ATF and pistol braces ?

[zeke]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I've never even heard of a AR pistol--braced or not--being used in a homicide/mass shooting--has anyone else?

If memory holds, and sometimes it doesn't, remember hearing or reading about 2 such instances? Might have even been in the final order's preamble?

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

A couple points to consider...

I agree completely, and as far as I can tell if you don't have a brace, none of this BS DOES apply.

I also think the people who are saying that an unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol is now going to be an NFA Item are talking out their backsides and just trying to scare people.

Note that the ATF didn't say "if you have an AR pistol send it in for evaluation" they said "If you have a brace on your AR pistol.

If you don't have a brace, I can't see where any of that applies, at all.

"HOW DO I GET A DETERMINATION IF MY “BRACE” DEVICE MAKES A PISTOL AN SBR?
• In addition to ATF’s list of commercially available firearms sold with “stabilizing braces” and common weapon platforms equipped with “stabilizing braces” that qualify as SBR, any other firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” or rearward attachment may be submitted to ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division for classification."

To practice what we used to call "philly lawyer", in order to be correct they included "or rearward attachment"

Also checked most of the preceding comments, and couldn't find anyone stating " unbraced bare buffer tube AR pistol" would be NFA regulated. Did find plenty of cautionary statements to the effect of not assuming they were excluded from NFA regulations. And how easy are the big boys reading this "scared" by people stating their opinions?

Some people may still trust the atf, but find this confusing given their long consistent history of politics changing their positions. As others probably stated, how many times ya gonna let Lucy hold the football for ya?

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by zeke

If memory holds, and sometimes it doesn't, remember hearing or reading about 2 such instances? Might have even been in the final order's preamble?

The Boulder, CO shooter used an AR15 pistol with a brace.

[MTT TL]

I cant get any of the links on the ATF website to work. I know this is typical of Federal Websites but disappointing none the less.

As someone with an arm injury that doesn't allow me to fully extend my left arm (it has been measured at 25 degree angle at full extension) and I have some weakness in it now, the brace is actually helpful for me. I can live without it obviously but likely will move away from heavier longer barrelled AR pistols and just go with something smaller and less effective, which I guess is the whole point of the government controls.

I don't think this would be covered under ADA as I'm not actually disabled. My arm simply doesn't work the way most arms do and this has a very small impact on my life. For example when I do a push up my strong arm pushes me all the way up and the weak side that won't extend fully is about 1-2" lower. I've certainly learned to live with it.

When using a small pistol I simply cant my body at what most people would think of as a weird angle for shooting and this works to get my arms at the same length, although my accuracy with a pistol is only mediocre.

An AR pistol weighs 5lbs+ however and since my weak side hand won't extend as far as my strong hand I can't get it out far enough to stabilize the fore end and don't have enough grip strength on the left side to hold the gun steady if I try to put both hands on the pistol grip. Also if I put both hands on the pistol grip I have to bend my strong arm at the same angle as the weak and everything become really unsteady, it is actually so bad it is unsafe for me to shoot it that way.

The brace stabilizes it and even with reduced grip strength on the other side it holds it stable enough for me to shoot safely.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I don't think this would be covered under ADA as I'm not actually disabled.

If you have that much limitation in the use of your arm, you probably qualify as "disabled," and you probably are covered by the ADA -- for things the ADA covers. I have seen no guidance anywhere, from any source, that suggests the ADA covers firearms.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/disability-rights-guide/

To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.

[MTT TL]

I'm not sure shooting AR pistols qualifies as a major life activity. Other than not being able to do a correct push up back when I was in the military my biggest problem is when I need to do something that normally requires a straight arm. Not too much in life requires that.

Although the Army did give me 10% on the arm when I retired, so there is that.

[JohnKSa]

If you want to do the work of helping atf write a decent rule, please feel free to go through all the concerns repeatedly expressed, and address them. Will give ya a hint, and that is the simpler the better.

I'm right there with you. The problem is that it can't happen under the current circumstances.

With pistols that look like rifles in every respect except for not having a shoulder stock and having a short barrel, and with things that look like shoulder stocks but are called something else, and with shoulder stock not being defined in federal law or listed as a necessary feature for a rifle, there is not going to be a simple rule.

I take it back. There could be simple rules, but the gun community would not like them at all.

One option would be to say that any firearm with a forward handguard or that is designed to accept a forward handguard, or that is substantially similar to a firearm designed to accept a forward handguard is obviously not intended/designed/made/remade to be fired with one hand and therefore isn't a pistol under the definition in federal law.

The reason that the rule is complicated is that they are trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal and they don't see turning all AR pistols into SBRs as a reasonable option. They could make very simple rules if they were willing to take that approach.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I'm right there with you. The problem is that it can't happen under the current circumstances.

With pistols that look like rifles in every respect except for not having a shoulder stock and having a short barrel, and with things that look like shoulder stocks but are called something else, and with shoulder stock not being defined in federal law or listed as a necessary feature for a rifle, there is not going to be a simple rule.

I take it back. There could be simple rules, but the gun community would not like them at all.

One option would be to say that any firearm with a forward handguard or that is designed to accept a forward handguard, or that is substantially similar to a firearm designed to accept a forward handguard is obviously not intended/designed/made/remade to be fired with one hand and therefore isn't a pistol under the definition in federal law.

The reason that the rule is complicated is that they are trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal and they don't see turning all AR pistols into SBRs as a reasonable option. They could make very simple rules if they were willing to take that approach.

Gonna politely/strongly disagree that their purpose of trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal. Mainly because i fail to see them provide ANY EXAMPLE of a stabilizing brace that would keep an under 16 in barreled firearm from having to be registered/stamped. They do say they are not regulating stabilizing braces that are attached to over 16 in barrels, or kept if they are no under 16 in barreled firearm's they could be attached to present (paraphrasing).

Instead, imo, they wrote a rule they could apply however they wanted without an individual having any clue in advance how it was going to be applied. Will agree they didn't want to go with a simple rule that would give negative publicity fodder, but could be easily applied. Imo this could be easily done and within their legal capability, but certainly there would be a back lash.

In today's society the pres is openly saying there is no reason to have a semi automatic firearm, cities and states banning high capacity magazines and places banning "assault guns" . Again, am not so sure they aren't deliberately writing a rule that could be interpreted now, or in the future, to ban all AR-15 style pistols that aren't registered.

And quite frankly am more concerned over what i perceive to be a Federal agencies open ended abuse of rule making.

It will soon be 2 weeks since the rule was signed, and still not published in the Fed Register.

[stagpanther]

ban all AR-15 style pistols that aren't registered

I suspect the same thing--even though I still think the rule has no bearing on a "baretube" AR pistol and is why I'm simply preemptively converting to rifle my AR pistols. Years ago when I built my pistols I had a hunch there was no way this would last.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I'm not sure shooting AR pistols qualifies as a major life activity. Other than not being able to do a correct push up back when I was in the military my biggest problem is when I need to do something that normally requires a straight arm. Not too much in life requires that.

Although the Army did give me 10% on the arm when I retired, so there is that.

If the Army gave you a 10% disability, you are "disabled."

As to the ADA, remember that the ADA falls within a broad class of laws intended to be anti-discrimination laws. Basically, it's about ensuring that people are not discriminated against due to a covered disability. What's a "covered disability"? See the definition I cited above.

[JohnKSa]

Gonna politely/strongly disagree that their purpose of trying to keep legitimate stabilizing braces legal.

They could just say that stabilizing braces are illegal to attach to pistols if they wanted to outlaw all of them. One sentence, no need for ~300pp of discussion, examples, photos, Q&A, definitions, etc. No need for a list of "other factors" that need to be present in addition to surface area for shouldering a firearm. Might not stand up to challenge, but that's never a certain thing anyway.

[zeke]

yup they could have just done that, which would have been highly unpopular. However in Imo it would have held up to legal scrutiny and within their legal purview. It would get the legislators riled up being simple enough the legislators could understand what was happening. And they literally buried the actual rule under 268 pages, which many people would have given up before actually getting to the rule.

However they went a way an elected state representative described to me as "acting like a tricky dicky". Am not going to count out the possibility the people in charge did not really care whether the ruling held up or not. They wanted the political points for trying, while being able to blame others for it failing.

And another thing. If this final rule goes into effect, the upper schmucks will get their political points, while the grunts will get sacrificed trying to enact the ambiguities. I have literally been put in a similar position till learning better.

[44 AMP]

Mainly because i fail to see them provide ANY EXAMPLE of a stabilizing brace that would keep an under 16 in barreled firearm from having to be registered/stamped.

First point, why do you think it is their responsibility to provide an example of what is legal?? As pointed out numerous times in this thread, its not their function to tell you what you can do, its their job to tell us what you can't do.

Next point, the mixing of general statements about pistol braces and the specifics of the braces used on AR pistols can be different things.

I would point out that the common popular designs of braces used on AR pistols are not the only kind of braces that are, or ever were. There were pistol braces before AR pistols existed. Those designs are not common, and in production today, but other than popularity, there's no reason they couldn't be.

Making statements about the AR braces as if they applied to every brace design that exists or existed is overly broad and inaccurate because of that.

It is entirely possible, and has been done, to create a brace that absolutely is intended to function as a stock, but is immune to ATF rule changes and NFA regulation. I've seen them.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

First point, why do you think it is their responsibility to provide an example of what is legal?? As pointed out numerous times in this thread, its not their function to tell you what you can do, its their job to tell us what you can't do.

Next point, the mixing of general statements about pistol braces and the specifics of the braces used on AR pistols can be different things.

I would point out that the common popular designs of braces used on AR pistols are not the only kind of braces that are, or ever were. There were pistol braces before AR pistols existed. Those designs are not common, and in production today, but other than popularity, there's no reason they couldn't be.

Making statements about the AR braces as if they applied to every brace design that exists or existed is overly broad and inaccurate because of that.

It is entirely possible, and has been done, to create a brace that absolutely is intended to function as a stock, but is immune to ATF rule changes and NFA regulation. I've seen them.

Sorry but your responses on this subject have long since gotten to the point of non-sensical, non productive, irrelevant and not even worth replying to.

Once you started deliberately miss stating what the rule said and deliberately mistating what had been previously said, your credibility on this subject was also gone.

[zeke]

"ATF Says Imported Braced-Guns Can be Registered, Rule to be Published Next Week
Stephen Gutowski
January 26, 2023
12:59 pm"

atf is saying it will be published on Jan 31, which would start the 120 days

https://thereload.com/atf-says-impor...hed-next-week/

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca .... I have seen no guidance anywhere, from any source, that suggests the ADA covers firearms.

Correct.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on a persons disability, accessibility of public accommodations, and reasonable accommodations in the workplace for employees with a disability.

Not one word of the ADA mentions firearms.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I suspect the same thing--even though I still think the rule has no bearing on a "baretube" AR pistol and is why I'm simply preemptively converting to rifle my AR pistols. Years ago when I built my pistols I had a hunch there was no way this would last.

While i am hoping you're right, and very well might be for the immediate future. However i tried a little experiment tonight, and removed the brace and attempted to shoulder it. And mine is a 45 acp radial blow back with only a 6 in buffer tube. Granted my arms are short. I suspect a 223 direct impingement AR-15 type pistol has a longer buffer tube, but am not sure.

[44 AMP]

Once you started deliberately miss stating....

I don't believe I did, but since the possibility exists I am in error or are misunderstanding things, I am open to explanation where and how I was wrong. Seriously, if I'm in error, please show me where, and how. Because I don't see it.

[stagpanther]

While i am hoping you're right, and very well might be for the immediate future. However i tried a little experiment tonight, and removed the brace and attempted to shoulder it. And mine is a 45 acp radial blow back with only a 6 in buffer tube. Granted my arms are short. I suspect a 223 direct impingement AR-15 type pistol has a longer buffer tube, but am not sure.

Your 45 blow-back carrier is likely not only longer but also likely heavier than a 223 carrier. Same with the buffers I believe. I'm not a home at the moment to measure them though. When you say radial--do you mean a delayed unlock bolt like CMMG uses (I don't consider that "true" blowback)?

[zukiphile]

The carbine receiver extensions I have will accept a seven inch rod internally.

Originally Posted by me at post 97

Three things make this topic hard, at least for today. First is knowing what the agency says on the topic. It's almost 300 pages, and that's a bunch to skim, but that's the easy part. Second is how the agency with behave over the next several months. As with individual people, what is said and what is done may differ. The third, verging on impossible, is anticipating what the next position of the agency will be.

Looks as if that third element played out over the course of a single day on the FAQ that held that no one other than the stamp holder can fire an NFA item.

I'd recommend a posture of charity amongst us that permits people to misread the regs and posts and have it read as mere error rather than planned deceit. Someone who turns out to be 90% wrong but sets forth a position with one element that is good enough to incorporate into your general understanding of a topic still added something.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Your 45 blow-back carrier is likely not only longer but also likely heavier than a 223 carrier. Same with the buffers I believe. I'm not a home at the moment to measure them though. When you say radial--do you mean a delayed unlock bolt like CMMG uses (I don't consider that "true" blowback)?

Thanks for answering, and CMMG calls it a radial delayed blow back. The tube itself only extends 6 inches past the rear. Likely the buffer is heavier as i have the added weight in it. Not sure how long a regular AR-15 pistol buffer is, and perhaps they seem to come in differing lengths. Seem to remember past history where atf was insisting on perfectly round/bare buffer tubes for AR pistols? Wasn't paying close enough attention back when, but google searches indicate such.

[stagpanther]

Thanks for answering, and CMMG calls it a radial delayed blow back. The tube itself only extends 6 inches past the rear. Likely the buffer is heavier as i have the added weight in it. Not sure how long a regular AR-15 pistol buffer is, and perhaps they seem to come in differing lengths. Seem to remember past history where atf was insisting on perfectly round/bare buffer tubes for AR pistols? Wasn't paying close enough attention back when, but google searches indicate such.

OK--that's a different ballgame since I believe the unlocking of bolt to extension lugs provides the delay that is otherwise made up for in a non-lugged blow back with a heavier carrier and buffer. I'm guessing CMMG has a standard--or perhaps even shorter--carrier and buffer system but I think it's not representative of non-lugged "unimpeded" blow back carbines.

[TomNJVA]

My Congressman Morgan Griffith of Virginia has introduced a bill, H.R. 173 - "Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2023", to counter this ATF Rule 2021R-08F.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-.../text?r=31&s=1

Here is his letter to me:


January 27, 2023

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me regarding short-barreled rifles. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

On January 13, 2023, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) finalized a rule, (Docket No. ATF 2021R-08F), to expand the definition of “short-barreled rifles” to include any and every pistol that has an arm brace affixed to it. I immediately signed onto a Congressional resolution to revoke this rule.

Under current law, the ATF enforces all National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) regulations concerning non-military commerce in machine guns, short-barreled rifles, classes of “concealable” firearms” considered to be “any other weapon,” destructive devices, and suppressors. The arbitrary 16-inch barrel definition unfairly penalizes competitive shooters and pistol enthusiasts generally.

The barrel length definition used by the ATF has led to confusion among law-abiding gunowners as to whether certain types of pistols fall into the short-barrel rifle category.

Under the new standard, the ATF will decide on a case-by-case basis whether a firearm is subject to the NFA. American short-barrel rifle owners may end up facing a felony charge just because of the whims of an unelected bureaucrat.

I have introduced H.R.173, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2023. This bill will remove all short-barreled rifle registration and licensing restrictions under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It would essentially allow anyone who passes a basic firearms background check to purchase a short-barreled rifle or use a pistol with a brace. It also eliminates a $200 transfer tax on short-barreled rifles and preempts any local or state laws that tax or regulate these types of firearms.

For more information on what is happening in Congress, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. If I may be of further assistance to you on this, or any other issue, please feel free to contact me in my Washington, DC office at (202) 225-3861. I remain



Sincerely yours,

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH
Member of Congress

[stagpanther]

Wow! Wouldn't that be cool!

[zeke]

exactly what we need. Give this senior citizen with short arms every advantage in defending home and hearth