The following is for entertainment purposes only. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Do not act upon this information in any way. Consult an attorney for any and all legal matters.

First off, let me say I believe ALL laws restricting arms of any kind are an infringement. Period. Full stop. However, given the current environment, I would want to mitigate the risk of frivolous persecution under a tyrannical government if I choose to exercise what is left of my unlawfully infringed rights.

We recently got some very mixed signals from the ATF regarding braces.  In the "Firearms Technology Criminal Branch Report of Technical Examination" dated Sep. 15, 2020, (https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/58-64.pdf) the ATF asserts "As received, Exhibit 13 is equipped with an SB Tactical SBA3 "Pistol Stabilizing Brace" accessory, which has been previously and repetitively determined to be a shouldering device, not a "stabilizing brace" (discussed below). "

Apparently some bureaucrat decided the SBA3 is a "shouldering device", whatever that is, but it's not a "stock" or they would have called it that.  Either way, it appears they are willing to prosecute (or at least help prosecutors, prosecute) people who install braces that do not have a specific government-supplied permission slip (approval letter).

They also "tipped their hand" and seem to have given a lot of information on how to create large-format pistols that may potentially be more defensible in court against a charge of possessing an "illegal SBR".

The document includes the assertions below. My thoughts are added in square brackets [ ]. Those are the things I would do if I had, or chose to build, a large-format pistol. What you do is entirely your responsibility. As I said at the top, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

-start of referenced material-

The objective design features considered to determine whether the weapon is designed, made and intended to be held and fired with one hand, with an attached "stabilizing brace" accessory or, alternatively, is a weapon intended to be fired from the shoulder include, but are not limited to:

• The type and caliber of firearm to which the "stabilizing brace" accessory is installed;

         [1. I'd consider common "traditionally pistol" calibers e.g. .22, 9mm, .40, .45, 10mm, rather than "traditionally rifle" calibers.]

• The weight and length of the firearm used with the "stabilizing brace;"

         [2. Shorter "pistol length" barrels (3.5"-5.5") may be more easily defensible in court as a "pistol".  I'd keep length and weight minimal by keeping accessories small in size and number so that it is more easily fired with one hand.]

• The "length of pull" when installed on a firearm. While 13-1/2 inches is an extreme limit indicator, it does not serve as a demarcation line; shoulder fired weapons may possess a "length of pull" as little as 7 inches (see Troy Tomahawk Short);

         [3. I'd keep "LOP" under 13.5 inches. They have already demonstrated a pattern of improperly measuring at a diagonal from trigger to stock top corner when presenting evidence in court, so under 13 inches is probably better.]

• The attachment method of the "stabilizing brace" accessory, to include modified stock attachments, extended receiver extensions, and the use of spacers;

         [4. I'd avoid buffer tubes commonly used for stocks, LOP spacers/extenders, long buffer tubes, etc.]

• The objective design features of the attached "stabilizing brace" accessory, to include:

     - Function of the accessory when utilized as a "stabilizing brace" compared to alternate use as a shouldering device;

              [5. Completely subjective "does it stabilize?". I'd use an unmodified ATF approved brace (with a letter).]

     - Design of the "stabilizing brace" compared to known shoulder stock designs;

              [6. This is nonsense. Approved braces look and attach like known stocks (MPX PSB). I'd use an unmodified ATF approved brace.]

     - Rear contact surface area of the "stabilizing brace;"

              [7. I'd use an unmodified ATF approved brace.]

     - Material used to make the accessory;

              [8. Approved braces are made of rubber/hard plastic, so I'm not sure what this is all about.]

     - Shared or interchangeable parts with known shoulder stocks;

              [9. I'd use a buffer tube that cannot be used for a stock. Braces should not accept common stock parts or add-ons.]

• Appropriate aim point when utilizing the "stabilizing brace" accessory, no upward or downward slant;

              [10. I'd use a brace setup that keeps the arm parallel to the bore.]

• Presence of a secondary grip, demonstrating the weapon is not designed be held and fired by one hand;

              [11. No angled foregrips, magwell grips, etc. I'd use something other than a "hand stop" on the furniture; a "hand stop" implies intent to use a second hand while holding it.  A QD sling attachment or some other small item at the end of the rail may work as substitute.]

• Incorporation of sights/scopes that possess eye relief incompatible with one-handed firing;

         [12. I'd use an unmagnified, non-prismatic, red dot.]

• Installation of other peripheral accessories, to include bipods/monopods, large capacity magazines/drums, etc.

         [13. "Installation" appears to be a key word. I'd remove bipods/monopods when not for immediate use.  If transporting with a loaded magazine in/on the firearm, I'd carry it with a magazine that is a common size/capacity for a pistol magazine (Colt 10rd; Glock 10, 12, 15, 17, 19rd, etc.).  20+ rounds may be too much to easily defend in court.]

-end of referenced material-

This all suggests to me that, if I wanted a carry/use/"truck gun" large-format pistol, an AR pistol with:

pistol-caliber chambering,
common pistol magazine type-and-capacity,
<6" barrel,
Shockwave Blade 1.0, 2.0, or Tailhook brace,
end of rail sling attachment (not a handstop),
small red dot,

...may be more defensible in court against an "illegal SBR" charge than an AR pistol with:

14" barrel
5.56mm chambering,
SBA4,
bipod,
laser,
light,
Eotech with side flip magnifier, and
100 round drum.

Thoughts?

EDITED TO ADD:

In a submission letter dated Nov 27 2019 on page 20 of the Ammoland.com FOIA request documents, we find:

"The submitted [redacted] approximately 9.60 pounds empty, and remains far too heavy to be considered a firearm designed to be held and fired with a single hand.

By comparison, FTISB has found that the [redacted] with "stabilizing brace" accessory (which [redacted] their classification request) generally weighs between 6 and 7 pounds, and can be held and fired with a single hand."

So... over 6-7 pounds may be considered by the ATF to be too heavy for a single-hand fired "stabilized pistol"?

Would be nice if we had more specific criteria. It's almost as if it's vague on purpose...


UPDATE 12/17/2020:

Aaaaaaaaaand there it is...  proposed rulemaking document with almost exactly the same criteria found in the FOIA release documents, above.

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBCriteria.AS-SUBMITTED.pdf

From...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/no-pistol-braces-are-not-banned-but-atf-is-attempting-further-restrictions/


__________

My site: Blowback9.com

F’em.

I bought 2 more yesterday. I won’t change them or surrender them.

They are in common use. Want to call them SBRs? Fine. I don’t care. That just means SBRs are in common use.

It’s not enough to be non-compliant. You must be anti-compliant.

my thoughts are no matter what you do, they will just change the definitions at will

The shockwave has the actual "letter" from the ATF.  I keep it printed out.  I don't know if that will help in a court battle, but it is what it is.

If you're worried, just pull off the SBA3 and leave the naked receiver extension in place.

great write up..... sound advise

Yeah, nothing like giving the atf a list of stuff to address directly. He didn't even have to write them a letter. They can use it directly off the site.

I'm confused by your comment.  Look at the link. That list is from the ATF.  I'm not giving them anything. They "gave" the list to us when they released the report.  Before this we had no (or at least very little) objective criteria to work with.

Do you mean my "comments"? I'm only saying that I think some things may be more defensible in court than others. Do you honestly think their lawyers haven't figured that out already?

From the document:

Nothing to worry about.

Just store your item in question in two pieces.

When you separate the upper from the lower, it is no longer a firearm.

Just ask them, they refuse to prosecute in court.

If they take their bullshit literally, everyone who shoots a Glock with two hands is as guilty as someone who shoulders a brace. Including them when they shoot to qualify. They will continue to make "determinations" until all AR pistols will be illegal. Thinking they won't is deluding yourself.

OP, the problem, as I see it, is you're attempting to operate in good faith where none exists.

It's clear to me that letter was written out of the opposite of a desire to inform. Rather, its intent is to create an ever more nebulous, vague, subjective, and arbitrary list of "determining factors" as to make it nearly impossible for an individual to ascertain the legality of a braced pistol. Notice not a single one of these so-called "objective determining factors" are actually explained, details offered, or examples given of how they might be applied. You're simply left to divine their meaning like Carnac the Magnificent. You might as well consult a Magic 8-ball.

They are no set rules, guidelines, or limits: 13.5" is an "extreme limit" on LOP but they could prosecute you for having a 7" LOP. They could've said the same thing with fewer words: it's whatever we say it is. The sole purpose of a letter like that is to so muddy the waters that they can prosecute whomever and however they see fit.

I wouldn't bother wasting time trying to make sense of it: it's not designed to make sense. I've seldom seen such a collection of vague and subjective bullshit.

The shockwave letter also states that that the blade that was submitted was flexible. The ones I have seen are not flexible.

Bloomberg, Pelosi and Schumer are laughing up their sleeves. Ha, these guys are worrried about ATF letters, wait til we unleash Beto on em.

I know this is "playing their game", they can "change the rules at any minute", and "the game is rigged against us" but, internet bravado aside, this is our reality.

I also know that I am working from "good faith" where none exists.

The object with my analysis is to detail out configurations that may be more defensible.  Take it or leave it.  Some of us have more to lose than others, and although we enjoy our "toys" (and are supposed to have a constitutionally protected right to do so), taking prudent steps to afford some potential protection from an overzealous law enforcement officer or prosecutor is, in my opinion, sensible.  I'd rather set my legal team up to win, not to lose. You do what works best for you.

You can take all the protective steps you want but if charged, you will be put in prison waiting for trial, have to spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to defend yourself while being in jail having lost your job and have no income with no-one to protect your family. The process will take years and with certain accusations, they can freeze your bank accounts and leave you with no legal funds and no money for your family to live on.

They will ruin you and your family. Just look at the cases where people have been accused of transferring an illegal  machine gun and it was nothing more than a malfunction. Your scenario assumes honest people in the legal system and that is far from the truth.


The safest course of action is to have nothing but perfectly legal configurations with spare parts for those perfectly legal situations until there are no perfectly legal situations and then decisions will have to be made.

No argument from me, there. I have little doubt that traitors to the Constitution would happily put us all in cages with no remorse or regard for what it will do to us or our families, as long as they get to collect their paychecks and are promised fat taxpayer-funded pensions.

The "safest" course of action is to wrap oneself in bubble wrap and hide from the scary world.

I'm looking at what could be considered reasonable ways to mitigate risk, not eliminate it.

True.

However, the letter for the approval for the Shockwave 2.0 includes a photo of the current production 1.0 blade, with the caption "Previously Evaluated "Blade Pistol Stabilizer"" and mentions specifically that the 2.0 is different from the 1.0 in that the 1.0 uses a set screw, which was not present in the original evaluated sample.  This seems, to me at least, to imply that they consider them to be the same and, by extension, their approval applies to the 1.0 as pictured.

Could be wrong.  Have been before.

I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  Blah, blah, blah.

^^^ This right here. ^^^

It's the only way.

Mass non compliance is the answer the OP seeks.

If we have to go through this much thinking, ruminating, and mental gymnastics to exercise our freedoms are we really that free?

Attached File

“That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

? George Carlin

No 'shouldering device' on my AR pistol:

I concur with all of this. If the ATF declares braces illegal, may as well put stocks on them all instead. They cannot possibly prosecute millions of people.

I think that was said by some folks in Europe in 1939.
You're more trusting of the radical Left than I am.
MHO, YMMV, etc.  Be well.

Is that a "hand stop" on the front rails? Could someone try to convince a judge/jury that the presence of a "hand stop" to prevent your hand from slipping off and going in front of the muzzle, demonstrates the clear intention to hold it with a second hand, thereby turning it into an untaxed AOW?  Same penalty as an untaxed SBR, isn't it?

"Presence of a secondary grip, demonstrating the weapon is not designed to be held and fired by one hand..."

Now what if you installed a barricade stop instead of a hand stop?

Just something to consider.  Got to think like your opponent if you're going to try to beat them at their own game.  The fact that we need to go through all these mental gymnastics is ridiculous.


I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.

I tried playing nice for the last 30 years, but I'm done jumping through hoops at the ATF's ever changing dog & pony show.

Just a question, are you turning in your pistols when they are deemed illegal?

I'm happy to let everyone know on his very public and monitored forum that I follow all local, state, and federal laws to the very best of my ability, and recommend that everyone else does the same.

Just a question, how long have you been working for DHS/ATF/FBI, agent?

Peace, brother. Be well.

I posted a photo of an AR-15 pistol that I own to show that AR-15 pistols sans "arm braces" are clearly possible (and commercially available).  The JARD J23 pistol is another commercially available such example.  The photo was not intended as a spring board to an off topic 'vertical fore grip on a pistol' discussion.  Thus, I have taken down the photo.
MHO, YMMV, etc.  Be well.

First post nails it.   I'm tired of dancing like a clown to satisfy their arbitrary requirements only to have them change their mind.

At this point they can kiss my ass.

I have not worn a badge for over 35 years. I have never worked for any of the agencies you listed, and your voluminous posts on gray areas that the atf are using to confuse and trick gun owners leads me to believe you are here to discourage the ownership of these firearms by trying to confuse everyone into saying fuck it, it ain't worth the hassle.
At this point they are legal in free states, and until laws, not fucking opinions from a regulating agency are passed, they will continue to be. Buy or build what you want. Train or plink, and enjoy it.

So I'm the bad guy, now? Quite the logical leap there, officer. Sounds a lot like the same reasoning I'm exposing in my analysis of their BS opinions. Must be part of the training.

Have a good day.

The lower is the firearm

This is where I'm at, now. Tired of playing their BS games.

F' em. I'mm gonna keep shooting with my braces. They're common use now. What are they gonna send millions of gun owners to jail? They can just F off.

Somehow, I imagine some Jews in Europe said that very same thing when a Certain Crazy Austrian came to power as the Chancellor of Germany in the 1930's...

NEVER Underestimate the Power of a Government & all it's resources that has stated it will prosecute "Enemies of the Party / Enemies of the State"...

And never underestimate the willingness of some nosey Karen or an "I support the 2nd but...." Fudd to rat you out when your braced pistol sees the light of day.

TL;DR

F the ATF's arbitrary "laws" that aren't legislative.

Also F the legislatures unconstitutional "laws".  

Aaaaaaaaaand there it is...

https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBCriteria.AS-SUBMITTED.pdf

From...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/no-pistol-braces-are-not-banned-but-atf-is-attempting-further-restrictions/


Mirrors what we found out in the FOIA docs, but our "benevolent" overlords MAY let us register our pistols (for future confiscation?) with no $200 tax.  How gracious of them!

From a legal standpoint, would that work?  Just take the brace off?

I'd imagine that if it was the older oversized tube that couldn't take a stock, those ones that used to have a foam sleeve.  I've got the KAK 2M Blades that mount on a regular M4 style buffer tube so I doubt that would be OK with the JBT's if they start deciding that braces aren't allowed.  So if I wanted to be legal, I'd have to order a couple of those crappy buffer tubes to put on them or put regular stocks & register them as an SBR.

https://www.kakindustry.com/shockwave/shockwave-2m-blade-black

They give 5 options. From the letter:

"...include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16" or greater for a rifle, or 18" or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm."

Carbine buffer tubes were "approved" for use on pistols ( ATF letter dated Nov 30, 2004 ).

That was 16 years ago during Bush 43's 1st term.  Things change & the ATF loves to change its mind more than a schizophrenic woman.

True, but the latest letter says remediation includes removing the brace and disposing of it, not "and change the buffer tube to a pistol buffer tube".

These most recent actions appear to be primarily directed toward the SBA3, which uses a standard carbine buffer tube...

Interpret it however you wish.

If they allow registration without paying the tax, it is just going to make it easy to come take them. You were given special dispensation over the regular nfa, and you will not have the same privilege as someone who actually paid the 200.00.
This is a precursor to confiscation, kids.

just be a man and run a buffer tube like in the 2000's

Yeah pretty much but it probably needs to be bare bones iron sights and no attachments anywhere and still may not be legal depending on opinion.