ATF and pistol braces ?

[dogtown tom]

Metal god ...what do you have to pay the tax and register for or to ?

ATF hass determined that AR type pistols with an arm brace are now considered Short Barrelled Rifles and regulated by the National Firearms Act.
That means the possessor must register the firearm on a Form 1 as the maker of an NFA firearm. Normally there is a $200 tax, but during the forbearance period the tax payment is not being collected.

Does the pistol braced firearm stay a pistol or if the pistol brace stays it must be registered as a SBR ? If sbr , doesn’t that mean it can never be a pistol again ?

A pistol w/arm brace is an SBR as of 1/31/23.
Remove the arm brace and it remains a pistol.

[Metal god]

Oh ok so if registered as required, you can switch back and forth from SBR to Pistol all you want .

What are some of the other implications of having an NFA item . Selling it must have some restrictions? What about use , can you loan it to a friend or must you keep possession at all times ?

[raimius]

Metalgod, those are answers readily available all over the internet.

Here is a good guide: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nationa...s-act-handbook

[44 AMP]

What are some of the other implications of having an NFA item . Selling it must have some restrictions? What about use , can you loan it to a friend or must you keep possession at all times ?

I'm sure there are better informed people than I on this subject, all I can tell you is I've heard there are some kind of notification requirements if you want to take it out of state, but don't know the details, sorry.

I do know that an SBR can only be sold to someone else with the NFA SBR approval. Friend of mine had an SBR Tommygun (semi auto) when he got tired of it, he found a willing buyer (instate) and it only took the ATF 10 months to approve the sale (transfer) so the buyer could pick up the gun.

This was about a decade ago, so no idea what the rules and wait times are today. You could ask the ATF....if you trust the validity and constancy of their answer. Personally, I no longer do....

[44caliberkid]

From the beginning of the “AR pistol” it was always my understanding that the pistol buffer tube was legal because it was a plain tube, no rails or threaded holes to attach anything. The Sig pistol brace was one of the first ones out (approved) and you had to wrap electrical tape around the pistol buffer tube to make it stay on with a friction fit. It was still too short to be useable as a stock. Wasn’t comfortable as an arm brace, and now you had a firearm strapped to your arm, impractical. Then some guys started using rifle buffer tubes because they were longer, didn’t have the adjustment rail on the bottom like carbine tubes, so still just a plain tube, right? But it had a threaded hole in the end (an attachment point) so to me, it was wrong, a violation. Then the next generation of pistol braces started coming out and they used carbine buffer tubes and were adjustable, everything I had been told was a no no. I never bought one. All my pistols have pistol buffer tubes and nothing else, which no one ever questioned as legal.

[dogtown tom]

Metal god Oh ok so if registered as required, you can switch back and forth from SBR to Pistol all you want .

Or if first a pistol, to a Title I rifle.
Pistol>SBR>Rifle>Pistol anytime you want and no oneat ATF needs to be notified.

What are some of the other implications of having an NFA item . Selling it must have some restrictions?

NFA firearms are subject to the transfer requirements of federal law.
A Form 4 and $200 tax submitted to ATF. Once approved you can hand it to the buyer.

What about use , can you loan it to a friend or must you keep possession at all times ?

It depends on how you filled out the transferee section of the Form 4 or the maker section of the Form 1.
An NFA firearm possessed by an individual, may be used by anyone not otherwise prohibited from using firearms.....but the lawful possessor must be present.
An NFA firearm possessed by a trust, LLC, corporation, may be used by anyone considered a "responsible person" in the trust document, or LLC or corporation documents. The "RP" can allow anyone not otherwise prohibited to shoot while the RP is present. A trust/LLC/corp can have an unlimited number of responsible persons.

[dogtown tom]

raimius Metalgod, those are answers readily available all over the internet.

Here is a good guide: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nationa...s-act-handbook

WAS a good guide in 2009, but has not been updated in fourteen years.

ATF needs to update and keep it updated or delete from their website.

[dogtown tom]

44caliberkid From the beginning of the “AR pistol” it was always my understanding that the pistol buffer tube was legal because it was a plain tube, no rails or threaded holes to attach anything.

ATF has never held that the buffer tube has to be a smooth pistol tube and in fact has held that a normal carbine tube is perfectly fine or an AR pistol.

[Metal god]

Thanks Raimius I’ll check it out but on the other hand . If we all looked up the answers on the internet our selves , there’d be no need for forums like this

Over 10 years and thousands of post . I’ve given my fair share of answers around here . I think I’m worthy of a question or two plus this does not effect me enough to research it my self but I am interested enough to ask the question

[JohnKSa]

ATF has never held that the buffer tube has to be a smooth pistol tube and in fact has held that a normal carbine tube is perfectly fine or an AR pistol.

The new rule makes it sound like a buffer tube that is longer than it needs to be for function could be an issue.

"In contrast, material on a firearm that extends the rear surface area of the firearm toward the shooter but is required for the cycle of operations, such as an AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6–1⁄2 inch buffer tube, may be an indicator that the firearm is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. "

"Likewise, an extended AR-type pistol buffer tube, which is a longer buffer tube than the standard buffer tubes required for the operation of the firearm, or the inclusion of spacers that extend the length of pull, are also examples of the addition of material to the rear of a firearm that provides surface area for shouldering and extends the length of pull to effectuate shoulder fire. "

I'm not going to claim that the rule explicitly states that carbine/rifle tubes are a problem--because I don't see a clear statement to that effect. I'm just saying that given the wording of the rule, the safest option for an AR-15 pistol would be a smooth (no attachment points or stops, no padding, etc.) pistol buffer tube no longer than 6.5". Also, if the design doesn't require a buffer tube for function (some don't--especially rimfire versions), then one should not be installed.

[Sharkbite]

Sharkbite And the BATFE, in their “training for FFL’s” Q&A…says there is no need to destroy the brace. So that conflicts directly with the written rule.
No, it doesn't.
ATF has made it abundantly clear of the options nonlicensee's and licensees have in regards to a pistol with an attached arm brace

I was on the live training that was provided by the BATFE regarding this rule. And YES, they explicitly stated a couple times that the brace did not need to be destroyed. As i said, that is in direct conflict with the written rule.

My point is that even the “experts” (those chosen to address questions about this rule) cant give a straight answer.

As i said in another post, the Thompson/center SCOTUS ruling says i can turn a pistol into a rifle by adding a16”+ barrel and then installing a stock (or now a brace). How do i do that if i am forced to alter the brace so it cant be re-installed.

I happen to have more then a few actual rifle stocks in my parts bin. Why cant i just put my braces in the parts bin and not worry about constructive possession?

[P Flados]

Given that the rule specifically allows owners of braced AR pistols to toss the brace and keep the existing buffer tube (with notches or setscrew indents), I see no reason to worry about any current buffer tube on an existing gun.

For companies making AR pistols going forward, the text quoted by JohnKSa is probably more meaningful.

[HiBC]

Whether its right or wrong....Some in the Law Enforcement biz create scenarios in their own heads then project their own thought/fears onto law abiding citizens. "How do I know you aren't...." Or You Won't ... when "Probable cause" is weak to non existent.

The "moving goalposts" have caused many of us to reconfigure guns we built on good faith to comply with BATF letters. "What? Thats not legal per the new rules? I paid $125 for it!! So it goes in the non-compliant box.
Obviously, the intent is to stay a law abiding citizen.
Along with the Tailhook brace in the "Parts" is a 16 in bbl,an upper ,a forend,and odds and ends. To actually comply with the constructive assembly rules I think I need another lower to build a 16 in carbine or I need to ditch the tailhook.

It is what it is. I don't want to be vulnerable to arrest.

[stagpanther]

ATF has never held that the buffer tube has to be a smooth pistol tube and in fact has held that a normal carbine tube is perfectly fine or an AR pistol.

I don't believe that is entirely correct. There have been requests for "rulings clarifications" to the ATF on the nature of braces/stocks by the industry over time--and I distinctly recall on one of them that the ability of the brace to be adjusted rapidly was a major factor in determination of whether it remained a pistol or not. This was at least implicitly recognizing the carbine buffer tubes with the the rail and detente holes were potentially not compliant (because a quick adjust stock could be easily attached) and I'm sure that's the way that many in industry took it as evidenced by the proliferation of smooth buffer tube pistol ARs.

[9x19]

The smooth buffer tubes were a cheaper alternative when "braces" didn't exist, plus they allowed for a soft foam sleeve, for those who liked the cheek weld method of shooting them. I don't believe they were ever a regulatory requirement on an AR pistol.

[stagpanther]

I don't believe they were ever a regulatory requirement on an AR pistol.

They were never a regulatory requirement--but what was expressed--again this is by my sometimes fallible recollection--was an ATF opinion on ruling that explicitly precluded the rapid adjustablity of the brace/stock. While this did not preclude a carbine buffer tube explicitly--it did suggest that the use of a carbine style buffer tube with an adjustable brace/stock would not be a conforming pistol. The very first pistol AR I had was in fact the pistol tube with foam covering--but that's the way pistol buffer tubes usually came back then. Then along came the sig rubber duckie which made it necessary to remove the foam condom but was quite difficult to move around as a way to get around the adjustability thing. I think it was KAK's blade that first opened the "floodgate" to people happily banging away with their SBR doppelgängers.

[JohnKSa]

...but what was expressed--again this is by my sometimes fallible recollection--was an ATF opinion on ruling that explicitly precluded the rapid adjustablity of the brace/stock. While this did not preclude a carbine buffer tube explicitly--it did suggest that the use of a carbine style buffer tube with an adjustable brace/stock would not be a conforming pistol.

That's about what I see in the rule.

There is no direct prohibition against a buffer tubes with detents/stops or a rifle or a carbine buffer tubes.

There is definitely wording that makes a brace that is easily adjustable in length legally problematic, as well as wording that suggests that a tube that is longer than it needs to be for function is questionable.

[Metal god]

Longer then “needs” to be for function- seems like a very exploitable term for both sides . I don’t really have that much gunsmithing knowledge and even I can think of any number of designs that would allow any length buffer tube that by “design” needs to be that long . Like a long buffer which needs a longer buffer tube to allow for the extra length . I bring this up because it seem that part of the regulation would allow the atf to dictate ar design . Do you “need” a heavier or lighter buffer for the firearm to function for example . My AR works “fine” with a standard buffer but is better with an H2 .

No it probably doesn’t mean what Im saying now but can it be interpreted that way in the future by the atf when they feel the need . I just don’t like that wording. My rifle functions just fine with either a carbine or rifle buffer tubes . Which means the rifle buffer tube could be banned because it’s not necessary for function . I know it’s a rifle not a pistol but the point is the same .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

There have been requests for "rulings clarifications" to the ATF on the nature of braces/stocks by the industry over time--and I distinctly recall on one of them that the ability of the brace to be adjusted rapidly was a major factor in determination of whether it remained a pistol or not.

The new rule says all prior determinations [on this topic] are void, so it really doesn't matter what any previous rulings clarifications may have said. We now have to go by the language in the new rule.

[stagpanther]

so it really doesn't matter what any previous rulings clarifications may have said.

It does when it comes to the "history" of your AR pistol--in other words how you built it to begin with. All you're saying is "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." You are now faced with retroactive non-compliance if you built something that you made every attempt to maintain current compliance with.

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa

The new rule makes it sound like a buffer tube that is longer than it needs to be for function could be an issue.

"In contrast, material on a firearm that extends the rear surface area of the firearm toward the shooter but is required for the cycle of operations, such as an AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6–1⁄2 inch buffer tube, may be an indicator that the firearm is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. "

"may be" is not the same as "is".

[dogtown tom]

I was on the live training that was provided by the BATFE regarding this rule. And YES, they explicitly stated a couple times that the brace did not need to be destroyed. As i said, that is in direct conflict with the written rule.

Im not disagreeing with what was said in the ATF training, just pointing out that what you believe is in "direct conflict with the written rule" is simply not true. ATF materials give nonlicensees and licensees options that do not require destruction of the arm brace or firearm. I attached the ATF document above.

My point is that even the “experts” (those chosen to address questions about this rule) cant give a straight answer.

That you dont understand, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

As i said in another post, the Thompson/center SCOTUS ruling says i can turn a pistol into a rifle by adding a16”+ barrel and then installing a stock (or now a brace). How do i do that if i am forced to alter the brace so it cant be re-installed.

It's been posted multiple times that you do not have to destroy the brace IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL MEANS TO ATTACH IT. You have other AR rifles it can certainly be swapped in as a shoulder stock on any of those.

I happen to have more then a few actual rifle stocks in my parts bin. Why cant i just put my braces in the parts bin and not worry about constructive possession?

Which is exactly what we have been saying. "Constructive possession" means you have no possible configuration other than as an SBR.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

It does when it comes to the "history" of your AR pistol--in other words how you built it to begin with. All you're saying is "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." You are now faced with retroactive non-compliance if you built something that you made every attempt to maintain current compliance with.

Yes, exactly. That's why so many people are concerned about this new rule.

And it's not I who is saying "this new rule supersedes and replaces all past rules." It's the BATFE. The new rule specifically states that prior determinations are void. That means (to me -- IANAL) that any history of building with the intent of compliance is now moot and irrelevant. What matters now is whether or not the firearm complies with the new rule.

[Aguila Blanca]

Some posts have gone walk-about.

Stick to facts and take any personal confrontations to PM.

[JohnKSa]

"may be" is not the same as "is".

Very true. I worded it that way very specifically because I don't see anything definite in the rule but I do see some "hints".

Longer then “needs” to be for function- seems like a very exploitable term for both sides .

Everybody decides what level of risk they want to take on. If you can afford the legal costs and think you can convince a judge jury then go for it.

If you want the safest route, my opinion is to go with a standard pistol length buffer tube (the document mentions the length of 6" to 6.5") without any stops/detents, padding, extensions or attachment points.

What matters now is whether or not the firearm complies with the new rule.

To take a larger view, one could say that the first step is to determine whether the new rule is consistent with federal law. That's what the lawsuits will determine.

If one has a strong grasp of federal law and feels that this rule is not consistent with federal law, then maybe they want to wait to see how the lawsuits pan out.

Ignoring that factor, the statement is correct. It doesn't matter how things were under the previous (now invalidated) rulings. The new rule is what matters. There's no point at all in bringing up the old rulings except to rant.