Lets do the math...

https://www.gunowners.org/pistol-brace-calculator/



NOW.....The horror show of bureaucratic idiocy, logic and left wing totalitarianism.   This will answer a lot of questions of what the ATF considers a brace feature is.  

What was legal is now illegal.......

The whole lot ( must read through entire document to to see ATF examples )

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12176/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces

Excerpt:


ATF evaluated an AR-type firearm with the Shockwave Blade accessory, and would determine that the firearm, as configured, would be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Applying the criteria in Section I, the firearm was determined to weigh approximately 93 ounces and have an overall length of 23 inches, and thus would be a suitable host firearm for a “stabilizing brace” accessory. In Section II, the submitted firearm would score a total of 5 points, precluding it from proceeding to Section III. The submitted firearm with attached Shockwave Blade accessory would accrue 0 points in Accessory Design for not incorporating known shoulder stock features, such as an adjustment lever. In Rear Surface Area, the firearm would accrue 1 point, as the Shockwave Blade accessory has minimized rear surface area discouraging shouldering. In Adjustability, the firearm would accrue 2 points because it is installed onto a KAK-type tube that incorporates adjustment notches for adjustability. Finally, in Stabilizing Support, the firearm would accrue 2 points for being submitted without an arm strap—greatly reducing any stabilizing support.



Although an evaluation under Section III would not be necessary as the firearm would already have been determined to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, the firearm was further evaluated for informational purposes. Under Section III, the firearm would score a total of 14 points. In Length of Pull, the firearm was determined to possess a length of pull of approximately 131/4 inches, and thereby would accrue 3 points. In Attachment Method, the firearm would accrue 1 point as the Shockwave Blade accessory utilizes a KAK tube with adjustment notches. Under the “Stabilizing Brace” Modification category, the firearm would accrue 2 points for lack of an arm strap. Finally, in Peripheral Accessories, the firearm would accrue an additional 8 points. The firearm was submitted with a secondary forward grip, a determinative indicator that the weapon is not designed to be held and fired with one hand; thereby it would accrue 4 points. Further, the firearm would accrue an additional 4 points due to it being submitted with a scope that has incompatible eye relief for one-handed firing (where the weapon must be fired from the shoulder in order to use the sight). The submitted firearm, as configured, would score a total of 14 points in this section, and would be determined to be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, the firearm would be classified as a “rifle.” Further, having a rifled barrel less than 16 inches in length, the firearm would be properly classified as a “short-barreled rifle” and an NFA “firearm.”

The only thing wrong with the pictured pistol (based on legal GCA definitions), is the forward grip. Everything else is just made up for the purpose of pleasing politicians with political agendas.
It has long been the stance of the ATF and the interpretation of GCA definitions that using a cheek weld or placing a second hand on the weapon to fire a pistol is acceptable and maintains the definition of a pistol. Using a forward vertical grip to make the second hand a primary part of the design is not OK.
The ATF is attempting to ignore facts and definitions now. Can someone fire a pistol multiple ways while maintaining a weapon that was ''originally designed, made and intended to fire with one hand'', yes. Someone could use two hands, someone could use a cheek weld, someone could stick the pistol between their legs and have someone else pull the trigger, you don't need to reconfigure a pistol every time you change a firing position (as in removing or adding scopes, Arm braces, muzzle devices or sights. Firing a pistol different ways every day for a month can not change how it was ''originally, designed, made and intended to be fired'' The entire concept that a pistol can only be fired in one position or it automatically turns into a SBR is not legally justified or corresponding to the legal definitions, the same definitions that were set in place by law makers. In other words, an Arm brace doesn't magically become a Shoulder stock because someone currently decides to shoot with a cheek weld while using the scope rather than utilizing the brace, the brace remains part of the 'pistol' for when its required and still has nothing to do with a shoulder. How did a shoulder even become part of the scenario when a shoulder has nothing to do with the situation, may as well proclaim the pistol was designed to be fired from the Hamstring?
A scope works good with a cheek weld. The longer and heavier the pistol, the more an Arm brace becomes a requirement to fire it safely, not the opposite. Adjust-ability has to do with arm length and balance, neither have anything to do with a shoulder. A strap on the Blade may or may not be needed to stabilize a pistol depending on how its currently being held and possibly its weight, depending on the person holding it, it's not even relevant if someone was using a cheek weld or shooting from between the legs. The fact that the ATF doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge the legal definitions they are tasked with enforcing is very odd.

YES !  So much wrong with the ATF logic here it's difficult to even describe it in a coherent manner without using a flow chart .

If an AR-15 pistol is right at 26 in is it possible to trim a quarter inch off the buffer tube or to buy a slightly shorter buffer tube to get it under 26 in?

Yes

So not sure if I missed it, but are braces are going to be No-No on 26" firearms?

Doesn't bother me too bad I actually like shooting my Mossberg shockwave with the regular grip. But that's really going to suck for like saiga style firearms you know.

I guess an easy solution is to have them in a configuration that allows a shockwave grip lmao.

Strike Ind.  makes a short buffer tube kit with a heavy spring and short H2 weight buffer.  I'm not sure how well it works as it is new.    There might be a learning curve depending on barrel length/port sizes but it would allow for a longer barrel  (12.5").  

I'm beginning to see this whole thing go south due to the AFT's  right to declare  anything an SBR despite it meeting the 4999  criteria.  You can't hold people to a law that is too ambiguous in that the law favors benefit of doubt on the side of the accused in such cases but I might be wrong.



This is basically setting up gun owners who have followed the guidelines for potential entrapment on a case by case basis  not an equal enforcement of the law because the law /rule states by it's very nature in the opening notes there is nothing exact or concise about it .  

Typical ATF
 
"We made a new rule to clear up any ambiguity in a law about what something is or isn't by making the new rule totally ambiguous as to what is legal or illegal.  We will decide when, how, why, and where to apply it.   Inferring :  In fact it would be best when in doubt not to own any guns period because you never know what kind of day we (ATF) are having ."  

Typical strong arm verbal terrorism tactics to put fear in the minds of gun owners of dealing with unknown flexible causes for a violation.   When the boundaries and rules can change every second how can one knowingly play by the rules?  You can't so some will stop playing the game , which is what they want.  

Definition of Terrorism:

The term terrorism is very broad and there is no one definition of the term. Different people and organizations have come up with their own definition of what constitutes terrorism.

   Generally, the term terrorism indicates a criminal and violent activity performed by an individual or group of individuals or an organization in order to strike terror among the general public and send messages to the public and governments, to fulfill a goal.

§2331. Definitions
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and


The goal is to curtail ownership and infringe on your 2nd amendment right.

The document implies +26" will not be eligible for a brace (it is not 100% clear)....but none of this has come up in court yet.

That part gets mentioned in a lot of conversations on this forum, but I've never worried about it.  It is so over-reaching and ambiguous, that it is laughable.....especially after they are trying to set specific outlines as to what is and isn't a brace or configuration.    I know the courts are not always on the side of the 2nd, but that is just comical.

Think im gonna make a braceless pistol, with tons of evil buis/optics/handstops with a cane tip. Also Ill make it a 4" 5.56 Nato because fuck it. Flash bangs are cool.

I think the key here is they're daring everyone to fight them in court, to take on that time and cost just for a single gun that is some silly bastardized surrogate for what we all really want, an SBR, which for free states would only cost $200 and a spot on their special list.  Or just give up.

Essentially, "Any way you look at it, we're going to make it a major pain for you...because we can."


My question is that some have mentioned that there are bound to be a slew of lawsuits that should hopefully hold this up from taking effect for a while.  But it's already April, not far away.  Is it better to wait 'til the last minute to file the lawsuits, or should they get them going ASAP...assuming that they're ready?

 Rule is supposed to come out in August  I think. Till then everyone in speculating on what the finalized rule will be. I'm guessing nobody can really sue until we k ow exactly what the rule will be. I'm not a lawyer so I could be off .

Yes, as of now it is merely a proposal.  Until it actually goes into effect there is nothing to litigate.  But, you can bet that those who manufacture the items in question are getting their duck in a row, as well as designing braces that should pass muster.  But, there is the last line in the proposal that will cause trouble for AFT, where they indicate that they can still determine a brace that checks all their boxes to still be an unregistered SBR.  I don't see how that can stand.

I thought the 'proposal' was what was brought up earlier...open to comments, and then this is the official ruling with the date that it takes effect.  I guess this is just another one.....with a deadline.

But if it is still proposed (a second/third time by now)....who gets to decide as to whether it's a go...them?  If so, I'd say it has a pretty darn good chance, no?  I mean I know it still says 'proposed ruling', but to me it just said "Even though we proposed before and opened it o comments, we're doing it anyway and here's when."  So it looked as though the eventual ruling would be exactly that if they didn't have anyone to answer to, unless someone does/will have the authority to stop them and/or it gets tied up in court (which we at least hope it will).

We don't know if there will be any tweaks or not to the proposal that was open to comments (which were clearly ignored).

That's why I can't see anything of note changing as this last one wasn't open to anything.

I could be mistaken but their stated reason for comments wasn't about the what the rule said or didn't say or what people thought about it but rather their interest to see if people could understand it  and how people would comply and what options of compliance would people be open to.  i,e registration , destruction, forfeit/ turning the gun in etc.  

They don't give a damn about what changes you are recommending or what you think is idiotic or unconstitutional.

" Here it is ...make a comment based on what we are saying your comment should specifically address."

 Like most bureaucrats they want you to help them draft rules that will make it easier for them to take your freedoms away.








 


Also they have no obligation to state that any public comment was received regarding any aspect of the "rule".  I guess if a subpoena is issued through discovery pertaining to a specific issue( John Doe wrote about) it might be a different case. How can we trust that they even received /reviewed anything that was sent?  

I doubt anyone is going to get a phone call about their comments not being legible.  

All song and dance because they have to, not because they care or are interested.  

It's all a Hobson's Choice  .  

MORE READING HERE ON THE NEW RULE:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/10/2021-12176/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces


Comments on RULE:    https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATF-2021-0002-40994

How considerate of them.  I think it was pretty clear to everyone that when it came down to it they'd just do what they felt like anyway unless someone who has more authority than them stops them.  So again....why even 'propose'?

You made some excellent points.

What it comes down to is the following: to remain the land of the free, we must demonstrate we are still the home of the brave, and exercise our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights, despite what any pencil-pushing or kitted-up bureaucrat claims their laws and regulations "allow".

Any law repugnant to the Constitution is NULL & VOID, and no law at all.  It creates no obligation to comply, and the violation of which causes no crime to occur.

Yes but again the angle here is to challenge us to take the time, money and aggravation of proving it against them in court.

It's simple,  our crazy uncle Joe wants his $200...

There a lot if guys dismissing this fact, but it is a factor.  How much of a factor?  Who knows?  But $125,000,000 over the next 10 years is nothing to sneeze at

I don't understand the SBR route.   IMO, this proposal makes SBR'ing an even WORSE option unless you were already planning the SBR it.

I didn't see anywhere in the proposal where an braced pistol that has been SBR'd (due to points, configuration, whatever) is still considered a pistol.  You still have to comply to the braced pistol rules (demerit points, compliant brace, or no brace) if you want your AR pistol to be a pistol.

Example: If you have an SBA3 on your AR pistol, SBR'ing does not make your SBA3 a compliant brace, thus keeping pistol status for your AR.  It just makes your SBA3 a really shitty stock on your short barreled rifle.    All you have done is paid $200 and registered your weapon.  If you want to take it across state lines without asking for permission, or carry it concealed (depending on state law), or pistol hunt, you still have to remove the SBA3 (run a naked buffer) or put it in compliant pistol status.

Yeah, if you SBR might as well just put a stock on anyway...and then you can't take the gun across state lines without the proper paperwork well in advance.  Configuring it with a brace to stay compliant is just there to make you look the fool and hopefully just give up on the idea out of sheer embarrassment.  And then they can still just judge it as illegal if they feel like it anyway.

Again, this whole ruling/points things isn't about making anything clearer or more understandable in being compliant.  It is the very definition of infringement.

Anyone tried sliding a 1 1/4 piece of PVC pipe over a standard pistol 1.25" buffer tube?   Just thinking, suppose, in your box of miscellaneous sprinkler system parts,  you had an 8"  section of PVC pipe with a "T" end and, as you carry your pistol through the garage it falls and the buffer tube happens to stick itself down the PVC pipe, have you just manufactured an SBR?  Or even a 1 1/2" pipe, maybe there's some foam padding on the buffer tube, it's a tight fit but, well, the gun is falling and at some point reaches terminal velocity, and there it is, in ur sprinkler system parts box, an SBR.  Now what do you do?

Moar proof of concept modeling.
I have no clue as to what will happen with the "rifle sight" non-sense that the AFT has listed in the proposal.  I assume that there will eventually be "0 demerit point" pistol sights that are acceptable, and I still think (my own opinion) that MBUS sights with both aperture settings flipped down would be OK, but who knows what the AFT is actually thinking.
Until then, one item that I wanted to look at was lasers.
I've been mulling around adding some lights with lasers built in, but before I went there, I picked up a cheap, low profile, green laser for my .22LR build (along with a new muzzle device).  I just put them on today, so I have not tried it at the range yet.....but I'm thinking that either a separate laser, or a laser/light combo at 12:00 will be just fine...and probably more useful than a flip-up sight.   I recently picked up a Romeo 4H for one gun, and I'll probably pick up a Romeo 4T to test out soon.  

This would probably be a super deadly illegal SBR killing machine under the new brace ban because of plastic flip-up sights.



But if I swap the plastic back-up sights for a laser, countless lives will saved with this pistol!




I'm guessing this was not the intention of the brace ban, but all it has done is pushed me to swap Tailhook Mod 2's and SBA3's for lighter Tailhook Mod 1's and SB Mini's, move my white lights (or lasers) to a more ambidextrous 12:00 (instead of sights), and start upgrading my Romeo 5's to the more robust and American assembled Romeo 4's.   Uhhh.....thanks?

Some of these RM 1's and RM 2's might be next. My current "non-laser" versions will find there way to the extra 5.56 uppers laying around.  



That should keep all of these legal as well.


 

So.. Nobody is questioning how the ATF is making policy and not enforcing the ones we already have? The aft does not have the authority to make policy, it's actually against the law. Yet, it seems many are more than compliant with letting them break the law.

They will keep whittling away until we all submit to making a nice and tidy registry for them...

Have your read this thread, or any of the other dozens of brace, or bumpstock, or FRT threads?
Everyone has questioned AFT's ability to make laws.   Outside of lawsuits, how do you plan on stopping the AFT from breaking the law?  

Sorry, I've been too busy to keep up on all this BS. I'll be quiet now... :D

Found this very interesting on Brownell's.

https://www.brownells.com/firearms/handguns/semi-auto/m-p-15-pistol-5-56mm-nato-handgun-prod146399.aspx
SMITH & WESSON - M&P 15 PISTOL 5.56MM NATO HANDGUN  $899.00 (Pre-order)



If you go to the S&W/M&P site, they still have pictures of AR pistols with SBA3's, but they do have the above model available as well. That looks like an SB Mini to me.
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/mp15-pistol?sku=13658

They basically have the same pic for the product.
But on that same page has a scroll window with SBA3 versions.


I wonder if more companies might start offering factory SB Mini versions of AR pistols?

The people who complied with the last ATF rules will comply with the new ATF rules.  The rest of the US will treat it as they did before.

With the recent SCOUTS decision, I'm now wondering if the AFT brace ban proposal is dead in the water?  

None of this may matter anymore....or at worst, brace ban lawsuits just got a lot stronger!

Why don't they just require a Dr.'s not confirming disability?  Kind of like a handicap placard.

How about no

Seriously?!?

A "disability" has nothing to do with any of this ...... the ADA doesn't apply to firearms and accessories

I get it.  I just thought the whole idea of a brace was to help the disadvantaged.

I found this gem.

Attached File


So CRH Customs just started throwing tailhook mounts on a triangle stock and calls it good?

I mean they aint even trying. You mount a tailhook and where does your arm go lmao.

The brace adapter piece conveniently comes off.

I really haven't been following this issue lately, so much info the past 4 years or so. Is it really happening? Are millions of pistol owners going to be felons in August, or is there going to be a last minute law to reverse this?
Every retailer is selling braces like nothing is going to happen. Can someone just ditch the brace and keep a bare standard AR buffer tube? (Asking for a friend because I don't own any firearms, ew).

Pushed back to December
Will people become felons? Who knows what will happen, especially post Bruen.
Yes, you can run just a bare buffer tube and none of the silly new rules apply.

Obviously Bruen gave the AFT a slap in the face even they can't ignore. Potentially a completely different Congress by December and the Mathew Hoover case brief filed to declare the NFA unconstitutional have made them question just what they can get away with now. West Virginia vs EPA also called into question a government agencies authority to regulate outside of specific Congressional approval. I'm sure the lawyers were just waiting to drop a legal equivalent of a HIMARS the second they were published in August and the AFT knew it. Depending on how the political and court winds blow the rules could die a quiet death in December with not another word from the AFT.

IF yes big IF the NFA goes away I wonder what redress those convicted in the past under its authority will have. Beyond having the felony expunged.

If we took a 12.5" and did a pin&weld non-suppressor muzzle device on it that would go to over 16".  Would it not then be "converted" into a "non pistol" and would not then be an SBR, even with a stock?

I am sick of their shit.
I am just going to buy an AUG and be done with it.

That would be a really long P&W, but yes....assuming you are running a normal length buffer tube (no folder), you basically have a rifle.  Just put a stock on it and call it a day.  

If you have a folder, and a brace, and it makes the weight limit, it would actually still be a pistol due to a little quirk in their rule change from a few years ago.  (AR pistols with folders must now be measured folded).   This is all assuming that this proposal still goes through.  

12.5" 5.56 with a LAW Folder, Phase 5 tube, and Tailhook Mod 1

This was discussed just last week in another thread.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on West Virginia vs the EPA suggests: It can be argued that it is unconstitutional for the ATF to "regulate" products that have previously been ruled legal and that such actions must come from Congress.  Unelected bureaucrat's cannot make laws...

Glad to hear it’s been pushed back. I’m sure there’s a reason, and hopefully that reason will extend the time for this farce to die a slow, quiet death - never to be heard from again…

Where did you hear this? Have a link? I tried doing a search on the push back, but couldn’t find anything.  Thanks.

He says at the 5:11 mark, and again a few seconds later.

My pistols were built for many reasons, one of which is that it was completely lawful when they were done.

I refuse to turn in or destroy anything I have invested time and money into, so if that means they have to sit at home quietly for a while, so be it. Should I be unable to resist taking them to a range, the braces can always be removed to avoid attacking the wrong kind of attention.

The republic is going to hell and the chances that there will soon be armed conflict between the communists and those valuing freedom is increasing each day. These builds may be needed for CQB in the very near future, and my intent is to keep them in their original configuration, at least until we know how this plays out.

My hope is that the expected legal challenges to any corrupt BATF rule changes will be successful.

Frankly, I don't think the current CCP backed regime will be allowing elections to take place this fall. I expect they will find some reason to declare martial law in an effort to maintain Demonrat control on the nation, to avoid the anticipated "red wave". Of course, the media will be supportive of Demonrat efforts to suppress freedom, and forsake the American people.

Who shoots a pistol with one hand? No one, everyone holds their pistol with two hands when shooting unless you’re training one hand manipulation as if you were wounded in a gunfight. This whole thing is a load of crap. The NFA needs to be done away with right along with the atf.

Today is the 30th. anniversary of Ruby Ridge. With millions of instant felons that own pistol braces what would thousands of Ruby Ridges look like? I think I've got a pretty good idea and it's not a pretty picture and one that progressives just can't imagine happening but it will.