actively doing retarded stuff it's extremely unlikely that you'll be nitpicked over a foregrip, or us parts count, or if your NFA engraving font is the correct size.  99.999% of all firearms convictions are either felon in possession or use of a firearm in commission of a crime.  The fact that we do care about these rulings, we do care about parts compliance, and we do care about engraving our form 1'ed guns is just further proof how law abiding and responsible we actually are in comparison to the real criminals out there, and should be used in our defense when our rights are on the line.

What originally got "their" attention was a crazy neighbor writing the Secret Service, FBI and county sheriff alleging all kinds of nonsense after losing in court to Weaver over a land deal gone wrong. Basically, it could've happened to anyone. The fact Weaver and his family weren't conventional really had nothing to do with what originally brought scrutiny onto them. They were minding their own business.

ATF didn't give a fuck about Randy Weaver personally or what he was doing - they wanted a leverage charge to get him to agree to cooperate and provide information based on certain relationships he had with some white nationalists the ATF was interested in. Weaver was never the actual target of their investigation. The bullshit 1/4" too short shotguns that he sold to an ATF snitch the year before (after much prompting and encouragement from the snitch) were dredged up and used as a threat to try and force him to cooperate. When he dared refuse, their reaction was what is now known as Ruby Ridge.

@army75th THIS.

Reason #1 I filed my first Form 1 a few days ago and I can confidently say it will not be my last. I also foresee the ATF making further rulings on the pistol brace, even if at small increments. I may be pessimistic but this is how it starts. Several small little stings over a long period brings better compliance or less of a shock factor. "Oh that sucks I'll just remove my vfg and chive on."

In contrast a big bite (similar to ATF suddenly folding and ruling bump stocks to be illegal) would stir the pot too much.

Because as you touched on it, let's be honest, braces aren't for the physically handicapped firearm enthusiast. It's literally a loophole....and as mentioned I've thought a step ahead for the day they're considered bad voodoo....I recommend others do the same. And to think, people thought those fools from Tactical S**T (in a YouTube video) who were mocking shouldering the prototype SBA4 stoc...err...brace were soooo funny. I know were just talking about OAL & vfgs....but trust me guys....we haven't seen the worst of it.

Oh and my comical suspicion, they want to up the number of people filing Form 1s while at the same time causing the inconvenience factor of those who travel by requiring a Form 5320.20.

The bolt face design on the shirt your wearing in the video is a registered trademark of AR15.com.
Notice the little  next to the bottom lug of the stylized bolt face. That said I ordered one from the link on your video 'cause I like it!
 

For the people in MI, this letter is basically what the MI AG said in 1985, re: shortest operable configuration. MSP Firearms Unit will tell you to remove anything removable, and measure from end of threads, to end of tube. This letter actually sounds like the feds adopted MI's rule, LOL. They know nothing about Law folders other than the "can it fire folded?. This becomes a problem in MI because if you transport a 11.5"+ folded AR Pistol loaded under your CPL, BUT Mr. Johnathon Law on the side of the road decides to measure it Open - you now have a loaded rifle, which is illegal in MI. I removed my Law for this very reason. (Yes, you may eventually win, but I'd just want my license handed back with a "have a nice night", LOL)

TBH, the whole (now old?) OAL measurement seemed to be ATF trying to apply round peg/square hole logic meant for Rem 700's et. al - to modern AR's... who would extend a collapsible AR Stock/Brace to try to conceal it? And that's all this is all about: the arbitrary 26" or less = concealable=pistol =1 hand=no VFG. Don't kill me (as I am an "any gun law is an infringement" guy) - but this "Threads to Tube" thing actually makes sense in the "criminal wants to hide something to commit a crime" area.

As far as any of this and the Law folder - to me, a folded Law AR is the same as a Single Action Pistol: Fire once, manipulate, fire again. Of course the manipulate for the Law is: fire, lock brace open, cycle CH, fold, fire again, LOL.

Like said above, 11.5" is real iffy on the Pistol or "Firearm" scale - mine measures (framing square) 25 7/8" end of threads to end of tube. Some may me 26.1"

This is all so stupid.

You obviously have never dealt with OSHA before. They can create new "interpretation letters" any time they want.......they can basically change the way the law is applied, and you can't do anything about it.  Same with the ATF....in a court of law, their "interpretation letters" are their own to create, and apply.   It sucks, but that's how it is.

This 100%. Hopefully we end up on the same cell block when we get arrested.

More concerned about what it does to a Shockwave or Tac-14.

What happened the last time ATF tried prosecuting someone over this? Its not something Im really worried about.

One could say fear is the ultimate weapon?

Interesting question.

Obviously, a folder is a no go if the firearm is not 26" or longer when folded. Neither the tac-14 or shockwave will achieve 26" without adding barrel length or magazine tube length with any of the folders I've seen on the market...

My question is, since the brace is not included in the overall length, why would the tube to mount the brace be included in this case? It's not like the tube is required for function. Same for any other firearm where the brace mount serves no other function than attaching the brace...

Sounds like the ATF's plan worked on you.   I take it your must not live in Illinois...(or do you hold a C&R)?

I'm not all that worried about any changes.  I don't do dumb shit to draw the attention of the ATF.  Besides, with all of their different ruling...yet no actual laws...I don't think much can stand up in court.

BTW, the pot wasn't stirred enough to keep bumpstocks legal.

Segues nicely into ATF determining that folding adapters are to be measured in the folded position.

Now we're just giving them ideas though

The whole point to this letter was to shorten the OAL of a ''Firearm'' as much as possible. It's intended to stop someone from avoiding the creation of an AOW. I understand what the reason for it is and why this was used to reach the wanted outcome, it's sorta stupid though. Using an arm brace to support a heavy weapon makes perfect sense and there is nothing artificial about a part that's needed to support a weapon. The concept conflicts with other definitions of weapons and still resolves nothing. It only introduces the need for more conflicting ideas to justify the original
The concept of 'not counting parts' as part of a weapon is confusing and problematic. There is a difference in not being required for function and not being required to fulfill a specific definition. Some guns use a spring system that extends from the rear of the receiver and some don't. Even a gun that doesn't traditionally use an extended spring system, such as an AK or HK can still easily be fitted with something functional that extends from the rear of the gun. Someone can easily install a longer buffer tube on an AR if they wanted to add length and it could still be 100 % functional. There is no set length to an AR spring system, thus rifle vs. carbine. There is no set length for any spring system for that matter. Is the ATF going to say that weapons can not be made to function differently than the original design and thus stop weapon evolution? Will they put limits to how a weapon can be designed?
Below is an example of why 'not counting braces as part of the gun' in hopes of limiting length is stupid. Length can be added just as easily with something else besides the brace. If function was to become mandatory in order for something to be part of a weapon, it's also easy to make the part have a function. Limiting length by introducing silly concepts that contradict with the very reason they are said to exist is why I say it's stupid.
Basically, any weapon can be made to have a functioning part that extends to the 13.5'' max length of pull that was made up for arm braces.

As I understand it, folding braces are measured folded, regardless of their need for function. Another great example of why these kinds of silly rules cause contradictions and don't make sense.

I do live in IL and hold an FFL 03 (C&R), yes. It isn't that their plan worked on me because who knows truly what that is, I'm only speculating. I do however foresee in the future braces being outlawed...at least in the capacity everyone uses them in...mark my words. And when that day comes I'll be laughing at everyone else who wasn't all that concerned now. It's the government, do we really want to be all that complacent and just write this recent issue off...?

Just saying.

MY 11.5 with the sba3 is greater than 26 OAL when you remove the brace and measure from end of barrel to end of tube.

Confirming non-folding SBA4, with OAL measured from barrel (threads) to receiver extension (buffer tube) is hunkey dory for VFG if over 26?"

I'm not a lawyer, but the consensus seems to be that you are correct.

On the pic above of the M&P15 receiver extension, does that take a std. carbine buffer & spring or is that for an A2/rifle length buffer/spring setup?

I've not seen that before...

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The 'Class 3 weapons' misnomer drives me nuts.