ATF and pistol braces ?

[stagpanther]

All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law. Rather than being detained and having to call in a lawyer while they figure it out, I'm just going to 16" rebarrel and forget it about it. That's just me and my avoidance nature--not saying anyone else should "cave" and do that as well.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law. Rather than being detained and having to call in a lawyer while they figure it out, I'm just going to 16" rebarrel and forget it about it. That's just me and my avoidance nature--not saying anyone else should "cave" and do that as well.

While i think the rule is ambiguous at best, am certainly not going to flaunt it. The rule does not even clearly define what is illegal (surface area), and that is only part of the problem, as it appears some can indeed use a buffer tube to shoulder. Then there are the buffer tubes that have the capability to use an adjustable length brace, in which some have a greater surface area than a consistent dia buffer tube.

[JohnKSa]

My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is.

Look back at my post. If this ever becomes an issue, someone's going to have to show that it can be reattached to get you into trouble. The demonstration is going to be important. If it fits right back on, that's not good. If they have to do a bunch of work to make it fit, that's good, and the harder it is, the better it is.

Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one.

That's completely irrelevant. You can't be held responsible for the fact that somewhere out there in the wide, wide world, there's a part that can be installed on your firearm that would make it illegal, or a specially regulated item. You absolutely CAN be held responsible for the fact that you possess such a part along with the firearm that it can be installed on.

The rule does not even clearly define what is illegal (surface area), and that is only part of the problem, as it appears some can indeed use a buffer tube to shoulder. Then there are the buffer tubes that have the capability to use an adjustable length brace, in which some have a greater surface area than a consistent dia buffer tube.

There's no way to do this without pages of text, but here's the best I can do:

If you possess a part for a pistol (along with the pistol that it fits) and the part makes the pistol easy/easier to shoulder, or the part can be used to shoulder the pistol and would normally be found on a rifle version of that firearm, or the part has been marketed as performing the function of a stock (i.e. for shouldering the gun), or the part is commonly used as a stock (i.e. for shouldering the gun) then you need to pay special attention to the rule.

Otherwise, not so much.

[stagpanther]

You absolutely CAN be held responsible for the fact that you possess such a part along with the firearm that it can be installed on.

Your wording does not explicitly say possession is evidenced by being physically installed to the pistol as the only condition of "intent." Let's say you go to the range with your AR pistol and just happen to have a spare stock in your kit--or even one that can be quickly swapped from another AR--does that explicitly exclude the possibility of "intent" as long as it remains off of the buffer (as Mr ATF emerges from the bushes)?

BTW--I believe the notion of "We're in this dilemma because everyone talked about and flaunted it on social media" is the reason this has happened is complete BS. It happened because people in the industry saw a way to exploit loopholes to make a weapon analogous to a licensed firearm IMO. Always follow the bouncing dollar sign.

[44 AMP]

BTW--I believe the notion of "We're in this dilemma because everyone talked about and flaunted it on social media" is the reason this has happened is complete BS. It happened because people in the industry saw a way to exploit loopholes to make a weapon analogous to a licensed firearm IMO. Always follow the bouncing dollar sign.

I don't think its total BS. Flaunting it on social media is part of the circle, and I feel that it was essentially "rolling rocks downhill starting an avalanche" It is absolutely a follow the $ thing. Show something off, get people interested, interested people spend money, manufactures want the money, they make stuff, and so the circle turns.

Another way to make something popular is to try and BAN IT.

Or have it featured in a popular movie/tv show,

OR have it featured in the press being used in horrifying crime...

[Metal god]

Not BS at all , in fact I’ve seen manufacturers display people shouldering there pistol braces on the front page of there advertisements . That’s flaunting and I’m not even sure why this is even debated. Is it the only reason, can’t think it would be but I’d bet dollars to donuts it’s the majority reason.

Being told it’s happening is a whole lot different then seeing it happening. Pick any number of stories we have heard about and how little we cared . However once seeing it happen changes how you feel about it .

I have one example of hearing about citizens being gassed in Syria . I thought that’s not good can’t believe they’d do that . I was not upset , really kinda indifferent. Then I saw video of children gasping for air looking half dead and everything changed on how I felt about it .

I’ll give another one not so tragic. An NFL player knocked out his girlfriend on a elevator. Story went around for a couple months with not much of a reaction by the press or the masses . To include him not being charged and a full disciplinary, hearing by the NFL with sanctions . Then the video came out of a 6’ 240lb dude punching a woman unconscious on a elevator and all hell broke loose . Like we don’t know it’s bad for a man to knock out a woman and yet people seeing it is what caused the huge reaction not simply knowing about .

Seeing it , changes your perception because in your mind you often don’t think the worst but you can’t avoid it when you see it . To think the ATF seeing Youtubers and manufacturers daily shouldering pistols with what looks no different then a stock did not push this regulation is at best naïve .

[44 AMP]

There you go. When you poke the bear enough, eventually the bear wakes up and does something about it.

And, its usually something we're not going to like....

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca

You're in Texas. I'm not.

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

It doesn't matter where I am or where you are.
What matters is you believe someone is a preeminent lawyer and he didn't bother reading the rule.

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa
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.

ATF took a couple of sheets of paper to issue that first determination letter.
Ten years later it takes a couple of hundred more to basically say "oops we changed our mind".

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

I wonder what is meant by "remove the brace so that it cannot be reattached."

Yes it is an odd phrasing. They could have written "smash it into iddy biddy bits".

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther My point is simply that there does remain ambiguity; it's not clear what the object of rendering incapable of being reattached is.

The object is to not have a firearm that ATF has determined to be an NFA firearm.

Even destroying the brace does not make it impossible to simply replace it with another one.

And?
If you do, you are in the same situation you were in when you removed the arm brace the first time.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther All my AR pistols have bare buffer tubes and the lowers "started life" as pistols. While the ruling "seems" straightforward--it's confusing enough that I predict local LE will probably have issues themselves figuring out the letter of the law.

Local LE doesn't enforce federal law, never has.

[dogtown tom]

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.

If you have possession of a pistol and an arm brace you are in "constructive possession" of an SBR even if the arm brace is not attached. This is because you have no legal means to configure the two.

If you have a legal means to attach that arm brace to another firearm, such as an AR rifle......you are not in constructive possession.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

Your wording does not explicitly say possession is evidenced by being physically installed to the pistol as the only condition of "intent." Let's say you go to the range with your AR pistol and just happen to have a spare stock in your kit--or even one that can be quickly swapped from another AR--does that explicitly exclude the possibility of "intent" as long as it remains off of the buffer (as Mr ATF emerges from the bushes)?

You would be in possession of a shoulder stock and a pistol....and thats called constructive possession of an SBR. Does not matter if attached or not.

If you are dumb enough to have them out on display for all the world to see, it might draw attention you don't want or need.

[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.

Also, under the Thompson/Center ruling. You can turn a pistol into a rifle anytime you want. Install a 16”+ barrel and then a stock=Rifle.

[zukiphile]

After applying the ordinary rules of statutory construction, then, we are left with an ambiguous statute. The key to resolving the ambiguity lies in recognizing that, although it is a tax statute that we construe now in a civil setting, the NFA has criminal applications that carry no additional requirement of willfulness. Cf. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 200 (1991) (slip op., at 7) ("Congress has . . . softened the impact of the common law presumption [that ignorance of the law is no defense to criminal prosecution] by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal [504 U.S. 505, 518] tax offenses"); 26 U.S.C. 7201, 7203 (criminalizing willful evasion of taxes and willful failure to file a return). Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871. It is proper, therefore, to apply the rule of lenity and resolve the ambiguity in Thompson/Center's favor. See Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 168 (1990) (applying lenity in interpreting a criminal statute invoked in a civil action); Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 91 (1959). 9 Accordingly, we conclude that the Contender pistol and carbine kit when packaged together by Thompson/Center have not been "made" into a short-barreled rifle for purposes of the NFA. 10 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/504/505.html

[JohnKSa]

Your wording does not explicitly say possession is evidenced by being physically installed to the pistol as the only condition of "intent." Let's say you go to the range with your AR pistol and just happen to have a spare stock in your kit--or even one that can be quickly swapped from another AR--does that explicitly exclude the possibility of "intent" as long as it remains off of the buffer (as Mr ATF emerges from the bushes)?

If you possess all the parts to assemble an NFA firearm without the proper paperwork, and the only possible way for you to assemble them is into an NFA configuration, that's a problem. If you have a legal way to assemble them so that an NFA configuration is not the result, or if you have the proper paperwork, it's not an issue.

[P Flados]

At the moment a brace is now just a quirky rifle stock. Honestly, that is what most people purchased them for. As long as you have rifle uppers, you can defend possession of a buffer tube / brace assembly as a "spare stock" for a rifle. As long as you have a rifle to use it with, you can keep it. Just do not combine it with a pistol length upper after the 120 day grace period.

Removing all of your braces and discarding them (not just stashing them in your attic) should be about a safe as you can get. Or does it?

The "Constructive Possession" can still get you in trouble. Let say you toss all of your braces but keep one or more assembled bare buffer tube pistol(s). Then later you get rid of all of you rifles and rifle uppers, but still have spare AR parts. In your spare parts bin is a rifle buffer and stock. Since the only gun you can assemble with the rifle stock is a unlicensed SBR, you can be run through the ringer if caught.

This issue has been around for a long time in the TC Contender world. Possession of short barrels and possession of rifle stocks can be ok as long as you can assemble a gun with a 16" barrel. Just pay attention to the the right sequence for acquiring these items and the right sequence for getting rid of items.

[stagpanther]

The "Constructive Possession" can still get you in trouble.

Like in Minority Report. I've already ordered 16" replacement barrels to be done with this silliness.

[JohnKSa]

Like in Minority Report.

Not exactly. Constructive possession is having a combination of parts that can ONLY be assembled into a regulated/illegal configuration.

If you can assemble the parts you have into a legal/unregulated configuration then it's not an issue.

[stagpanther]

having a combination of parts that can ONLY be assembled into a regulated/illegal configuration

Therein lies the rub--the only way to 100% assure that is to have none of them. In one hand I have lots of stocks/braces. In the other hand I have xx amount of short barrels. One or the other has to go in the brave new world. I'm ditching the short barrels since I'm not going to license each instance.

[JohnKSa]

Therein lies the rub--the only way to 100% assure that is to have none of them.

That's not true at all. To have one and avoid any issues with constructive possession, you only need to be sure you have at least one firearm you can assemble it to without creating a regulated/illegal item.

For example, if you have a rifle that it fits, and the rifle's overall length is long enough to satisfy the law with the brace installed, then you have checked the box and don't need to worry about constructive possession.

The only time you need to worry is if you have one and there is no way to install it onto any of the firearms you own without creating a regulated/illegal item.

Alternatively, you could insure that the brace can't be attached to any of the pistols you own by modifying the brace so that it can't be installed on any of them. That also avoids any possible issues.

[Metal god]

I came in here late mostly because being in CA this does not effect me or at least I think it doesn’t.

Regardless, what do you have to pay the tax and register for or to ? 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 ?

[dogtown tom]

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.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...v2pdf/download

Also, under the Thompson/Center ruling. You can turn a pistol into a rifle anytime you want. Install a 16”+ barrel and then a stock=Rifle.

We know.
As has been posted a half dozen times in this thread, all you need to be legal is have one lawful configuration for the arm brace.
If you have a rifle with a shoulder stock, you could certainly attach your arm brace to the rifle and use as a shoulder stock or as an arm brace.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

Therein lies the rub--the only way to 100% assure that is to have none of them.

The rub is you don't understand what is legal.

In one hand I have lots of stocks/braces. In the other hand I have xx amount of short barrels. One or the other has to go in the brave new world.

All you need is one lawful configuration. Ie, a 16" bbl w/OAL of 26".

I'm ditching the short barrels since I'm not going to license each instance.

I weep for mankind if thats what you think is your only option.