ATF and pistol braces ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Stagpanther

Wow! Wouldn't that be cool!

It would be neat to have SBRs cut out of the NFA, but I've noticed that SBRs can be very loud, maybe even dangerously loud. Foresight, safety and due care for people located in the vicinity of ranges would have suppressors off the list too.

Just saying.

[stagpanther]

Totally agree--my tinnitus just keeps getting worse.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

It would be neat to have SBRs cut out of the NFA, but I've noticed that SBRs can be very loud, maybe even dangerously loud. Foresight, safety and due care for people located in the vicinity of ranges would have suppressors off the list too.

Just saying.

Supposedly the reason for regulating short-barreled rifles was to keep "concealable" firearms out of the hands of miscreants. I have never considered a suppressor to be something that makes a firearm more concealable.

[44 AMP]

I have never considered a suppressor to be something that makes a firearm more concealable.

Think Great Depression and silent poaching....

Or such was the stated reason back then, also silent murder, but then, that ignores bows and knives and clubs and rocks and everything else that can kill without noise...

I am given to understand that there are parts of Europe where "silencers" are required, for hunting.

I don't think the NFA was ever about common sense, or protecting the people. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Tom Servo]

Think Great Depression and silent poaching.

Here in Georgia, we got a law passed about a decade ago to allow silencers while hunting. The biggest opposition came from a group of hunters concerned about poaching. We had a bit of a hurdle explaining there was a big difference between a poacher using an illegal improvised silencer and a law-abiding person using a registered silencer.

[zeke]

Suppressor's are legal to hunt with in Wi, at least last time i checked. Farmers are more inclined to allow you to use their depredation permits if you use a suppressor. Use of a suppressor allows me to use range outside of normal hours, as the limited noise does not bother the neighbors. They are not very concealable, and appear to be very rarely used in crimes.

[stagpanther]

Works the same way in France--farms often are within the town limits and maximum effort is used to not disturb the landowners (usually). Interestingly, driving game often is the preferred way of hunting.

[zeke]

https://www.federalregister.gov/agen...losives-bureau

It's on the fed register and the clock is ticking

[Joe_Pike]

The best part of this thread is where the blame is being directed at people on YouTube shouldering their brace instead of blaming the overreach of the ATF. Good stuff. Nothing better than gun owners eating their own.

[kkb]

Looks like the first lawsuit has been filed.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

[44 AMP]

Sometimes, people who poke the bear deserve to be eaten....

The way I see it, if the enemy is making a mistake in your favor its stupid to point that out to them.

[dogtown tom]

Joe_Pike The best part of this thread is where the blame is being directed at people on YouTube shouldering their brace instead of blaming the overreach of the ATF. Good stuff. Nothing better than gun owners eating their own.

Oddly, that first determination letter on the SIG arm brace was a complete reversal of ATF policy and previous determinations dating back to 1934. Yet no one complained about ATF's authority to issue that letter.

Now a decade later, ATF changes its opinion and IT'S OVERREACH!!!!

[raimius]

I'd say, with all the flip-flopping from the ATF, we have a decent argument for "arbitrarily and capricious" lawsuits.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by raimius

I'd say, with all the flip-flopping from the ATF, we have a decent argument for "arbitrarily and capricious" lawsuits.

Several have been filed. I'm not doing anything for a while, at least.

[zeke]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra...tol-brace-rule

Looks like about 25 states joined in a lawsuit. And it appears the main points being the expanding (changing) the definition of rifle, and the rule is arbitrary.

[zeke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzFqLJGbdDE

Maybe an expedited decision by end of March?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Several have been filed. I'm not doing anything for a while, at least.

My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days. If it hasn't been worked out in court by then, that's the time to start thinking about your options.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days. If it hasn't been worked out in court by then, that's the time to start thinking about your options.

I agree, if you were not planning on SBRing them…

If it gets overturned, I can always build a pistol lower for easier travel out of the state, since I’ll squirrel a brace away for that reason.

Once my approvals come back, stocks for days.

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
My state's grass roots pro-2A group met on Tuesday, and the guest speaker was the state's preeminent firearms law attorney. He basically said that nobody really knows what the new rule says, but he recommended not doing anything about filing paperwork until 90 days....

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Dogtown Tom

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.

You're in Texas. I'm not.

Every state is different, and the "fit" between federal and state laws is different for each combination.

[JohnKSa]

There's no need to try to add that additional complication into the mix.

This regulation/rule doesn't change state laws.

State laws can't legalize anything that this rule regulates.

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says.

I agree that the rule is not hard to understand. What people are having difficulty with is that they don't like what it says.

The confusion I'm seeing is that people want the law to tell them clearly that their firearm is not regulated and can't find that information. It's not going to happen. Laws generally don't define the legal/unregulated, they define the illegal/regulated and everything else is automatically legal/unregulated.

Well, then, let's look at what's illegal/regulated. That can't include my "braced pistol", right?

Yeah...

When the federal code in question was written, everyone knew what a "stock" was and that rifles had them and pistols didn't. So there's not even a definition for "stock" in federal law.

Everyone knew what a rifle was and what a pistol was and there wasn't any confusion. So the definitions in federal law are not super-specific. There was simply no need.

But now we have pistols that are exactly like rifles in every respect except for not having stocks and having shorter barrels.

No problem, right? We can tell them apart because rifles have stocks and pistols don't. Except that federal law doesn't actually say that. And it also doesn't define "stock".

Hmmm... What about the short barrels? Nope, that doesn't work either because a short barrel can be present on a rifle (SBR) OR a pistol.

So just how DO we tell them apart, now that we have things that look and function exactly like rifles but that are supposedly pistols and things that look and function like stocks but that are supposedly something else? 300 pages later...

[stagpanther]

Hell, I'm not a lawyer and I know what the rule says. I read it right here--->https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

"Preeminent" may be a miscalculation.

I wonder what is meant by "remove the brace so that it cannot be reattached." Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it. If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.

[JohnKSa]

Theoretically; anything with a protrusion can have anything jury-rigged to attach to it.

If that's how you think the BATF is going to play it, then after you remove it, you should grind the brace up into dust and then put the dust out for the garbage man to carry away.

Practically speaking, I don't think it's that hard to understand what the difference is between being able to directly reinstall an item on something you removed it from vs. modifying it so that it can't be reinstalled.

Think about it like this. If it becomes an issue, then someone would likely demonstrate installing the brace onto the firearm to show that there is a violation.

How do you think it would play for a jury/judge if they have to get out a welder and power tools to get it to fit?

How do you think it would play for a jury or judge if they slide it into place and tighten a nut or it clicks into place?

Act accordingly...

If it means--take the one on it and dispose of it--that's one thing. If it means render the rifle so that it's incapable of having a brace attached--that's something completely different.

Disposing of the brace is one option, but it doesn't say that's what you have to do. It certainly doesn't say you have to modify the firearm.

If you're already having trouble with the rule, as written, I would recommend not altering it and then trying to figure out what the altered version means.

[stagpanther]

My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is. Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one. But I realize this strays off into the minefield of semantics.

[HiBC]

I was initially going to use a Tailhook brace. Its aluminum with a hole bored through to be a snug fit on a pistol buffer tube. There is a pinch bolt feature to secure it. I have not installed it.

My machinist experience tells me that if I put a band of knurling around the buffer tube at the "butt" or closed end, the outside diameter of the buffer tube will increase,by perhaps .010 in. This will make it impossible to install the Tailhook on that buffer tube without cutting the knurling off.
I'm trying to cope with the "constructive possession" thing. The AR pistol in question has a bare pistol buffer tube with no brace. I have no intent to install a brace.