User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/20/2020 7:39:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Does anyone else feel Others may be out of scope here given the ATF is focusing on AR pistols now? Others are explicitly different from pistols and as OAL is over 26in I feel the ATF is mostly targeting pistols because these are concealable and may run afoul of NFA.
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2020 7:57:46 PM EDT
[#2]
The attention is on the pistol brace, not overall length. Once a pistol brace is recognized as a "stock," your "other" is no longer an "other." It's now a "rifle" and now you have an "assault weapon."
In other words, if you want to follow the CT state laws while carefully skirting around them, you need to fight like hell to stop this change. If you don't care and are part of the overwhelming population of firearm owners in the state with unregistered AWs, then carry on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2020 8:55:03 PM EDT
[#3]
I guess you can go back to having an Other by removing the "shouldering brace" and run it with a naked tube (at that point you could get a thordsen cheek weld, which has ATF clearance too). Jumping through hoops never ends around here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 12:11:58 AM EDT
[#4]
I asked the question over on GT in a similar thread an got no response, bit I was thinking would it be rifle now by CT standards because of the brace? If a brace is still a brace in CT then we would be ok running a 16" barrel or even possibly trying to register it as an SBR. If we can prove legal possession of it with say a 4473 or dps3 form that should be proof enough its legal for us to possess, at least in a logical world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 9:45:55 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I asked the question over on GT in a similar thread an got no response, bit I was thinking would it be rifle now by CT standards because of the brace? If a brace is still a brace in CT then we would be ok running a 16" barrel or even possibly trying to register it as an SBR. If we can prove legal possession of it with say a 4473 or dps3 form that should be proof enough its legal for us to possess, at least in a logical world. Registering an Other as SBR in CT would be a no-go as it falls under the most recent AWB. But by removing the brace (which at that point would be considered a stock) you can still maintain the Other configuration, I believe. Part of the Other definition is that it "cannot be shouldered" as a rifle because it doesn't have a stock, therefore it's not a rifle. All other features remain, such as OAL over 26in, FVG, etc. So, it would be either naked tube or adding a cheek weld device to it. Thordsen has an approved cheek weld but it's priced ridiculously high (and would get even worse if braces are decided to be stocks because they have the best alternative at the moment). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 1:14:05 PM EDT
[#6]
But say we had a 16" barrel, would the brace make it a rifle in CT? Then we would have no worries regarding the ATF. CT would have to define the brace as a stock as well.
I supposed we could also rock a single point sling similar to a SMG for stability, and some foam pipe insulation for a cheek weld, or some creativity with pipe clamps and kydex as well |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 2:18:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But say we had a 16" barrel, would the brace make it a rifle in CT? Then we would have no worries regarding the ATF. CT would have to define the brace as a stock as well. I supposed we could also rock a single point sling similar to a SMG for stability, and some foam pipe insulation for a cheek weld, or some creativity with pipe clamps and kydex as well No one knows for certain what will happen if ATF goes through with this proposed rule change. Everyone is speculating. The main problem everyone will face is the state's AWB if (and that's a big if) their firearm is reclassified as a semiautomatic detachable magazine centerfire "rifle" due to ATF's proposed change in rules. This all assumes one doesn't have the firearm registered with CT as an AW. From having a pistol grip to it's overall length potentially being under 30 inches. Either of which make it an illegal AW according to CT's AWB. It would be a clusterfuck and chances are good the legislature isn't going to crack open the statutory definitions or the AWB just to fix this one little issue. If they revise the AWB and the definitions they WILL buttfuck all gun owners even more by adding more restrictions to ban more guns. So that likely leaves it up to SLFU, and who knows how they will deal with this; or even if they issue an opinion, that it will hold up in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 3:08:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No one knows for certain what will happen if ATF goes through with this proposed rule change. Everyone is speculating. The main problem everyone will face is the state's AWB if (and that's a big if) their firearm is reclassified as a semiautomatic detachable magazine centerfire "rifle" due to ATF's proposed change in rules. This all assumes one doesn't have the firearm registered with CT as an AW. From having a pistol grip to it's overall length potentially being under 30 inches. Either of which make it an illegal AW according to CT's AWB. It would be a clusterfuck and chances are good the legislature isn't going to crack open the statutory definitions or the AWB just to fix this one little issue. If they revise the AWB and the definitions they WILL buttfuck all gun owners even more by adding more restrictions to ban more guns. So that likely leaves it up to SLFU, and who knows how they will deal with this; or even if they issue an opinion, that it will hold up in court. Wouldn't the state legislature have to amend the AWB to specifically ban Others? Because by simply removing the brace you still meet all requirements that define the firearm as Other. it doesn't become a rifle since it still cannot be shouldered. Actually, removing the brace makes it even less "shoulderable" since a naked tube is worse than the brace when it comes to shouldering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 3:20:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wouldn't the state legislature have to amend the AWB to specifically ban Others? Because by simply removing the brace you still meet all requirements that define the firearm as Other. it doesn't become a rifle since it still cannot be shouldered. Actually, removing the brace makes it even less "shoulderable" since a naked tube is worse than the brace when it comes to shouldering. It might not work that way...the ATF document is saying they might make the determination based on weight, or length, or how the sights work, or caliber...this could mean that even without a brace on the gun they might say "well it's a 5.56 gun so it's a rifle". In CT, the other is only legal because CT says that a handgun is a firearm with a barrel shorter than 12". Federally, a CT other is at this time, a pistol. The vertical foregrip on the firearm that shows intent to use 2 hands to further make it not a pistol, is only OK federally if the gun is over 26" long, that's nothing to do with CT law, that's federal law, and that's why you have been told you can't put a folding brace on a CT other, as it would make the overall length less than 26"...which requires an AOW stamp...which is also at this time allowed...so if you want an other, that's less than 26" overall, your barrel still has to be over 12" per CT, but if the gun is only 23" long, you CAN own it, if you have an AOW stamp for it. Everything with the ATF document is speculation right now...but that all could change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 3:42:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It might not work that way...the ATF document is saying they might make the determination based on weight, or length, or how the sights work, or caliber...this could mean that even without a brace on the gun they might say "well it's a 5.56 gun so it's a rifle". In CT, the other is only legal because CT says that a handgun is a firearm with a barrel shorter than 12". Federally, a CT other is at this time, a pistol. The vertical foregrip on the firearm that shows intent to use 2 hands to further make it not a pistol, is only OK federally if the gun is over 26" long, that's nothing to do with CT law, that's federal law, and that's why you have been told you can't put a folding brace on a CT other, as it would make the overall length less than 26"...which requires an AOW stamp...which is also at this time allowed...so if you want an other, that's less than 26" overall, your barrel still has to be over 12" per CT, but if the gun is only 23" long, you CAN own it, if you have an AOW stamp for it. Everything with the ATF document is speculation right now...but that all could change. I agree that weight, length, optics etc will come into play *if* you have the brace on, since the brace *may or may not be* viewed as a shouldering device depending on those other factors. So, I was saying that the weakest link is the brace itself, at least for us in CT. Therefore by removing the brace the Other definition still stands. because you now have the naked tube instead (which is still *not* a shouldering device). The brace has just been an added bonus, assuming you are at a minimum OAL of 26in. But time will tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 3:50:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wouldn't the state legislature have to amend the AWB to specifically ban Others? Because by simply removing the brace you still meet all requirements that define the firearm as Other. it doesn't become a rifle since it still cannot be shouldered. Actually, removing the brace makes it even less "shoulderable" since a naked tube is worse than the brace when it comes to shouldering. Who defines what an "Other" is? That is the issue, definitions of what is a; rifle, pistol, shotgun, other, etc is/are. CT doesn't define what an Other is currently. It only defines what is a; pistol, rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun or electronic defense weapon is. If ATF changes what an Other, is CT will likely go along. No telling what form that takes, an SLFU reinterpretation or if the legislature has to get involved. On a side note. Just for giggles if one looks at the DPS-3-C form they'll notice an asterisk next to the "Other" entry. That asterisk states the following; * “Other”refers to frames, receivers, NFA weapons, etc. See instructions for Question 18 on ATF form 4473. Funny thing is Question 18 (18.a and 18.b) on the 4473 form now appears to deal with ethnicity and race.  Bottom line is no one knows what is going to happen, either with ATF OR with CT. Currently its a proposed rule change that is open to public comment. If logic/reason prevail then ATF will either not go forward or will revise their proposal to address the many issues raised all over the place (not just CT related) with the proposed rule change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 5:26:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who defines what an "Other" is? That is the issue, definitions of what is a; rifle, pistol, shotgun, other, etc is/are. CT doesn't define what an Other is currently. It only defines what is a; pistol, rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun or electronic defense weapon is. If ATF changes what an Other, is CT will likely go along. No telling what form that takes, an SLFU reinterpretation or if the legislature has to get involved. On a side note. Just for giggles if one looks at the DPS-3-C form they'll notice an asterisk next to the "Other" entry. That asterisk states the following; * “Other”refers to frames, receivers, NFA weapons, etc. See instructions for Question 18 on ATF form 4473. Funny thing is Question 18 (18.a and 18.b) on the 4473 form now appears to deal with ethnicity and race. Bottom line is no one knows what is going to happen, either with ATF OR with CT. Currently its a proposed rule change that is open to public comment. If logic/reason prevail then ATF will either not go forward or will revise their proposal to address the many issues raised all over the place (not just CT related) with the proposed rule change. Well, isn't everything about identity these days.... that's our demise right there. The Other is the default catch-all definition of all other firearms that are not rifle, pistol, shotgun or AOW. Isn't this right? If so, then it's a *well defined* category of firearms that's accepted by the ATF and CT of course. You would logically think this whole brace thing won't stand in court ... but who really knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 5:26:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who defines what an "Other" is? That is the issue, definitions of what is a; rifle, pistol, shotgun, other, etc is/are. CT doesn't define what an Other is currently. It only defines what is a; pistol, rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun or electronic defense weapon is. If ATF changes what an Other, is CT will likely go along. No telling what form that takes, an SLFU reinterpretation or if the legislature has to get involved. On a side note. Just for giggles if one looks at the DPS-3-C form they'll notice an asterisk next to the "Other" entry. That asterisk states the following; * “Other”refers to frames, receivers, NFA weapons, etc. See instructions for Question 18 on ATF form 4473. Funny thing is Question 18 (18.a and 18.b) on the 4473 form now appears to deal with ethnicity and race. Bottom line is no one knows what is going to happen, either with ATF OR with CT. Currently its a proposed rule change that is open to public comment. If logic/reason prevail then ATF will either not go forward or will revise their proposal to address the many issues raised all over the place (not just CT related) with the proposed rule change. That's exactly how the "CT Other" came to be...nothing defines what it is, so it's not mentioned in any laws. The CT laws banning certain weapons say what you can't have, not what you can have. But it's also what makes them so susceptible to interpretations or problems if things like this from the ATF get through the legal tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2020 6:41:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's exactly how the "CT Other" came to be...nothing defines what it is, so it's not mentioned in any laws. The CT laws banning certain weapons say what you can't have, not what you can have. But it's also what makes them so susceptible to interpretations or problems if things like this from the ATF get through the legal tests. Even though we call it CT Other the configuration is still good for 48 states, except for CA and MA I think which have explicitly called them out as AW. It just happens we took advantage of it here much more so than other states due to the current limitations. In free states most people wanted a short barrel pistol with 10in being the max. The 12.5in barrel worked for CT thanks to the Other category. To my understanding the ATF does not define a pistol by its barrel length like CT does. The ATF cares only if OAL is less than 26in OR if the barrel is less than 16in. So by definition, the Other is stuck right in between for the moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 10:49:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even though we call it CT Other the configuration is still good for 48 states, except for CA and MA I think which have explicitly called them out as AW. It just happens we took advantage of it here much more so than other states due to the current limitations. In free states most people wanted a short barrel pistol with 10in being the max. The 12.5in barrel worked for CT thanks to the Other category. To my understanding the ATF does not define a pistol by its barrel length like CT does. The ATF cares only if OAL is less than 26in OR if the barrel is less than 16in. So by definition, the Other is stuck right in between for the moment. Yes, federally, the CT other is a pistol, and because it's over 26" long, the vertical grip is OK federally on a pistol. The CT Other firearm classification avoids the CT AWB at this time because of the state law regarding the 12" barrel length means the pistol section of the AWB doesn't apply when the barrel is longer than 12", and the rifle section of the AWB doesn't apply because it's not intended to be fired from the shoulder. That's why you can also make a CT other into an AOW with a tax stamp. There's no mention of an AOW in the CT AWB, so as long as your barrel is over 12" and you have an AOW stamp the overall length can be anything you want despite the vertical grip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 11:15:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, federally, the CT other is a pistol, and because it's over 26" long, the vertical grip is OK federally on a pistol. The CT Other firearm classification avoids the CT AWB at this time because of the state law regarding the 12" barrel length means the pistol section of the AWB doesn't apply when the barrel is longer than 12", and the rifle section of the AWB doesn't apply because it's not intended to be fired from the shoulder. That's why you can also make a CT other into an AOW with a tax stamp. There's no mention of an AOW in the CT AWB, so as long as your barrel is over 12" and you have an AOW stamp the overall length can be anything you want despite the vertical grip. There was a gun shop couple years ago I think, they got the specs wrong and thought they created an Other but it really was an AOW, and they got in trouble because they skipped the registration and $5 NFA tax. Most current Others meet the requirement, so worst case would be the removal of the brace (SB only it seems?) as that would be the only offending part. Apparently there are couple of other brace options that have been approved by the ATF, i.e. the shockwave and tailhook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 11:44:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:There was a gun shop couple years ago I think, they got the specs wrong and thought they created an Other but it really was an AOW, and they got in trouble because they skipped the registration and $5 NFA tax. If you're talking about the Freedom Shoppe, it was the ATF who changed their mind (again). Typically, you measure OAL w/ stock extended or, in the case of a folding stock, swung-out. The ATF said that since pistols don't use stocks, you measure w/ the folding adapter in the folded condition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 1:27:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're talking about the Freedom Shoppe, it was the ATF who changed their mind (again). Typically, you measure OAL w/ stock extended or, in the case of a folding stock, swung-out. The ATF said that since pistols don't use stocks, you measure w/ the folding adapter in the folded condition. So same as measuring the other with the brace fully collapsed. We seem to be in the clear for now, but there is always a next time with their rules, and that's the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 1:31:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:So same as measuring the other with the brace fully collapsed. We seem to be in the clear for now, but there is always a next time with their rules, and that's the problem. That's the problem, though. There wasn't an issue until the ATF decided to "clarify" their standing. Thus, turning people into felons w/o their knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 2:01:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the problem, though. There wasn't an issue until the ATF decided to "clarify" their standing. Thus, turning people into felons w/o their knowledge. And it's impossible for manufacturers and consumers to be two steps ahead. Being just one step ahead isn't enough apparently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 4:13:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So same as measuring the other with the brace fully collapsed. We seem to be in the clear for now, but there is always a next time with their rules, and that's the problem. Yes, if I understand correctly, and I could be wrong, they measure braced firearms in their shortest configuration, so collapsed or folded. If you remove the brace, make sure your overall length is over 26", if it's not, file a form 1 for the AOW stamp, which is $200 when you file it yourself...it's only $5 if you're buying a weapon that already is an AOW. Also, if I understand correctly, the only thing that has to be pinned/welded for consideration in length, is anything that makes the barrel over 12". Just like a 14.5" barrel for a rifle is only over 16" if the muzzle device is pinned and welded. I've seen guys at the range with CT Others with 10.5" barrels that have a pinned/welded muzzle device to make them over 12. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 6:35:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Gun Industry Mobilizes Against Proposed Regulation
Second Amendment activists and industry giants are imploring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to use his influence on the Department of Justice to scuttle a proposed firearms regulation that would banish a popular gun accessory known as a "pistol brace."
In a phone call with McConnell’s office on Saturday, approximately 80 gun makers warned that a proposed ruling from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms could cost them nearly $2 billion in sales, according to several sources who participated in the call. National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre is scheduled to discuss the matter with President Donald Trump this week, and industry officials have raised the issue in conversations with senior White House officials. The ATF’s ruling would classify guns with pistol braces as short-barrel rifles and require the owners to register them with the federal government. Pistol braces are attached to some guns and used to steady the user’s arm. The reclassification could criminalize between 3 and 4 million guns and prevent the industry from selling firearms that make up a sizable percentage of sales over the last decade. Spokesmen for the NRA, McConnell, the White House, and the ATF did not respond to a request for comment. The ATF first approved the use of forearm braces on AR-15 pistols in 2012 and has approved several more designs in the following years. The new guidance casts doubt on the legality of any gun equipped with a pistol brace and indicates that the ATF will determine their legality on a "case-by-case basis." Activists are warning that beyond the business fallout, the ATF’s proposed move could have political ramifications, particularly in Georgia, the home of two hotly contested Senate runoffs next month. Nearly half of all Georgians live in homes with guns, and the Second Amendment is a top issue among voters in the state. "This could actually cost the Georgia runoff for Republicans," Jamin McCallum, founder of Palmetto State Armory, told the Free Beacon. "Gun owners are demoralized right now." Palmetto State Armory is looking at a potential loss of $150 million in revenue if forced to end production and sales of braced-ARs, and those losses aren't unique to them. "I would say that most manufacturers are going to lose 20-to-30 percent of their business," McCallum said. Industry insiders are pushing McConnell to press Attorney General Bill Barr to rescind the ATF guidance before he leaves office on Wednesday. The ATF is a part of the Department of Justice and operates under its purview, giving Barr or his successor a direct say in the agency's decision. If Barr doesn't act, the activists and industry sources hope to convince either his replacement, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, or the president himself to step in and overturn the ATF decision. The proposed measure has also sparked blowback, evidenced in the 21,444 public comments that have appeared in the four days since the guidance was published. McCallum of Palmetto State Armory said his company relied on previous ATF guidance to invest in AR-15 pistols and make them a significant part of the business. "For the last eight years, we have geared our R&D, production, and manufacturing around the guidance given by the ATF. And now they're basically trying to put the genie back in the bottle," he said. "Now they're saying ‘all this what you've done for eight years is bad.'" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 8:08:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Good to know there is some action, thanks for sharing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 11:35:12 PM EDT
[#24]
There's a lot going on behind the scenes - but people still need to leave public comments. The ATF reacted to the overwhelming outpouring of comments in the M855 debacle a few years back when they tried to ban it as "armor piercing." Sadly, we're only at around 20,000 comments. That's MAYBE a fraction of a percent of the firearms owners in this country.
Any attack on one type of firearm is an attack on all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2020 11:43:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a lot going on behind the scenes - but people still need to leave public comments. The ATF reacted to the overwhelming outpouring of comments in the M855 debacle a few years back when they tried to ban it as "armor piercing." Sadly, we're only at around 20,000 comments. That's MAYBE a fraction of a percent of the firearms owners in this country. Any attack on one type of firearm is an attack on all of them. Over 48K now. More than doubled. At this rate we will surpass the M855 comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 12:18:28 AM EDT
[#26]
Excellent, as we should. This is a proposed sea change in ATF's arbitrary classifications that cannot stand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 9:50:53 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Over 48K now. More than doubled. At this rate we will surpass the M855 comments. That's awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 6:28:45 PM EDT
[#28]
 89 Members of Congress Tell DOJ/ATF To Back Off Pistol Braces |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 8:47:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Withdrawn... For now.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 9:06:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Withdrawn... For now. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf What dose this mean, I’m stupid and don’t understand legal talk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 9:15:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What dose this mean, I’m stupid and don’t understand legal talk Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Withdrawn... For now. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf What dose this mean, I’m stupid and don’t understand legal talk It means too many people are looking right now. They'll be back to fuck you later when people aren't paying as much attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2020 9:32:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Reprieve until January 6 or 20. If fraud-elect gets in office this is coming back with a vengeance.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
