ATF Shifting on Forearm Pistol Stabilization Braces?

[MTAYLOR]

Here is the ATF review letter for the Sig Brace (Nov 26 2012):
http://sigsauer.com/upFiles/ATF-Compliant-Letter.pdf
Here is the ATF review letter of the Blade Brace (Dec 15 2014):
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=2114
Here is the ATF review letter for the Accu-Pistol Brace (June 7 2016):
http://www.accupistolbrace.com/legal-info.html

Hi Everyone, I just wanted to point something out that might be important:
Notice in the review letter for the Accu-Pistol Brace, the ATF was much more detailed and added a few additional factors in their analysis of whether attaching the brace to a firearm creates an NFA item compared to their prior decisions. Namely, the ATF did not simply review the standard configuration the brace was intended and designed for according to the manufacturer. They also actually attached the brace to a pistol and looked for other possible configurations for the device which would make an NFA firearm.

In looking at alternate configurations, the ATF looked for two things:
A- A length of pull of "approximately 13.5-14.5 inches" or more in an alternate possible configuration.
B- Design features similar to those of shoulder fired weapons.

So the point here is, with this new analysis, the ATF appears to be saying: If you have a product that has design features similar to a shoulder stock, and there is a possible alternate configuration in which your product, when attached to a pistol, creates a length of pull of approximately 13.5 inches or more, then you probably have an NFA firearm. (to be sure you have to send the actual sample to the ATF for review and they will tell you in about 6-10 months)

Then there is also the "constructive possession" doctrine. Meaning if you have in your possession both something that can be used as a shoulder stock + a pistol it can attach to, you are possibly in constructive possession of an NFA firearm even if they are not attached to each other. By adding the "alternate configuration" analysis, the ATF appears to be moving to close the door on the possession of: an AR pistol + a forearm brace with shoulder stock design features + an alternate configuration to the AR pistol which produces "design features similar to those of shoulder fired weapons" + a length of pull of "approximately 13.5-14.5 inches".

I am not sure how significant of a change this is, or what kinds of products this might effect, but I thought it was important to point out. We don't need anyone to get in trouble out there.

[Joe_Pike]

Geez, don't get me started on what I think of the BATFE and their goofy rules, and what seems like weekly changes of those goofy rules.

[Skans]

to be sure you have to send the actual sample to the ATF for review and they will tell you in about 6-10 months

Just curious, what does BATFE do with your sample if they determine its an illegal sbr? Send it back to you?

[Cheapshooter]

Legislation by regulation. Isn't that the plan?

[Fishbed77]

So the point here is, with this new analysis, the ATF appears to be saying: If you have a product that has design features similar to a shoulder stock, and there is a possible alternate configuration in which your product, when attached to a pistol, creates a length of pull of approximately 13.5 inches or more, then you probably have an NFA firearm. (to be sure you have to send the actual sample to the ATF for review and they will tell you in about 6-10 months)

Unless BAFTE can point to a law that defines a stock as having a length of pull of 13.5 inches or more, they have no legal ground to stand on whatsoever, making this an unenforceable ruling.

[RickB]

That would be very comforting while you rot in prison.
They are not as capricious as they could be; John Browning's first machine gun was a lever action rifle modified with a "flapper" over the muzzle that recocked the action. Since any gun that can be "readily converted" to a machine gun IS a machine gun, ATF could easily rule every lever action rifle a machine gun, and it would become law. They don't decide based on law, they create law.

[Aguila Blanca]

I fail to see any shift. If the add-on device converts a handgun into a shoulder-fired firearm, it's an NFA device. What's the change?

[FITASC]

Unless BAFTE can point to a law that defines a stock as having a length of pull of 13.5 inches or more, they have no legal ground to stand on whatsoever, making this an unenforceable ruling.

LOL, REALLY? This is the Feds, they do what they want, when they want, kill those who get in their way, and have zero repercussions....

[dogtown tom]

RickB That would be very comforting while you rot in prison.
They are not as capricious as they could be; John Browning's first machine gun was a lever action rifle modified with a "flapper" over the muzzle that recocked the action. Since any gun that can be "readily converted" to a machine gun IS a machine gun, ATF could easily rule every lever action rifle a machine gun, and it would become law. They don't decide based on law, they create law.

Horsehockey.

[Rinspeed]

I didn't read any of the links but I kind of thought maybe there was a chance they might change their mind at some point.

[barnbwt]

Oh, who could have known?! This is why people shouldn't have taken the ATF's stupid third or fourth or whatever number it is ruling on the SIG brace lying down, simply because it allowed them to keep their SIG braces.

A- A length of pull of "approximately 13.5-14.5 inches" or more in an alternate possible configuration.

The law says exactly nothing about pistols being held to a maximum overall length. There is a minimum length for NFA status, since the entire purpose of that awful law was to restrict access to concealable weapons. Oversized pistols are literally more in keeping with its spirit and letter than normal ones. The only thing that's changed is the administration is now more afraid of big "Assault weapons" than the pocket-pistols and sawn-off shotguns the NFA was meant to prohibit.

B- Design features similar to those of shoulder fired weapons.

Designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. That's it. That's all the law says they have the power to enforce. Not "can it be fired from the shoulder," not "does it have the same silhouette as a rifle," not "you manufactured a rifle by firing a pistol from your shoulder"

Pretty clear what's happening here; the ATF is going after SIG full-bore for the MPX series rifles, whose entire purpose it seems was to make them look like fools (between the long muzzle brake and shipping them with short barrels & braces instead when the Bureau refused to see reason on the matter)

That would be very comforting while you rot in prison.

In case you haven't noticed, the ATF has been getting increasingly brazen of late, nearly as bad as they were in the 80's & 90's during the hey-day of gun control. The fact of the matter is they are now inventing entire passages of gun law from thin air based on nothing, so the whole notion you can somehow avoid "rotting in prison" by obeying the rules as they are today is naive. The last week or so has seen a handful of rather questionable rule changes already, I fear that many, many more are coming in advance of the election (obviously to be further codified into law absent legislative approval via the courts at a later date). At this current pace, accidental bump fire may be considered manufacture of a machine gun before long.

Unless BAFTE can point to a law that defines a stock as having a length of pull of 13.5 inches or more, they have no legal ground to stand on whatsoever, making this an unenforceable ruling.

Yup, very, very much like their entirely fabricated "muzzle brakes must be below 3-4" or whatever we decide looks right" conclusion re: the SIG MPX muzzle brake. There is nothing in the statute about muzzle devices and how they are to be differentiated from silencers, so the only logical way to resolve the dispute is through intent and logic. SIG intended the brake to reduce recoil and get the overall length above 16" so they could ship as rifles, and the brake did exactly this and nothing more. The large, open sides make it logically impossible for the brake to have any silencing effect at all, though this is amazingly not a requirement for a device to be deemed a silencer. That the brake could serve as a baffle stack as well is beside the point, since the 'baffle stack' as it was could not function as a silencer without considerable additions (namely the tube; the actual, serialized, controlled 'silencer') and was not intended to function as a baffle stack for a silencer in the delivered configuration. Fact is the NFA could not have predicted advances in technology () that led to monolithic silencer cores fundamentally indistinguishable from ordinary muzzle brakes when separated from the other silencer components comprising the unit. Unlike baffles, a monocore can function as a dandy brake on its own, so why should it be treated as contraband without additional unlawful intent being demonstrated? For instance, my Form 1 silencer is a reflex design with a very short monocore at the muzzle, practically identical to many large-chamber muzzle brakes, yet it is definitely considered a silencer part whereas the other brakes get a pass, for now.

Instead of finding the language stipulating that everything that could possibly form a silencer component was a silencer component is plainly and obviously over broad, especially in the modern world of dual-use items whose mere existence does not define intent, or that the ATF's own view on the matter is that only silencer tubes are silencers & must be registered/regulated unlike monocores or baffles, or that even intent to reduce sound signature extends far beyond silencers to all sorts of devices and configurations long accepted as legal (long barrels, fake silencers, blast diffusers, 'mouse fart' loads, etc.) and is therefore a rather poor measure for determining an object's "silencer" status...they basically let the ATF invent entirely new language of the same scope found in the law (minimum/maximum lengths of configurations) without any sort of congressional approval, and applied that newly-minted standard retroactively to the opposition in that very case so their appeal could be denied (at the ATF's direction, not the court's).

These braces are similar in that respect; they CAN be used as shoulder stocks, but they can also be used as braces or visual accessories that are not used as shoulder stocks (for that matter, so can shoulder stocks, proper). The notion that a sufficiently long barrel turns a buffer tube at the other end of the gun into a stock is absurd.

There is an important distinction between 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' language, and how they effect the scope of a law's reach. Exclusive laws conservatively restrict the effect to only those topics explicitly laid out ahead of time; "this, this, and this are banned, and nothing else." Inclusive laws are intentionally vague so as to extend the reach of the law as far as possible, or rather, as far as can be argued in a complicit court (i.e. limitless). "All scary-looking rifles are banned" is this type of language, since all possible future 'scary' rifles will be effected, as well as anything that can be represented to court as 'scary' or a 'rifle.' It's a very important distinction, since it is fundamentally why "innocent until proven guilty" is the rule instead of "guilty until proven innocent." And since these braces & silencers ultimately fall under criminal law, it is very curious indeed why the *potential* *possible* *alternate* use of the items is what determines a person's guilt, rather than how they were actually using them.

TCB

[Skans]

I fail to see any shift. If the add-on device converts a handgun into a shoulder-fired firearm, it's an NFA device. What's the change?

I'm in agreement with this statement. The only "change" I've seen are people using things called braces which, if configured properly, could also be used as a shoulder fired stock. The bottom line is someone invented something that starts to blur the line between what is and is not an SBR. If anything, ATF is just trying to re-define the line in light of new inventions.

I'm no fan of the ridiculous rules stemming from the NFA, but I've got to call it the way I see it.

[dogtown tom]

barnbwt ....Yup, very, very much like their entirely fabricated "muzzle brakes must be below 3-4" or whatever we decide looks right" conclusion re: the SIG MPX muzzle brake. There is nothing in the statute about muzzle devices and how they are to be differentiated from silencers....

But the NFA says what is or is not a silencer. And as Sig clearly planned to use the same muzzle brake as baffles on their silenced MPX......it was a no brainer. Heck everyone who saw that MPX at shot show said "hey, looks like silencer without the outer tube!"

SIG intended the brake to reduce recoil and get the overall length above 16" so they could ship as rifles, and the brake did exactly this and nothing more.

No, Sig thought they could pull a fast one and got caught.

The large, open sides make it logically impossible for the brake to have any silencing effect at all, though this is amazingly not a requirement for a device to be deemed a silencer. That the brake could serve as a baffle stack as well is beside the point, since the 'baffle stack' as it was could not function as a silencer without considerable additions (namely the tube; the actual, serialized, controlled 'silencer') and was not intended to function as a baffle stack for a silencer in the delivered configuration.

No, it's not beside the point. it's well established that parts of silencers can be considered the same as a complete silencer. and you are flat wrong on the "tube" being "the actual serialized, controlled silencer". Parts are controlled as well and do not require a serial#. Baffles, wipes, monocores and even replacing the oil can on those silly oil can suppressors are regulated and not replaceable by the owner. If you have a an extra set of baffles for your single silencer you are in violation of the NFA.

Fact is the NFA could not have predicted advances in technology () that led to monolithic silencer cores fundamentally indistinguishable from ordinary muzzle brakes when separated from the other silencer components comprising the unit.

Well no kidding, but that doesn't change the law or ATF regs does it?

Unlike baffles, a monocore can function as a dandy brake on its own, so why should it be treated as contraband without additional unlawful intent being demonstrated?

Because that same monocore was being used in the suppressed version of the MPX. ATF didn't even have to think about how stupid Sig was to try and pass it off as a simple muzzle break.

[jwise]

This is why I just went ahead and SBR'd my AK with the SB-47 brace. Not worth the fuss. Sig has been pushing it for years. Everyone knows what they're trying to do.

Not that I care, but I don't want good folks getting jammed up because they are trying to push the envelope and sell their guns.