ATF and pistol braces ?

[JohnKSa]

Imo the ATF will be breaking the law by sending you a firearm after they made a determination it is illegal to posses that specific firearm.

Which, of course, they would not do. They would probably do something like keep the brace and return your pistol.

[zeke]

That would make sense, especially if you you expect them to act in a sensible manner on this issue. However, they spell out other disqualifiers besides just a brace. The direct quotes in Post 86 clearly spell out other factors, aside from a brace.

[44 AMP]

However, they spell out other disqualifiers besides just a brace. The direct quotes in Post 86 clearly spell out other factors, aside from a brace.

I'm reading that a bit differently than you are. What I'm getting from it is that the "other factors" are used to determine if the brace is intended to be used from the shoulder, and then not a brace, but a stock.

I'm getting that from this,

..provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:...

and then they list those other factors as (i-vi)

As I read it, those other factors are not disqualifiers in any way, in and of themselves, they are the factors the ATF will use along with the presence of the brace to determine if the brace is a stock.

Now, IF it is determined the weapon sent in for review has a stock, and not a brace, then what? That's not stated specifically, and we are now just speculating and what they might do under other circumstances could (probably should) be different during the amnesty period.

Keep the brace and send the pistol back? If that option is offered, OK, BUT, ONLY if you give them permission to do so. Otherwise they're stealing your property. You might WANT the entire thing returned so you can register it as and SBR during the grace period. And, I don't think its reasonable to expect the ATF to keep and track your removed brace in case you do want to register it as an SBR.
I CAN see them returning the entire thing, "Stock attached" with the legal warning that if they don't see it registered or proof the brace has been removed by the end of amnesty period, charges will be filed. After all, they do know exactly where to find you...

Braces are not high dollar items compared to the cost of the gun or the cost of NFA compliance, and probably most people who do send in guns for evaluation when told they are NFA items will approve the ATF removing the offending component (the brace) and send them their pistol back....if the ATF offers that option, probably most will do it, but they shouldn't just remove the brace on their own, until after the amnesty period expires, when the rules will change a bit.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm reading that a bit differently than you are. What I'm getting from it is that the "other factors" are used to determine if the brace is intended to be used from the shoulder, and then not a brace, but a stock.

I'm getting that from this,


and then they list those other factors as (i-vi)

"This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:"

i read that as multiple items that could provide a surface area, including a stabilizing brace.

From the specific line of wording " includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area"

And then it is not clear whether all the factors must be present, one factor or any combination of factors. It appears very clear to me that anything they would consider providing an unspecified amount of surface area could have the factors applied to it.

[44 AMP]

Well lets break this up a little for better understanding, and to explain my reasoning...

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment

This describes what is being covered, the rifle with its rear features /attachments

(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder,

This explains what they are looking at, the ability to be fired from the shoulder.

provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other

This part covers ruling the brace/attachment as meant to be used from the shoulder, "provided" the later listed factors indicate this.

factors are:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
269
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

and this is a listing of the other factors.

What is not explained in the given text is whether these other factors are a Pass/Fail thing or what the determining points are.

So, we need to look at each of those factors and see if we can figure out what they might use as the basis for their decisions, unless/until we can get that information from the ATF. Until we know exactly what the ATF is using for their parameters its just speculation. Some things seem pretty obvious, but remember who (the govt) is setting the goal posts.

[JohnKSa]

And then it is not clear whether all the factors must be present, one factor or any combination of factors. It appears very clear to me that anything they would consider providing an unspecified amount of surface area could have the factors applied to it.

It's almost like they're going to enforce the law that says pistols can't have shoulder stocks unless they're registered NFA firearms. Weird, huh.

This is really simple unless you WANT it to be complicated. If you want to use your pistol with a shoulder stock, submit the proper forms, pay the tax and be done with it. Don't want to pay the tax or do the paperwork, then don't put a shoulder stock on your pistol--not even if you call it something completely different.

You know, just like it's been for the past 80 something years.

The only confusion here comes if you want to put a shoulder stock on your pistol but avoid the NFA. Then things get tricky, as they always do when trying to skirt the very edges of the law. It can be done, but not without risk.

[44 AMP]

In a way it seems like a George Carlin routine. He was a great one at recognizing irony.

Rifles are legal, pistols are legal, why aren't gun that are inbetween, legal??

[stagpanther]

Easy-conceal, highly effective CQB weapon is what the pistol with brace is.

That's about it.

[JohnKSa]

Easy-conceal, highly effective CQB weapon is what the pistol with brace is.

That's what a pistol with a stock is.

The funny thing is that everyone keeps talking about braces as if they're exactly the same thing as stocks while simultaneously being upset that the BATF is going to regulate them as if they're stocks.

Braces are an innovative solution that let people one-hand large pistols (usually pistols adapted from rifle designs) that are really too big/heavy to hold/shoot one-handed. They are great for people who can't use both hands to shoot a large pistol, other than that they are not especially useful.

[stagpanther]

The funny thing is that everyone keeps talking about braces as if they're exactly the same thing as stocks while simultaneously being upset that the BATF is going to regulate them as if they're stocks.

Ahhhh..isn't that is essence what this regulation is all about--braces functioning as stocks? I don't see what the confusion is. Basically, ATF is saying, sorry, scout's honor that I promise not to use the whatever as a shoulder brace is no longer acceptable.

[stagpanther]

They are great for people who can't use both hands to shoot a large pistol, other than that they are not especially useful.

Which gets back to my argument for ADA coverage--but I think that position was thoroughly shot down here already.

[zukiphile]

Easy-conceal, highly effective CQB weapon is what the pistol with brace is.

That's about it.

The point below isn't originally mine, but one made by the Forgotten Weapons fellow.

SBRs aren't "regulated" because they are easily concealed, but because a prior draft of the NFA included pistols and legislators didn't want anyone to be able to circumvent the NFA by just buying a rifle, hacking off the stock, cutting the barrel down, and having a pistol sized rifle.


EDIT - I found the video again. I had not known the history of reducing barrel lengths to meet market conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsE0naVApPU

[stagpanther]

Well, using all the arguments that point to the intricacies of aged rules--semantics of what really is a stock vs brace, what is the difference between an SBR and an AR pistol and declaring them all flawed/invalid--that leaves us with only they are doing it for the fun of it or they just can't stand the thought of an AR pistol. OK, if that works, go with it.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Well lets break this up a little for better understanding, and to explain my reasoning...



This describes what is being covered, the rifle with its rear features /attachments


This explains what they are looking at, the ability to be fired from the shoulder.



This part covers ruling the brace/attachment as meant to be used from the shoulder, "provided" the later listed factors indicate this.




and this is a listing of the other factors.

What is not explained in the given text is whether these other factors are a Pass/Fail thing or what the determining points are.

So, we need to look at each of those factors and see if we can figure out what they might use as the basis for their decisions, unless/until we can get that information from the ATF. Until we know exactly what the ATF is using for their parameters its just speculation. Some things seem pretty obvious, but remember who (the govt) is setting the goal posts.

Let me rephrase what i am trying to get at. They are not just regulating what many term to be "stabilizing braces". Anything that attaches to the rear of the rifle providing surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder appears to be included. Although they appear to attempt to exempt something necessary for function of the rifle. This is why i am considering how many of the "factors" the item must meet. An AR-15 pistol with it's original length buffer in place might meet one of the factors, but not others. No way would i send it in to ATF for a determination, but that's just me.

Basically i am agreeing with you, but over 25 years dealing with state statute/code language, rewrites and application of codes makes me suspicious of anything the state agency wonks wrote. And what happened when they went beyond "interpreting" and changed definitions/meanings in codes/statutes in their interpretations without going through the legislature.

And it matters not what i think about pistols with braces, what matters more to me is the manner in which they are doing it. Especially provided their previous history in the matter. "e,g." From actual experience, changing a definition in a law changes the law and is a function of our elected representatives who make the laws.

p.s. no matter the intent, it matters more what the ruling actually says in "plain english"

[zeke]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Easy-conceal, highly effective CQB weapon is what the pistol with brace is.

That's about it.

While i agree with you, there are other advantages. And is a pistol without a brace easier to conceal? Certainly using a brace as a stock makes it easier to control (more effective), but so does a good pistol grip. Am guessing millions of dollars are spent annually on modifying firearms to be more "effective". Better triggers, better sights, custom stocks etc.

[JohnKSa]

Anything that attaches to the rear of the rifle providing surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder appears to be included.

That's obviously not correct.

That's a factor that is considered, but that doesn't mean anything on the back of the rifle that provides surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder is automatically a disqualifying feature. The rule makes it very clear that the authors expected that stabilizing braces (real braces that actually serve the purpose of a brace and don't have features that are specific to stocks and serve no purpose for a stabilizing brace) will remain legal without NFA paperwork.

Even the FAQ you linked says it explicitly.

"If the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is not an SBR, it need not be registered and, consistent with the federal firearm laws, may continue to be possessed and used by persons with or without a disability."

Obviously any "stabilizing brace" will attach to the rear of the rifle and provide surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder and yet the FAQ states clearly that some firearms with stabilizing braces will not need to be registered.

Here are some excerpts from the rule document.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...espdf/download

"Nothing in this rule bans “stabilizing braces” or the use of “stabilizing braces” on pistols; however, firearms with an attached “brace” device may be subject to statutory and regulatory requirements depending on the firearm’s objective design features and other factors, as discussed in this rule. Furthermore, this rule does not impose any new legal obligations on owners of “stabilizing braces” at all, as any obligations for these owners result only from the NFA and the GCA." (Clearly some stabilizing braces will not affect a firearm's NFA status.)

"Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of “rifle” under 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The other factors are: " (Clearly a rearward attachment providing surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is only one factor.)

[zeke]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

That's obviously not correct.

That's a factor that is considered, but that doesn't mean anything on the back of the rifle that provides surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder is automatically a disqualifying feature. The rule makes it very clear that the authors expected that stabilizing braces (real braces that actually serve the purpose of a brace and don't have features that are specific to stocks and serve no purpose for a stabilizing brace) will remain legal without NFA paperwork.

Even the FAQ you linked says it explicitly.

"If the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is not an SBR, it need not be registered and, consistent with the federal firearm laws, may continue to be possessed and used by persons with or without a disability."

Obviously any "stabilizing brace" will attach to the rear of the rifle and provide surface area that can be used to fire the gun from the shoulder and yet the FAQ states clearly that some firearms with stabilizing braces will not need to be registered.

Here are some excerpts from the rule document.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...espdf/download

"Nothing in this rule bans “stabilizing braces” or the use of “stabilizing braces” on pistols; however, firearms with an attached “brace” device may be subject to statutory and regulatory requirements depending on the firearm’s objective design features and other factors, as discussed in this rule. Furthermore, this rule does not impose any new legal obligations on owners of “stabilizing braces” at all, as any obligations for these owners result only from the NFA and the GCA." (Clearly some stabilizing braces will not affect a firearm's NFA status.)

"Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of “rifle” under 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The other factors are: " (Clearly a rearward attachment providing surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is only one factor.)

taken in the context in which it was presented, it is indeed correct. The context was that anything attached to the rear can be included in applying the factors. Never said, or intended to say, it was automatically a disqualifying feature. So please do not feel free to put words in my mouth. Am thankful that some are now reading the rule in order to comment on it.

[zeke]

just found these this morning, which may be helpful to the discussion. Also it appears i was wrong about waiving the $200 tax, as it appears there is a specific statute that allows it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URmpjODvc3w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn2u_ECSGBA

[Jim Watson]

If you take the opportunity to register your newly discovered SBR on the no-fee plan, what happens when you sell it? Do you and/or the buyer now owe $400?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zeke

"This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:"

I'd add that the "clarification" the agency offers isn't benign or a clarification at all. It's an expansion. The underlined language is the statutory formula. The bolded language is an expansion.

It isn't, or shouldn't be, within executive authority to legislatively expand criminal liability.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I'd add that the "clarification" the agency offers isn't benign or a clarification at all. It's an expansion. The underlined language is the statutory formula. The bolded language is an expansion.

It isn't, or shouldn't be, within executive authority to legislatively expand criminal liability.

They aren't expanding on the law. They're just defining the definition.

It reminds me of the report I read several years ago about a police officer who explained to a reporter that he had done something (which was apparently unlawful) because he was "investigating an investigation."

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

They aren't expanding on the law. They're just defining the definition.

Just so we don't lose touch with the statutory definition, 26 USC sec. 5845 says in part,

(c)Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

Emphasis added. The conjunction is and. The 2014 guidance that the use of an item can't alter its classification under the NFA is consistent with the statutory formula. A reg that expands the definition to a feature of a surface area that allows shouldering isn't.

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ I was attempting (poorly, it seems) to be facetious:

"We're defining the definition."

As in, "I"m investigating an investigation."

[zukiphile]

^^^ I was attempting (poorly, it seems) to be facetious:

No, it wasn't poorly done. I'm not very good at conveying comic intent, and it looks as if I'm no better at conveying receipt.

[44 AMP]

SBRs aren't "regulated" because they are easily concealed, but because a prior draft of the NFA included pistols and legislators didn't want anyone to be able to circumvent the NFA by just buying a rifle, hacking off the stock, cutting the barrel down, and having a pistol sized rifle.

I heard a somewhat different version. Along with machineguns, SBRs and "sawed off shotguns" were part of the initial NFA draft, and so were handguns. When some folks pointed out to congress that including handguns would kill the legislation, they removed that section and replaced it with regulating "silencers".

, and intended to be fired from the shoulder

I don't see how explaining that looking at all the things on the back of the firearm that provide a surface area that could be used to fire it from the shoulder, in order to determine if it was intentionally made /remade to so, is changing the definition of rifle in any way, shape, or form.

Could you explain your reasoning on that point?