Not sure if this has been discussed prior, however I was wondering if a pistol brace would constitute as being a fixed stock for those of us who live unfriendly states if the barrel length was 16+ inches.

Well since a pistol brace isn’t a stock to begin with, I don’t see how it could be a fixed stock.

So you want to use a pistol brace on a rifle?

Can y’all not have adjustable carbine stocks in your state?

AFAIK, there's nothing at the federal level saying you can't do it.  Take a gun that was built as a rifle first, and even if you take the stock off, its still a rifle.  It doesn't matter if you shoot it with no stock or a brace or a potato on the end of your tube.  Its still a rifle.

If you buy/install the brace with the intent of firing it from your shoulder, then its a stock.  If you wanna test that theory, call your local ATF and tell them you're building a 10.5" pistol with a brace and have every intent to fire it from your shoulder every chance you get.  They'll send a couple guys your way to let you know its a stock.  I don't see why that same logic wouldnt hold up with a 16" barrel.

If your intent is to use the ''arm brace'' as a ''shoulder stock'' then it will be a shoulder stock.
A pistol must be ''originally designed and intended'' to be a pistol, by definition. If your intent and design is to use something as a shoulder stock it can not fit the definition of a pistol, therefor what you describe would be a rifle.

It does slide on the buffer tube. I think you'd need some sort of pin to hold it permanently in one position. Write a letter to your state department of Justice. That's who'd care.
There are so many fixed stock options, including pinning any stock you want, why bother with this?

What length are you looking for in either a stock or brace?

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Your "intent" is irrelevant.  Your intent cannot be known because no one has the power to read another person's mind.

Now if you are dumb enough to poke a bear with a short stick by notifying the BATFE ahead of time to let them know you WILL be shouldering your firearm every chance you get..., well then you have just gone full-retard.

What determines if a firearm is a rifle is if can be fired from the shoulder AND has a "stock" installed, and was purposely built/manufactured as a RIFLE.

As long as the lower receiver in question was designated on the 4473 as a 'pistol' or 'other' and did not later have a stock installed on it (then permanently making it a rifle) and then the owner did not attempt to revert it back to a "firearm" or a "pistol" by removing the stock and installing a brace, then it is just a "firearm" or a "pistol" no matter how you use it.

Just remember..., YOU NEVER GO FULL-RETARD

What I wrote is 100% correct and factual.
The OP is asking if he can use a brace as a Shoulder support, let's not forget the relevance of what is being asked and how the definition of a pistol and rifle factor into it. An officer, agent etc. can not claim that a firearm with a brace is a pistol by configuration alone. If the OP's design and intent was to originally use the ''brace'' to be fired from the shoulder then it is impossible for the firearm to be a pistol, therefor it would be a rifle in the configuration he is asking about.
I am not trying to say your arm brace is illegal to shoulder or anything like that, I assume that's what your thinking?

Couple things to add=
Adding a shoulder stock to a receiver originally manufactured and transferred as an other or pistol does not permanently create a rifle with the addition of a shoulder stock. You can go from pistol to rifle and back to pistol is so desired.
Also, intent does matter very much. You must read and understand the definitions of a pistol and rifle to know why. In the OP's case it matters to his benefit as I explained previously.
Also, no, a rifle would not automatically become a ''firearm'' or ''pistol'' by removing a shoulder stock and adding an arm brace intended to be fired from the shoulder. As I already explained, an ''arm brace'' would simply become a shoulder stock if the OP intended to use it as such.
If you do not understand what I am explaining then I suggest you thoroughly reread the definitions of a pistol and rifle until it begins to make sense.

AR 15 pistol section.

And what specific thread answers my question?

You need to read like the rest of us do, it has also been discussed in the GD section, the NFA section, the SBR section, it is a very well covered topic, there is a half dozen threads on the brace and shouldering it as posted with a letter from the BATF in the pistol section.  Do some searching around.

OP. I'm not sure what your trying to accomplish?
Are you wanting to use an arm brace in place of a shoulder stock and still have a rifle, this is how I read the question you posted? An arm brace can be used as a shoulder stock if you so choose. Whether or not an arm brace is a ''arm brace'' or a ''shoulder stock'' depends on your original intent. They can be used either way.
I think there are better choices for fixed shoulder stocks than the few available arm braces that are stationary. An adjustable brace such as the SBA3 would not pass as a fixed stock because it is still adjustable even if used as a stock.
Or, are you wanting to have a pistol with an arm brace and a 16'' barrel? There is no max length to a pistols barrel or OAL federally. If the laws in NJ do not allow adjustable shoulder stocks then using an adjustable brace would only work if the firearm was a pistol and the brace was used as an arm brace.

WRONG. There is absolutely no requirement for, or even any mention of a stock in the definition of a rifle.

"The term "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger."

Next time you have a thought, let it go.

The OP lives in NJ.

If the OP's rifle is owned before 1990 and registered with the state police, he can use it all willy nilly to whatever configuration he'd like limited by federal law. If he's a LE then he can buy anything he wants in whatever configuration that is legal in the other states.

Now as far as a AR PISTOL, that's a bit different. The law speaks nothing about pistol brace, but it does talk about "features." The OP will have to look at NJ's law on what classifies a pistol as a "assault weapon" and basically not do that.

Does NJ allow "assault pistols"? If not a brace would be a bad idea. A pistol can have any length barrel, even over 16",  so if your lower has a brace it's still a pistol even if it has a rifle upper on it. There's no telling what the cops will charge you with. Most cops don't know what a brace even is. You should go to your hometown forum and find out what other people are doing to stay legal and do that.

Absolutely correct.  I don't know why I the phuck I even attempted to chime in on this topic that has a seemingly endless supply of experts, all of varying opinion.

Why would I go through the NFA, SBR or even pistol section when I mentioned a barrel length of 16"?  My question does not pertain to a single one of those criteria.  The intent is to be used on a carbine, as per the title of the thread.

Simply asked if a brace can be used as as fixed stock on a 16" barreled AR15.

This gentleman gets is.

I agree with this. A pistol brace with a 16" barrel is still a pistol.

Because it has been discussed in every single one of those sections, you can't think of a question that has not been asked about pistol braces that has not been answered in any of those sections.

If you live in a state that says, no movable stocks and you can't move the stock on the gun you have, then it would seem to be legal, but I would also suggest asking your question in the NJ Hometown section and get your answers from someone who may be way more familiar with your circumstances than a general audience.

Wouldn't the serial number on the lower receiver constituted the whether it was made (and subsequently purchased) as a pistol, not the barrel or any other features of said build?

And as others have mentioned, no where does it state a rifle even needs to have a stock.  Just need to be a minimum OAL length and barrel of 16" or more.

True, based on visual configuration alone.
''The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand.''
The problem with labeling a firearm as a pistol by configuration alone is that the ''design and intent'' can not be guaranteed. If someone originally ''intended'' to fire the weapon from the shoulder, the weapon can not fit the definition of ''intended to fire when held in one hand'' like a pistol. Technically, someone could intend to fire a weapon with one hand even if the weapon also had a shoulder support but the ''made'' part of the definition would then fit the definition of a rifle.
As was already pointed out, ''Shoulder Stock'' is not part of the definition of a rifle. A rifle must only be designed, intended and made to fire from the shoulder. An arm brace could easily be used as a shoulder support and fulfill the requirements and definition of a rifle.
It also comes down to ''design'' and ''intent'', not only the ''made'' when fulfilling the definitions legally.

No, you're absolutely wrong.

Did you buy it assembled? Either way the serial number trace comes later, not in the field with the arresting officer. And actually it does say that a rifle had to have a stock, sort of, it says "designed to be fired from the shoulder". If you built a firearm and hadn't ever put the stock on the buffer tube, it's technically not a rifle yet. Unless you intended to shoulder the buffer tube.

If the ATF has stated that removing Velcro straps, etc. from a pistol brace makes it a buttstock, then conceivabley doing that very thing would render it legal to put on a rifle, assuming you are meeting all length requirements.

Just my $0.02. It’s your 10 years to risk how you want to, though.

There’s a letter from the ATF clarifying this. If you buy and install the brace on a pistol, it’s fine, even if you shoulder the weapon. However, if you modify the brace, presumably disabling the design features which make it usable as a brace, THEN you have made it a buttstock, which is illegal on a pistol.

Presumably, OP has an issue with state law about collapsible stocks and is looking for a work around using a pistol brace so he can claim it is NOT a collapsible stock in contravention of state law. The problem is that if it’s a state law he’s concerned about, the ATF’s interpretation means nothing outside of enforcing federal law...unless the state has some kind of blanket rule wherein it says the state uses the ATF or federal definitions for things gun related.

So while it seems clever to install a collapsible pistol brace on a rifle so you can say “I didn’t install a collapsible buttstock”, the ATF’s ruling isn’t necessarily binding on an individual state’s interpretation of what violates state weapons laws.

Who wants to be a test case? Not me. The manufacturers usually do a pretty good job of figuring out the loopholes and then market them for such. If the manufacturer isn’t touting it as a solution, I’d be leery of trying it out.

This is where you are messing up. You have to create a nonsensical scenario to even implicate “intent” into the scenario.

When the ATF has put into writing that it’s not illegal to shoulder an unmodified pistol brace and that problems only arise when you modify them (as opposed to how you actually use them), that clearly shows that intent at the time of purchase/installation or at any other time short of modifying the brace is irrelevant.

Why? Because what purer evidence of intent to use a brace as a buttstock could there be other than actually, you know, USING it as a buttstock? To argue otherwise is to imply that intent to use it as such is illegal, but actually using the damn thing as a buttstock somehow isn’t intent. That’s just ludicrous.

What you have is the ATF kinda throwing it’s hands up and implicitly acknowledging that enforcement on that narrow point is kinda silly, so they’re setting a bright line test that is more easily discernible and prosecutable...modification which renders use as a brace impossible.

And that’s the point...it isn’t about the brace’s possible use or even actual use at the shoulder. It’s about it’s continued usability as a pistol brace. If you’re keeping the form consistent with original design, the use (and therefore intent) actually isn’t important. Once you disable the pistol brace functionality, then what you inevitably have remaining is a buttstock.

That all depends on how NJ defines pistols. Everyone assumes the federal definitions control. They don’t necessarily.

The problem we have is trying to be legal with both federal and state law. But being legal with one, even if it’s federal, doesn’t mean you are necessarily legal in the other. You need to check both.

Because modifying it removes it from the intent of the brace's manufacturer.  Intent is clearly spelled out in the law as passed by Congress and signed by the president.  So yes, intent does matter.

And ATF has stated in writing that installing a brace with the intent to shoulder it and bypass the NFA is illegal.

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having: a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
The definition above is copied and pasted from the ATF website. Notice how the definition states ''originally'' designed, intended and made. The reason that shouldering an arm brace does not create a Rifle is the original ''intent'' to what was built. If you originally built a weapon with the intent to shoulder fire it you have built a rifle. If your intent was to fire it one handed then you have built a pistol. Once you have a pistol you can shoot it however you want. Good idea to know and understand the above information if an agent ever asked the question ''did you intend to use your arm brace as a shoulder support when the weapon was built?''
Shouldering a pistol is different than shouldering a rifle, hopefully that makes sense.
Intent makes all the difference. It's not how you intend to shoot your ''pistol'' that matters, it's your original intent to build a pistol or rifle that matters.
Ask the ATF what you have built if you installed an arm brace on a weapon with the intent to use it as a shoulder support.  Don't really do that!

When has an ATF agent ever asked you, or anyone, that question?

Yes, and the intent is in the redesign of the stock...not your internalized motives in what you intend to do with it out at the range.

Ask yourself this...can I build a weapon with a 10” barrel and an A2 stock and claim it’s a pistol because I intend to fire it with one hand? Well, that meets the definition of a pistol, correct?

Intention isolated from, or overriding, the design (the “form”, if you will) is going to be near impossible to defend or prosecute. The clarification letter from early 2017 is the ATF admitting that.

Notice even how they pointed to “pinning” the brace into the lengthened position as being a redesign. Having a pistol brace that extends far enough so as to be able to be shouldered isn’t a problem, but pinning it so that it could serve no other purpose becomes the problem.

So it doesn’t really matter that you can, will or in fact do shoulder the weapon. The ATF implicitly backed off of the idea that shouldering the weapon is a redesign of the brace. What matters is what you intend when you modify it, because it’s the manufacturers intent, not yours, when you install it as manufactured.

@223 Rem:

1) Check 18 U.S. Code § 921 for federal definitions of Pistol and Rifle. (which let's assume by now you've already done).

2) Will, on this specific firearm by using a "pistol brace" as a "shoulder stock" keep the overall length greater than 26"? (again lets assume yes).

3) Will, by use of a pistol brace, this rife have been redesigned to be fired by a single hand.  Reference 18 U.S. Code § 921 (29):

"The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled."

AND
Code of Fed Regs Title 27 Chap II, Subchapter B §478.11   Meaning of terms:
"Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."

Or will it have been 'redesigned' by substituting the pistol brace, to continue to require 2 hands?  If the ATF considers this a redesign still requiring 2 hands, you'd be in the clear, Federally (also check with an attorney licensed in your state for local compliance).  BUT, if using a pistol brace would be considered as a redesigning what was your rifle as being designed to be gripped by one hand, you now have created something that can get you into trouble.

If your firearm had started as a pistol, no problem at least federally, if it starts as a pistol, the lower can go to rifle and back again.  But you can't start with an AR 15 lower that is originally registered as a rifle and go into pistol territory.

I am not aware of an official ATF ruling on this yet, but I recall a modification to the KAK blade with the Shockwave Blade Protector kind of padding to the rear that was proposed to the ATF a while back (). The ATF ruled that would have turned it into a stock, and thus any pistol using that modification into a SBR because it showed the intent to shoulder the rifle.  I read this as the ATF using the component parts to determine intent in their rulings.  Thus, if you change your rifle and put on an item that the ATF has ruled as a pistol brace, they will probably say that it shows intent to use 1 handed.  But if say you are using, specifically the Shockwave blade with the protector, and you have a long enough barrel and OAL, you should be ok see their website

Again if you aren't sure contact an Attorney in your state with experience in firearms law, and maybe ask the ATF about that specific product combo.  I don't think that it applies to any other pistol braces at this time.