I just saw this article with regards to: ATF RESCINDS PRIOR METHODS TO MEASURE A FIREARM’S OVERALL LENGTH WHEN EQUIPPED WITH A STABILIZING BRACE

If I read this correctly, and the letter from the ATF is legit, this apparently means there's an issue if you have a law tactical folder installed with your stabilizing brace?

Interested to see what folks here have to say about this.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/05/atf-rescinds-prior-methods-to-measure-a-firearms-overall-length-when-equipped-with-a-stabilizing-brace/

There is an issue if you have a VFG and a folder and relied on extended length to avoid being classified as "concealable".

What I found interesting in the Prince blog is the reference to the act of concealing making it concealable DESPITE being over 26". So a folder with a VFG in a backpack is concealed and could be considered creation of an AOW once concealed.

That's not new. From day 1 the Mossberg Shockwave manual says it's not legal to conceal it.

Well I'll just post the same thing again.

LOL. Yet another agent that has is 'own' opinion and distributes it to the public as if it is law. Evidently he doesn't know about The freedom shoppe crap last year or that the ATF used a completely different measurement system when measuring bunches of citizens weapons already. Will he personally be going door to door and reevaluating each weapon with his own new personal system?
So this guy feels he can determine if something is 'part of' a firearm based on it being mentioned in the 'statutory and regulatory definition'? Guess what, an arm brace is not mentioned in the definition of a pistol, fair enough, they didn't exist back when the definition was made, and modern large frame pistols were not even relevant.
But guess what again, no one cares about measuring the length of a ''pistol'' with a brace anyway. We care about measuring the length of a title 1 ''firearm'', because that's what we have when a vertical front grip is added to a non concealable weapon that is not shoulder fired.
Here is the definition of a 'firearm'=The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Does anyone notice anything being mentioned in the definition that would exclude anything from being part of the weapon? No mention of anything other than the receiver, and we all know that is specific to a stripped down firearm without the rest of its 'parts'. The only thing in the definition that's relevant to our situation is ''any weapon''. So, let's look at the definition of a weapon= a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.. I don't notice anything in the definition of a weapon that would exclude its parts from making it a whole ''thing''.
Every other part of every other ''weapon'' that is used as support of the weapon is included as 'part of the weapon', why would he think this situation should be different than EVERYTHING else and go on to make up his own rules based on these inconsistent thoughts? Even if we go with the unofficial and opinionated belief that not being in the definition of a weapon excludes it from length, his concept of measurement is still without logic, merit or consistency.

Basically, I'm sick of agents making up inconsistent concepts and submitting them to the public as facts. Until the ATF gets their act together and provides consistent information to the public, it's all worthless.

Maybe...maybe we should ask for clarification for the 1847362555373848474746th time. Just to be on the safe side and stay legal.

The Second Amendment protects the First and with more and more infringements that target the average gun owner and not criminals it only points out that the Government is out for control over its population and not its best interest. All proposals for any action against the Second Amendment should be seen as an act of war on the Citizenry, Government infringing on the only insurance policy against Government is a conflict of interest and anyone doing so should be convicted of sedition.

The NFA and the ATF both exceed Congress' Authority under the Commerce Clause, even without the Second Amendment they are Unconstitutional.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry"

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore." (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity." (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs Arizona, 384, US 436 p. 491.

"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse."
Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."  Thomas Jefferson

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Thomas Jefferson

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed  An unconstitutional law is void." (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.

Edited...VA-gunnut

Well now what a shit show, measure folded if it has a Law type accessory.  Non folding measure to the end of a standard length reciever extension, seems it doesn't matter if it the stablilizing brace is adjustable.   What did he mention about the 13.5" lop, didn't see that paragraph, but if they are now measuring just to the end of standard reciever extension I'd venture to guess that boat has sailed.

I do want to know what 'rules' I am supposedly legally obligated to follow, with the penalty of losing my rights, property and freedom if I don't. Until the ATF makes a clear and openly public method of identifying the 'rules', it's pointless to even bother with.
I don't see how the ATF could possibly successfully prosecute someone for anything involving the measurement of an arm brace or for having a pistol vs. a ''firearm'' at this point. No matter how diligently someone tries to piece together the mystery of legality they have created, it's still unobtainable. You can print out multiple opinion letters that have been given to the public and all give a different explanation of how to measure things. Does the ATF not have some form of communication between agents, board meeting, lunch gatherings, bulletin boards, SOMETHING to keep agents informed? The opinion letters also all differ from what the ATF has physically used in an official capacity when measuring actual citizens weapons. We also have ATF approved ''firearms'' that are sold directly contradicting the information they give out.
And what about the 13.5'' LOP, how can you even have a length of pull when the arm brace is not considered part of the weapon or worthy of measurement?
Come on now, give us something we can work with here!!!
Here is 'some' of the contradicting information they have given=





Take a look at this excerpt from SB Tactical’s approval letter for their MPX adjustable brace. They measured OAL when the brace was fully extended.

Can I still legally shoulder my KAK?

Evidently a brace is not even considered 'part of' the firearm. Since the brace is considered a simple void of empty space, I don't see how any firearm rules could apply to it anymore?

What a mess, again...

OP must have really been annoyed by the flack the 13ers got. 3rd post in 6 years.

So with out all the legal speak and jargon. What does this mean if I make a pistol with an sba3 or kak plate and use a law folding adapter? I don’t use forward grips or angled grips. 7.5” or 10.5” barrels only.

What changes if I don’t use the folder? How far back can a kak plate be mounted?

if you don't use a forward grip, nothing.

I think the whole think about the MPX brace is it can't be used when collapsed. So it is measured while extended because that is the only way it can be used.

That sounds good. I always understood that if you use a vertical grip on any pistol, that you were making an AOW. While I think it’s dumb to call it an AOW but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

How far back can I mount the kak blade? Length of pull problems? Some tall people have longer arms than us short people and like the blade back farther.

I have a tall buddy who wants to make a 7.5” ar pistol with a kak plate but he wants to put it kinda far back and I just don’t have an answer for him as I hear there are length of pull laws on how long things can be.

I want to make a 7.5” and a 10.5” with a law folder and sba3....just making sure I’m not going to have Uncle Sam up my butt.

For over a year now, it was the ATF's official stance that braces were measured fully extended and if they folded they were measured folded.
I don't know if this new letter is just the opinion of one ignorant agent or if it's a more collaborated and official new stance that the ATF has decided to take? I would guess it's a single agent who is unaware that a measurement system was already established? Who knows?
Since the ATF has already made and been using the fully extended system of measurement, it would seem that the ATF would make a public statement to the contrary if they had truely changed things. The ATF is fully aware that the public has been following the fully extended method so a single opinion letter to a single individual stating otherwise seems rather unofficial.

OAL doesn't matter unless you want to add a front grip, thus changing the weapon into a ''firearm''. The OAL needs to be 26'' or more to make a ''firearm''. The LOP can not exceed 13.5'' on an arm brace, at least that was the previously established system.

Are handstops considered to be vfg under this new opinion letter? I run a arisaka handstop on a 10.5 upper per there website the atf doesnt consider it a vfg would this letter change this?

https://arisakadefense.com/products/finger-stop-keymod

No

Thanks keystone

The funny thing about the pistol + VFG law is that most people have no clue that that'd be illegal. I've personally been in a pawn shop that had a keltec PLR16 with a VFG hanging on the wall behind the clerk's head while a sheriffs office detective was talking to him about a stolen gun. The detective didn't give it a second glance. After the detective left I said "I didn't want to say anything in front of the cops, but did you know that's an unregistered class 3 weapon right there?" He was like "wait, what?" And I simply said "Google pistol, vfg, vertical grip, AOW, any other weapon" he googled right there and turned around and removed the grip. Oh yeah, that shop is owned by a retired LEO also.
People are more likely to assume AR pistols are illegal than to assume the vertical grip would be illegal.

I know the laws the law and I follow it, but it's just funny that you've got to really be deep into gun laws to even know this law.

Until you are forfeiting everything you own and the next 10 years of your life.

But hey, at least you get to spend it thinking about how "right" you are.

If they are not going to enforce it like 922r, interstate transportation, engraving,  possession of forms when shooting, bump stocks, who the fuck cares what they put out.

Same thing happened with weed. Feds still think its banned. People litterally set up shops and say blow me.

Do whatever the hell you want

I'm honestly just shocked they responded to any written letter it looks like. They have been stating if you want a question answered you need to send in whatever it is you're asking about as a sample for an evaluation.

This is nothing terribly new though considering the few shops that had those title 1 "firearms" in connecticut had all their guns seized what, last year? I guess now it's just in writing.

In fact... this letter could've very well been sent to one of those shops. That would make the most sense, I could see them responding to an FFL holder that had such a pertinent question as this one.

It's amazing to me that you, and a lot of others think that these letters are simply a single agent responding to a question and is therefor simply that one agent's opinion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. ALL inquires to the ATF regarding classification are submitted to and responded to by The FATD. The person signing the letter is not the one that made the determination.

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) provides expert technical support to ATF, other Federal agencies, State and local law enforcement, the firearms industry, Congress, and the general public. This Division is responsible for technical determinations concerning types of firearms approved for importation into the United States and for rendering opinions regarding the classification of suspected illegal firearms and newly designed firearms. Further, FATD provides the U.S. Department of Justice, State prosecutors' offices, district attorneys' offices, and military courts with expert firearms testimony on the identification and origin of firearms and other matters relating to firearms and the firearms industry. The Division maintains an extensive firearms reference collection, as well as technical firearms reference files and library and firearms databases.

While these letters do not carry the same weight as rulings (which are law via the administrative law process) they do in fact carry a great deal of weight in court  as expert testimony to the legal administration of relevant law.

Dont you know? Bigjunk's opinion > Michael R Curtis, Chief of FTISB. /s

Be sure to ask bigjunk to be your lawyer if you're ever in court too.

That's uncalled for. BigJunk is a knowledgeable valued member and I read his posts for technical knowledge in a lot of the AR aspects. My post was not in singling him out but in speaking to a multitude of people that feel as he does on these letters.

I have seen two other letters from the ATF regarding the measurement of an arm braces besides the ones I posted. They both have different explanations of measuring braces also. What you are saying may be correct but I find it hard to believe that multiple letters coming from a single well organized source keep coming up with different information each time. I think it's more likely that individual agents are stating their person opinion which may or may not be based on coffee pot banter?

What government agency can ever be characterized as a " single well organized source"? lol

Even the codified laws are conflicting, that doesn't mean they should be taken lightly.

I'm not challenging his expertise in any other area.

I think a majority here can say, pistol braces will be classified as a stock soon. Not one person I know or on YouTube uses one as a brace. ATF won't allow the new adjustable braces go much longer before they officially rule on them. I've tried braces before while waiting on form 1. I personally hate them and couldn't wait to put my sopmod stocks on.longest 10 days on my life waiting on a form1

Well, thank you very much.
And no, I'm no attorney, nor do I have any sort of power or authority that exceeds government. I do have common sense and my opinion though.
My biggest gripe is the inconsistent information that is given. Whatever the ultimate final views of the ATF are, good or bad for me personally, is less important than the piece of mind knowing I am in no legal trouble. The ATF can make up whatever silly work-around they need to in order to get the results they want but stick with it and be consistent. When losing your freedom is involved, all willy nilly is unacceptable.

If you're running a LAW Folder with an SBA3 then your LOP is over 13.5 when fully extended. Everyone swept that one under the rug.

Speaking strictly about the legality of a vfg on a non-folding AR pistol, my reading of the linked article leads me to believe that if an AR pistol measures > 26" (end of barrel to end of receiver extension) adding a VFG will result in making the pistol into a firearm.  If length is < 26", adding a VFG would be making into an AOW.
Using a LAW folder has the same definitions, but the measurements must be made with the brace in the folded position.
Am I correct?

As it's written, in this letter, yes, I read it the same way.

I think one area that's still "grey" is a DI AR-15 "pistol" with a folding brace that requires it to be open/extended to function....?

there is no criteria of "semi-automatic" in the definition of an AOW, so I read the ATF letter as a part being essential if it is required to fire even a single shot -- i.e. the law folder needs to be measured in folded position because it can be fired in that position (even if it will not cycle).

Fuck the alphabet boys

seems like given the law folder will possibly become damaged it is not functioning, imo. I'm not trying to argue. This is from their instructions:

Always close stock (unfold) before firing. The AR is not designed to be
fired from the folded position.
To avoid accidental firing in the folded position, the SAFETY should
ALWAYS be ENGAGED BEFORE FOLDING stock and should REMAIN
ENGAGED until stock is unfolded.

conversely it may be that if you want a VFG you need to keep the weapon upper and lower separate (assuming your completed pistol measures +26") until you unfold the brace if you were to want to carry it in a bag for transport  (the reason the law folder was designed is ease of transport, AFAIK) or risk it becoming an AOW.

speculation on my part. not a lawyer.

Great post!

Yes, we all know that while you can technically still fire a chambered round with a folding adapter in the folded position, 'they' don't care if it's safe to do so or not or even if you can fire another round afterwards.

The fact that you can fire a round to begin with is all that matters (to them).

This has been proven via the Freedom Shoppe raid and now this year's newest letter.

I eagerly await the next letter or raid that changes things, again...

thats lame. :( I'll be right back. has nothing to do with vfg.

Well, I hate to say I told you so, but exactly this sort of nonsense is the reason I long maintained that using a fixed overall length to achieve 26" was the safer route. While I won't dispute that it appears the precedent for a time was to measure including the brace, as things stood, relying on an adjustable brace to achieve 26"+ OAL was a squirmy proposition from the beginning in my opinion - it simply allowed for too much leeway in interpretation. And, as the latest from the ATF random answer generator has proven, that interpretation can change in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, I'd also observe that this new opinion does seem to open up an interesting question and a seeming contradiction: how can you omit the brace entirely from OAL measurement while simultaneously measuring LOP with the brace at its longest configuration? One would seem to invalidate the other. Not that logical consistency matters to the ATF - let's not forget this is the same stalwart agency that came up with the whole "measure it diagonally" strategy in a recent case. Hey, when the regular, established measurement method isn't getting results, just invent a new one!

Which leads me to my next point. It's easy to believe something akin to benign incompetence or disorganization leads to these sort of conflicting and contradictory opinions, and that may well account for part of it; but the refusal to make any attempt to clarify their positions is, in my opinion, entirely willful. From my perspective, the ATF is perfectly content to leave things as opaque as possible, and in fact, it's in their best interest to do so - the more obscure and unknowable the rules and regulations, the more power and leverage the ATF has. Having clear and unambiguous rules simply reduces the ability of the ATF to make a case when and how they choose.

A certain quotation comes to mind:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed? We want them to be broken." (...) "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

It is not in the ATF interest to make these opaque as possible, just the opposite is true. The Rule of Lenity will make any prosecution almost impossible. If the ATF wanted solid prosecutions the rules and laws would be crystal clear.

I generally agree with your thinking here but the ATF can not make laws.    So, I'd change it to "if Congress wanted solid prosecutions...."

Hence why it's so vague.

the atf is not interested in solid prosecutions it is an excuse to arrest someone.   Federal prisons are full of "felon in possession of a firearm" inmates, but when you dig a little deeper the FBI/ATF used it as an excuse because the multi-state heroin conspiracy ring they were involved in wouldn't stick.....look into Ruby Ridge, where the ATF informant got Randy Weaver to cut a barrel what 1/4" short...the atf was not interested in sbs's they were interested in the "white supremacy group" he was supposedly involved with.

Fighting a case over an ar pistol, especially with multiple letter's saying conflicting things is a loosing case, and the ATF knows it....and it is intentional

To hopefully clear up a little vague-ness, quick overview of what is a VFG according to the ATF anyway: