Now everyone’s selling “brace kits” for the Shockwave Shotguns.

Franklin Armory Reformation has a “stock”.

Why can’t we screw in a “straight rifling” choke tube or install a straight rifiling barrel and put a stock on a Shockwave 12ga just like Franklin Armory did with the Reformation?  Or is there a better way? Or is smooth bore ok.

Totally confused by this.

Because a stock on the shockwave I believe would make it a SBS with the 14"

My LGS is selling Mossberg Shockwaves with braces installed by their armorer.

I speculate they are pretty confident that they are legal.

Personally I have not seen an ATF letter that is on point.  I see a lot of people piggybacking on other letters without getting letters specific for their design.

About 3 years ago, I did some extensive research into Florida Statutes (after I bought a couple of the shockwave grips) and made a personal decision that the Shockwave was a DD in the state of Florida.  I never built my project gun.

The brace just seems to push the Florida statute even further.

I agree with the post above that the difference between and brace and a stock is a very thin line.  Especially at the state level.

Based on the strict definitions, it should fall under the same loophole that the Reformation is using. As it would not have a smooth bore, it would not technically be considered a shotgun. Granted, this is all speculation.

Incorrect.
The Reformation supposedly is legal due to an ATF determination of what constitutes "rifling".  I don't believe FA has posted that letter from ATF.

The Shockwave is legal due to it not meeting the definition of "shotgun" in Federal law. (it doesn't have a shoulder stock) and must exceed 26"OAL and not be concealed in order to remain a Title I firearm.

Adding a shoulder stock to a Shockwave would make it an SBS.
Adding an "arm brace" would not.

So most likely if you used a “straight rifled” barrel it would be legal to have a stock.

Unless the BATFE determined that the new straight rifling + stock configuration was a NFA regulated destructive device... being that said firearm has a bore over 0.5" in diameter and which the secretary finds as having no suitable sporting purpose.

Whether that happens or not, who knows.  Depending upon your risk tolerance and size of your bank account, it may be prudent to get a formal ruling from the BATFE prior to dropping a stock and a straight rifling barrel on your shockwave.

That said, it honestly won't surprise me if a future anti-gun administration dusts off the SS/S12/USAS playbook on Shockwave and similar "shotguns" once somebody uses one of these firearms in a high profile crime.

Yes, but OP isn't just asking about adding a stock, but also adding in a barrel that has some sort of straight lands and grooves (like the reformation). The strict definition of a shotgun dictates that the shotgun must fire the projectile through a "smooth bore". If you were to add a barrel that had straight lands and grooves, then it would technically not meet the definition of a shotgun.

I think the only issue you might ever run into is maybe having to register the firearm as a DD.

Gun Control Act Definitions
Shotgun

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(5) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Shotgun” 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 shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

But,

Remember, the loophole that makes the Shockwave possible under federal law is that it is NOT a shotgun to begin with.

But now I'm confused so I don't know whether that is important, at this point in the discussion.

It is just loophole after loophole.

Adding a stock to a factory Shockwave or TAC-14 would make it an SBS.

BUT, if you made a "not a shotgun" based off the barrel (straight lands and grooves) and not the OAL or purpose, then adding a stock to it should theoretically not change the definition of the firearm.

I would agree assuming you had an opinion letter from ATF.

I would agree, but if you had an opinion letter from ATF you would still need to look at your state statutes.

They aren't "loopholes", which implies doing something wrong, they are legal configurations under established and codified law.

You are absolutely correct.  I wish I hadn't used that word.  In fact, I hate that word and repeatedly tell people the same thing you just stated.

But, we need a simple word that means... "newly discovered configuration, accepted by ATF Martinsburg as legal."  Until someone comes up with "that word,"  I speculate that we will continue to call it a loophole.

I think by loophole, most mean a way to build something that is legal, under the law, despite the attempt to ban said item.

If the state police banned red Ford mustangs because red Ford mustang drivers commit a large number of speeding offences, and Ford changed the planned paint scheme on all mustangs on the production line that were to be painted red, to yellow, then what would we call that change...???  I would probably call it the red mustang loophole.  Or maybe the yellow mustang loophole. But then sometimes I'm just lazy.

To me, the term loophole does not mean doing something wrong, it means modifying my behavior to do something legal, so as to avoid doing something that otherwise would be illegal without my change in behavior.

But again, I agree completely.

Are the GCA definitions either ambiguous or poorly worded to a point where someone can take advantage of it and create something that does not meet a strict definition (other than "firearm")?

Things have changed since 1934.  Modular systems like the AR15 variant were not  what congress was thinking about when they passed the NFA34.

The definitions in NFA34 assumed that handguns would also be banned and don't reflect the last minute change that exempted handguns form the ban.  Thus the ban on firearms made from a rifle and firearms made from a shotgun.

ATF Martinsburg actually tries very hard to interpret the act as written, it is just hard to do with systems like the Thompson Center and the AR-15 platform.

NFA34 is obsolete and needs to go away, but no congressperson wants to be seen as "gun friendly."

So, it needs to go away, one word at a time.

It could be worse.  Based upon some recent interpretations, you could go to prison for holding your Glock 19 with two hands.

Firearm is a definition.
It's the catchall, and what we see it used as.
Pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. are subcategories under it.
Not everything fits into those categories.

I key in on the word "loophole" because the antis use it to describe perfectly legal behavior such as private FTF transfers.  e.g, "Gun Show Loophole".

I don't think a 12 or 20 GA would fly because they are calibers over .50 inches.
That is a DD by definition.

Which I also stated later in this thread after that first response.

There is also the question of whether the ATF will allow you to register it as a DD or make you register it as a SBS.