The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 16, 2015, 05:39 PM   #1
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
ATF open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”

I just received this email from ATF:

Quote:
OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.


Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division


*This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the "News" tab.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:04 PM   #2
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
I don't see this ending well for the ATF
HKFan9 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:12 PM   #3
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
I don't see this ending well for the ATF
Really?

They are the proverbial 800lb Gorillas..... they can and will do what they want. Who's going to stop them? Are you Spartacus? Or even TJIC?
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:27 PM   #4
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
Jim while I agree.... I fail to see 1) how they plan to enforce it. 2) it is all based on INTENT, how do they prove I INTENDED to build a SBR vs a Pistol (Keep in mind they already stated if you built a pistol with one, and occassionally mis-use it that is fine, and 3) That would make anyone who fires a handgun with two hands also creating a AOW.

I will be interested to see how this plays out, and I am sure they will be challenged in court. Sig already challenged them in court over the MPX barrel shrouds, so I am assuming someone will step up to the challenge.

Also this would imply shouldering a pistol buffer tube to be creating a AOW, and seeing as you can't remove the buffer from the design, whats that leave us with?

I fail to see how they plan to tell us how to USE something.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:35 PM   #5
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
I am assuming someone will step up to the challenge.
Who would be fool enough to do that? You?

It'd be like playing football and the other side gets as many paid players as it wants with no salary cap .... and you have whomever you can convince to step onto the field with you..... and your finite bank account + any donations.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:38 PM   #6
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
I would assume Sig will probably as it will most likely hurt their sales, and they are currently taking them to court already.

You don't need to talk down to me, just simply stating I can see this going against the ATF, doesn't matter how big they are, doesn't make it right.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:44 PM   #7
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
I did not intend to sound like I was was "talking down to you"..... sorry if I came off that way ....just in a kind of funk lately ....

Quote:
doesn't matter how big they are, doesn't make it right.
But these things go on, right or wrong. The POTUS "has a pen and a phone" and does whatever he likes, and so will his innumerable minions. They MUST be seen doing something, or people will begin to ask themselves why we pay them .....
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 07:49 PM   #8
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
While I generally agree, personally with this one I think they are backing themselves into an awfully awkward corner or trying to dictate how you USE a piece of gear vs making an item like the old bump fire devices (before the stocks) that were outlawed due to mechanical design not "misuse" or "redesigning" it based on how its held.

Like I said, their legal definition of a handgun is to be fired with one hand, does that mean we along with all other ATF and LEO agents have been re-designing our handguns into illegal AOW's?

I understand where you are coming from, I just feel like this one will have a lot of pushback and issues.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 09:36 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
Well, there we go. Everybody had to play games with it, and the ATF noticed.

They may not bust people for it. They probably won't. The problem is, they can at any time.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 11:36 PM   #10
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
The flip side of the coin is that some folks just have to push things to see how far they can go, like drop-in auto sears and "lightning links" used to make machineguns out of semi-auto rifles, or making "flare guns" with steel barrels that "happen to" fire 12 gauge shotshells. A lot of folks make a game out of violating the law, then when they are caught, they scream "Second Amendment rights" and want us to demand "justice", which means letting them get away with it.

I don't like some of the gun laws, or the BATFE way of enforcing them. But they are laws, and I am bothered by people risking YOUR freedom to peddle questionable gadgets THEY SAY are legal bother me. THEY don't get to say what is legal, nor do YOU. Courts do and when a case goes to court, YOU can go to jail, screaming about the Second Amendment all the way. Meanwhile, the maker of that gadget laughs all the way to the bank.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 12:47 AM   #11
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
I'd like to hear the ATF give an explanation to the following question: Why does shouldering a pistol redesign it as an SBR, but using a two-handed grip on a pistol doesn't redesign it as an AOW?
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 01:05 AM   #12
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,862
Well, I guess we can't fire handguns using two hands anymore either without paying a tax, since we are "redesigning" the firearms.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 01:26 AM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
The flip side of the coin is that some folks just have to push things to see how far they can go, like drop-in auto sears and "lightning links"
Don't forget those wretched "solvent traps." There are still folks selling those online.

Quote:
A lot of folks make a game out of violating the law, then when they are caught, they scream "Second Amendment rights" and want us to demand "justice", which means letting them get away with it.
That, or they expect 2A organizations to waste the resources defending them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 02:13 PM   #14
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
Theohazard I'd like to hear the ATF give an explanation to the following question: Why does shouldering a pistol redesign it as an SBR, but using a two-handed grip on a pistol doesn't redesign it as an AOW?
1. You need to read the NFA & GCA. Heck....every gun enthusiast needs to.
2. ATF hasn't said that shouldering a pistol redesigns it as an SBR. They have said the Sig Arm Brace when used as designed is not a shoulder stock. If you add any contraption to a pistol with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock.....you have an SBR.
3. Using a two handed grip on a handgun is clearly NOT a violation of the NFA.


Quote:
Fishbed77 Well, I guess we can't fire handguns using two hands anymore either without paying a tax, since we are "redesigning" the firearms.
Really?
Exactly what part of the handgun did you "redesign"?
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)

Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
dogtown tom is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 07:01 PM   #15
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
Can't say I didn't see this coming. I was quite surprised that the ATF cleared these "stabilizers" in the first place.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law or the new guidleines, just that I knew this was coming sooner or later.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 09:19 PM   #16
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
I was quite surprised that the ATF cleared these "stabilizers" in the first place.
I'm not. As per 26 U.S. Code § 5845(c), a rifle is a weapon that is designed to be fired from the shoulder. An arm brace for a pistol doesn't redesign the weapon to meet those criteria. The ATF's initial two private letters were the correct interpretation.

This one, which is public, claims to reverse the first two.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 10:44 PM   #17
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
They may not bust people for it. They probably won't. The problem is, they can at any time.
This is how it's done.

You can't controll a law abiding citizen-he's got rights. So you make enough laws (and arbitrary regulations) that you know he'll break at least some , so you can make a "criminal" of him. You can't possibly enforce all these laws everytime they get broken..... but if your goal is not to have a peacable society, but to controll the population...... just selectively enforce your rules on anybody who "makes trouble"- and you get to decide what defines "trouble"- and demonize anybody that tries to work around the law without breaking it .... call them trouble makers, envelope pushers, whatever- for doing something that should not be illegal in the fist place, and is not illegal (technically) when they did it.... and when you "bust them for it", bring the hammer down, pour encourager les autres .... that the fear of similar enforcemnt may cow the others to not only toe the line, but attack others who might feel differently .... I see such things again, right here in this thread! "Don't push the envelope, or they'll take away what we have!"

When the Government fears the People, there is Liberty. When the People fear their Government, there is Tyranny.



There is fear HERE.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 10:45 PM   #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Thanks Tom for the link! I needed this.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 11:14 PM   #19
tirod
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
SB Tactical announces more Braces

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-galil-rifles/

More braces for more guns.

It's been suggested that the ATF can't hold off merchandisers coming up with more new versions - like these - so they came out with a new letter to taint the perception they would be legal.

Out of all the discussions going on the one point I see is that every Brace purchase is a lost SBR stamp sale. There's no doubt that the Brace is the reason that the long wait times have dropped from nearly a year to less than two months - nobody is applying for an SBR stamp.

You just sidestep the whole process and get a Brace.

If there are fewer stamp applicants there are fewer in Administration to work them. And some supervisor is potentially getting the ax when the employees are laid off and budgets cut.

It's not about what new legal ground is being discovered, more like how the ATF can retain a part of their organization in the face of a huge decline in stamp applications.
tirod is offline  
Old January 17, 2015, 11:25 PM   #20
SC4006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 525
The thing that really gets me going is the fact that we shouldn't even be having conversations about this, because all of these "NFA" items should be just as legal and easy to obtain as a ruger 10/22. It is the ATF that is doing the most game playing with their totally idiotic, confusing, and pointless laws.

Saying that once a rifle barrel goes shorter than 16" it practically gets treated like its a WMD, saying something is legal if used one way but not another... seriously? come on.

The ATF is nothing short of a joke.
__________________
I don't always go to the range, but when I do, I prefer dosAKs.

They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math.
SC4006 is offline  
Old January 18, 2015, 03:40 AM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
If there are fewer stamp applicants there are fewer in Administration to work them. And some supervisor is potentially getting the ax when the employees are laid off and budgets cut.
If the ATF were a private business, it might work like that. They'd hire more staff to work the backlog of applications for silencers. At $200/application, they'd be turning a quick profit.

Unfortunately, they're a government entity, and they don't think that way.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 18, 2015, 06:06 AM   #22
hartcreek
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
The problem also is who is using it and how. For me I could use the brace anyway that I please under the Adaptive Equipment regulations of the ADA.
hartcreek is offline  
Old January 18, 2015, 10:06 AM   #23
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
May I ask a stupid question. . .When did the ATF get in the business of issuing letters?

Case law defines the written meaning, limitations and clarifies misunderstandings.

How can the ATF put themselves in the role of LEO and judge? They have way overstepped their bounds in doing this. What if they take me to court for 2 handed firing of my 1911? . . .or using the SIG brace as a rifle stock? The court may not agree with the BATFE letter or no letter. I would think the courts would be quite bothered by the letter game. The BATFE is trying to tell you how the court will rule.

Wonder how they determined the SIG brace to be legal? Was it out of concern that SIG had the influence and resources to force the issue?
Nathan is offline  
Old January 18, 2015, 10:21 AM   #24
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
May I ask a stupid question. . .When did the ATF get in the business of issuing letters?

Case law defines the written meaning, limitations and clarifies misunderstandings.

How can the ATF put themselves in the role of LEO and judge?
Well, they are in the roll of LEO already. All the letters state is how they interpret the law and what the parameters on which they feel they can act. So if you are using the arm brace as a shoulder stock with a receiver having a sub 16" barrel, then don't be surprised if you are charged. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court. That hasn't been seen yet.

This sort of interpretation happens all the time when new laws come out. The law enforcement community, sometimes with the help of lawyers, have to determine what the law means as best they can and then enforce what they think the law to mean. There is no case law until a cases goes to court.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 18, 2015, 11:18 AM   #25
tirod
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
Congress delegated to them the power of regulation. Same as the EPA and DOT. That way Congress isn't slammed changing and updating specific law all the time about details that only someone with long experience and professional certification can make.

They skipped out on the responsibility and this is what we are left with, agencies who not only write regulation with the force of law, but are also appointed to police it, too.

Is that Constitutional?
tirod is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12112 seconds with 8 queries