ATF and pistol braces ?

[Bill DeShivs]

How would most people know if they bought an "other?"

[JohnKSa]

They would have specifically bought it advertised that way. There are some special rules that apply to an "Other" and if you bought one without knowing it, you could easily commit a federal felony without realizing it. For example, taking off the vertical foregrip converts it from an "Other" to an NFA item.

[wild cat mccane]

One could easily commit a crime off a cheap Amazon purchase with AR pistol without someone telling them (foregrip, tube items). Law is (thankfully) fluid. Most important, the brace is new. Advances always come first, then law. Saying people couldn't know isn't the order of any advancement. That is true of most things. How in the world would anything advance if law had to be in place before hand?

What is especially not passing the logic test is people bought before law adjusted to manufactures purposefully using loopholes to escape the spirit of SBR law...well, you kinda know that's the point. I'm betting most of this category of buyer is MOST in the loop on gun stuff because they selected themselves to buy something that circumvents a $200 tax stamp for an SBR but has a lesser performing product (where a real stock is a better stock...cause people are using these as a brace which is/was the point of them not being SBRs...right?)

If anything, the makers/sellers of these stocks have been pretty caviler with not telling people that they were most certainly going to be challenged and, face value, were probably going to lose in the public eye that these aren't SBRs.

Maybe the guidance has been particularly slow and changing because "braces" have been so specifically floating the letter of the law that the spirit of the law needs to catch up. It's an SBR. Can't dismantle SBR law or intent behind SBR creation, so incrementally try on the technical language of SBR...no one said that would work. I don't fault ATF for this: it's the function of legal clarification.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I'm betting most of this category of buyer is MOST in the loop on gun stuff because they selected themselves to buy something that circumvents a $200 tax stamp for an SBR but has a lesser performing product (where a real stock is a better stock...cause people are using these as a brace...right?)

I would agree that many if not most of the buyers are in the loop. My earlier point, to clarify here, is that given the general lack of knowledge of firearm laws and the misunderstandings present even among those that are informed, again this thread is a good example, there are people that will end up committing a crime without the intent. That doesn't excuse them in the eyes of the law, but I do give some consideration towards it.

The cost of the tax stamp is not the only concern when building or buying a SBR/SBS. Keep in mind that the cost hasn't changed since the law was first passed, and adjusted for inflation $200 is $4224 today (https://www.dollartimes.com/inflatio...=200&year=1934).

The requirements around maintaining direct control of the firearm in certain range/social settings and the restrictions on travel with NFA items might be seen as more onerous than $200. Of course if a person has multiple NFA items then that total cost goes up. My point is there are logistical reasons around wanting a braced pistol that seemingly go beyond wanting to save money.

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

If anything, the makers/sellers of these stocks have been pretty caviler with not telling people that they were most certainly going to be challenged and, face value, were probably going to lose in the public eye that these aren't SBRs.

On this I very much agree with you. Back on November 24 of 2020 Ammoland Shooting Sports News ran an article detailing how the ATF had been sending letters to SB Tactical as early as July of 2018 detailing how only two of their products had been explicitly approved for use by the ATF, despite SB Tactical marketing seemingly applying that claim to all of their products for many years. ATF concluded the letter by warning that “SB Tactical must cease false advertisement of products as ATF approved which have not been evaluated nor approved.” The letter was signed by Michael Curtis, Chief of FTISB within ATF.

In the same article was another report from September 2020 on a classification determination for a submitted shotgun where the ATF stated, "SB Tactical has continued to market these accessories as “ATF Compliant,” which “has essentially left SB Tactical’s business partners … in the position where they are unknowingly manufacturing and marketing unregistered NFA
firearms.”

In short the article was rather accusatory against SB Tactical. By the enxt day, SB Tactical responded to Ammoland and author and the article was amended to include their point of view (and the title of the article became less accusatory). My impression from the evidence in the article (I have both versions of the article and the ATF letters that were linked saved) was that SB Tactical may have seen the legal writing on the wall since well before where we are now, but kept selling. You could argue this was simply to maximize profit in what they knew was a time-limited market, or to make these braces so prolific as to pass "common use" definitions. I don't know which version, if either, is true.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther

I wouldn't be so quick to be dismissive of something that potentially falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act...

Sorry, the ADA has absolutely nothing to do with Federal laws regarding firearms. It is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on a persons disability.

Matter of fact..... the term firearm isn't mentioned once in the ADA.

JohnKSa

If they were simply saying that any arm brace doesn't qualify, that would probably get struck down.

Based on what? Certainly not the ADA because it has absolutely nothing to do with arm braces for firearms.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on a persons disability and requires certain employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

There is one possibility that I see--if a disabled person has bought an "Other" and braced it, they might have standing to successfully challenge the part of the rule that disqualifies braces on "Other" firearms.

Standing based on what?
Having a disability doesn't get you an exemption on federal firearms laws any more than a disability would exempt a person with a handicapped sticker out of a traffic ticket.

[44 AMP]

To further cloud the "disability" waters, consider this, where is the denial of rights? Seems to me that has to happen to have standing to challenge the law.

NOTHING in the numerous laws says anything about the right to easily (or cheaply) use a given product, and a person who needs a brace for medical reasons isn't being denied one, even if the one they WANT is ruled a stock, there is still a legal path to ownership and use as an NFA item.

[stagpanther]

If you deny the right to use firearms to a diasabled vet by prohibiting the use of a brace outright--you are effectively discriminating against him if in fact the use of the firearm is denied or unecessarily encumbered to him/her as a consequence. It doesn't matter if there is only one in the entire US (and I bet there are more than that); that would still be discrimination. It does not suffice to say "well, he could could use a firearm at a bare minimum with only a fixed rest, assistant etc and so on"--the intent of the ADA is that everyone has the equal opportunity and accessibility to whetever is otherwise a right or service provided to the rest of the public.

[Aguila Blanca]

The primary focus of the ADA is equal access to buildings, facilities, and programs, not tools. Arguing that a particular firearm is protected under the ADA is like arguing about whether or not a DeWalt power drill is accessible to and usable by the handicapped.

If you haven't actually read the ADA, I suggest doing so before deciding that something is covered by it. I have read it -- in my work, I have been an accessibility advocate for 40 years, starting well before the passage of the ADA.

https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

How would most people know if they bought an "other?"

It will be listed as "Other" on the 4473.

[stagpanther]

Arguing that a particular firearm is protected under the ADA is like arguing about whether or not a DeWalt power drill is accessible to and usable by the handicapped.

Didn't say that. What I said was if the stabilizing brace is effectively "outlawed" it would in effect discriminate against a disabled shooter--for whom it was originally designed. It doesn't discriminate against a tool--it discriminates against the disabled vet's ability to shoot, hunt and or otherwise enjoy the same kinds of activities the rest of us without those injuries can enjoy.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther If you deny the right to use firearms to a diasabled vet by prohibiting the use of a brace outright--you are effectively discriminating against him if in fact the use of the firearm is denied or unecessarily encumbered to him/her as a consequence.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense not backed up by any law or court decision.
Having a disability doesn't mean you get to ignore the laws everyone else has to abide by. Me being unable to use a revolver like Jerry Miculek doesn't mean I'm going to shout ITS DISCRIMINATION!!! Me being unable to dunk a basketball isn't discrimination. Me being unable to hold an AR Pistol without an arm brace isn't discrimination either.

Being unable to fire a particular firearm without an "arm brace" isn't discrimination. Discrimination is telling a person that they cannot use your gun range because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity OR because they have a physical or mental disability. Discrimination is refusing to sell a gun to a Muslim, a black man, or a woman......because they are Muslim, black or a woman.


A vet with no legs can't claim DISCRIMINATION!!!! because the Boston Marathon won't let him enter and compete in his automobile of choice. It would be discrimination of they didn't have a wheelchair or powered wheelchair division.

It doesn't matter if there is only one in the entire US (and I bet there are more than that); that would still be discrimination. It does not suffice to say "well, he could could use a firearm at a bare minimum with only a fixed rest, assistant etc and so on"--

You are correct, it doesn't matter......if it was actually discrimination. It ain't.

the intent of the ADA is that everyone has the equal opportunity and accessibility to whetever is otherwise a right or service provided to the rest of the public.

Which disagrees with what you wrote above. "Equal opportunity and accessibility" isn't the issue with using an arm brace that may be deemed illegal or require NFA registration.

A disabled vet has to follow the same federal firearms law as everyone else.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

What I said was if the stabilizing brace is effectively "outlawed" it would in effect discriminate against a disabled shooter--for whom it was originally designed. It doesn't discriminate against a tool--it discriminates against the disabled vet's ability to shoot, hunt and or otherwise enjoy the same kinds of activities the rest of us without those injuries can enjoy.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think your position is supported either by the language of the ADA or by the body of case law that has evolved around it since it became law.

[HiBC]

[QUOTE][/ I'm betting most of this category of buyer is MOST in the loop on gun stuff because they selected themselves to buy something that circumvents a $200 tax stamp for an SBR but has a lesser performing product (where a real stock is a better stock...cause people are using these as a brace which is/was the point of them not being SBRs...right?)
QUOTE]

To your question of "Right?" I answer, "No,not right" . I don't speak for anyone else. I have seen pix of AR "pistols" that look to me like tricked out SBR's.no doubt. If lines get crossed, the "catching up" you describe should/must work both ways. If the BATF or any LEO discovers a non-compliant AR pistol,the response should be a "Warning:Equiptment repair order". The goal should not be criminalizing people. Provide a clear statement of the non-compliance,suggest acceptable remedy, and give a reasonable (10 day?) time to comply. If there is a second offense...things can get sticky.

Where, IMO, your logic goes wrong is that "All AR Pistols use the brace to defy the law"
I don't have a brace. I have a bare naked pistol buffer tube. Plain iron sights. No forend grips. I even have Colorado compliant 15 round magazines.
Now I just want to be left alone.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

If anything, the makers/sellers of these stocks have been pretty caviler with not telling people that they were most certainly going to be challenged and, face value, were probably going to lose in the public eye that these aren't SBRs.

I don't fault ATF for this: it's the function of legal clarification.

The ATF has said the sale and use of the braces are legal and do not change the classification of the firearm. The original manufacturers received clarification before marketing these items. This fiasco is the ATF's fault.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It will be listed as "Other" on the 4473.

Do FFL's in your area give out copies of 4473's? I think most of the time I fill one out the FFL enters all their details after I fill out the form and would never have the chance to see what they enter.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by reddog81

The ATF has said the sale and use of the braces are legal and do not change the classification of the firearm. The original manufacturers received clarification before marketing these items. This fiasco is the ATF's fault.

While I agree the ATF is an active party in the current situation, the ATF approved very specific braces. The manufacturers of those braces then created new versions of those that were notably different, seemingly operating under the assumption that because braces in the past had been approved these new versions were approved as well.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

While I agree the ATF is an active party in the current situation, the ATF approved very specific braces. The manufacturers of those braces then created new versions of those that were notably different, seemingly operating under the assumption that because braces in the past had been approved these new versions were approved as well.

I'm not aware of what the original devices looked like. Would they be allowable under the new rules?

[44 AMP]

I'm not aware of what the original devices looked like. Would they be allowable under the new rules?

Since we won't know the new rules until they are released (at the end of this month) NO ONE can answer that question at this time.

I think going down the rabbit hole claiming the new ATF ruling (when we know what it is) will discriminate against disabled people will only leave you in the bottom of a hole.

Our laws are supposed to ensure equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME.

Given what we know at the moment, and what we expect the ATF to rule, pistol "braces" will not be banned or made illegal, no matter what the ruling is. What can happen is that SOME items, currently classified as a brace and NOT a stock, will be reclassified as stocks. That does not make them prohibited items, it makes them REGULATED under the NFA, instead of non NFA regulated as they currently are.

Popular, easy, and convenient are generally of little or no concern to the law (and not just firearms laws). People often claim otherwise, but take a look at how the courts rule.

SOME braces may be affected by a change in the ATF ruling. ALL braces, and the idea of a brace will not and cannot be. It would require more than an ATF rule change to do that.

I remember a gadget I saw back in the 70s, (I've forgotten the name, and its probably long gone now) that was, literally a "universal" pistol brace. AND, it was designed to fit against your shoulder, it had a buttplate and a part of it even acted as a cheekpiece.

It would work for every handgun out there. It was not regulated, and there was never a hint of talk about NFA item. Because, it did not attach to the gun! The forward end of the "stock" was a steel rod ending with a ball, which fitted into a socket on a wristband the shooter wore. Literally, the pistol wasn't braced, the shooter's ARM was.

That kind of system wouldn't appeal much to the UTubers who want to play SBR games using braces to avoid NFA regulation, but it is a fully functional brace allowing the benefits of rifle stock stability, and since it is neither a firearm, or part of one, avoids all firearms laws (that I know of).

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Since we won't know the new rules until they are released (at the end of this month) NO ONE can answer that question at this time.

I was under the impression the ATF form 4999 was the worksheet that was going to be used to determine the status of the firearm / brace combo.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by reddog81

I was under the impression the ATF form 4999 was the worksheet that was going to be used to determine the status of the firearm / brace combo.

I linked the form 4999 on the first page. Even if you dont have a brace, depending on the configuration, it could be considered a sbr. My suspicion is that they are trying to regulate the pistol format entirely, making the brace a component, to side step the legality of the brace itself.

[stinkeypete]

I'm old. Everyone used to know that you can't have a sawed off shotgun or a short barrel rifle, stemming all the way back to gangster days and prohibition of alcohol.

Then some guys looked at the rules and said "Wait a minute... what if instead of putting a short barrel on a shotgun receiver, we make a whole new "firearm" with these characteristics. TECHNICALLY, it's inside the rules, right?"

The BATF says "Well, technically yeah. I guess you got around our intentions, but you're technically correct."

The post office says "Is this a long arm?" and you've got to say "no, it's not." And according to their rules, you can't ship it.

Then you talk to the private shipping companies and they say "Is this a long arm?" and you say "no". They ask "Is this a pistol?" And you say "no." And then they tell you they don't have rules for firearms like that and they don't care to ship it.

So... I am old. The Lone Ranger has a couple of pistols. You hold them in your hand. Nowadays, John Wick has a huge pistol, but you hold it in your hand. These things look like pistols.

But someone takes an AR receiver, registers it as a pistol, then puts a goofy crappy stock on the back and says "Oh! Wink! Wink! This is an 'arm brace!' Can we sell it?"
and the BATF says "Well, I dunno. As we rule now, I guess so."

The rest of us look at it and say "Well, it LOOKS exactly like a short barreled rifle to me."

So... if the rules change, you'll have a receiver registered as a pistol and you'll need to do what we used to do with Contenders- Never have a butt stock on and the short barrel on at the same time.

You can take off the buttstock and have a pistol (since the receiver is registered as such), or
You can put on an 18" barrel and have a rifle.

You can't do that if your receiver is registered as a rifle.

But since it's a pistol, I would say man up, shoot it one handed like a pistol and enjoy your pistol. 'Arm brace? I don't need no stinkin' arm brace to shoot a pistol! Me? I'm not interested in such things as they are not light and handy, nor accurate like a rifle.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by reddog81

I'm not aware of what the original devices looked like. Would they be allowable under the new rules?

At least one person here has linked the worksheet. When you look at the worksheet you realize it’s not just about the brace by itself. The entire configuration of the firearm, including optics and foregrips, are part of the evaluation.

The original devices by SB Tactical that were approved were the SB15 and MPX PSB. This is a subjective assessment, but to me they are notably different than a number of SB products sold today that are more stock like in appearance and function than those original products. You can read some of the communications between the ATF and SB Tactical here: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf...ation-letters/.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

I'm old. Everyone used to know that you can't have a sawed off shotgun or a short barrel rifle, stemming all the way back to gangster days and prohibition of alcohol.

Then some guys looked at the rules and said "Wait a minute... what if instead of putting a short barrel on a shotgun receiver, we make a whole new "firearm" with these characteristics. TECHNICALLY, it's inside the rules, right?"

The BATF says "Well, technically yeah. I guess you got around our intentions, but you're technically correct."

The post office says "Is this a long arm?" and you've got to say "no, it's not." And according to their rules, you can't ship it.

Then you talk to the private shipping companies and they say "Is this a long arm?" and you say "no". They ask "Is this a pistol?" And you say "no." And then they tell you they don't have rules for firearms like that and they don't care to ship it.

So... I am old. The Lone Ranger has a couple of pistols. You hold them in your hand. Nowadays, John Wick has a huge pistol, but you hold it in your hand. These things look like pistols.

But someone takes an AR receiver, registers it as a pistol, then puts a goofy crappy stock on the back and says "Oh! Wink! Wink! This is an 'arm brace!' Can we sell it?"
and the BATF says "Well, I dunno. As we rule now, I guess so."

The rest of us look at it and say "Well, it LOOKS exactly like a short barreled rifle to me."

So... if the rules change, you'll have a receiver registered as a pistol and you'll need to do what we used to do with Contenders- Never have a butt stock on and the short barrel on at the same time.

You can take off the buttstock and have a pistol (since the receiver is registered as such), or
You can put on an 18" barrel and have a rifle.

You can't do that if your receiver is registered as a rifle.

But since it's a pistol, I would say man up, shoot it one handed like a pistol and enjoy your pistol. 'Arm brace? I don't need no stinkin' arm brace to shoot a pistol! Me? I'm not interested in such things as they are not light and handy, nor accurate like a rifle.

I don’t personally blame people for reacting to bureaucracy by trying to find loopholes in that bureaucracy. To me it’s somewhat of a natural reaction. I think there is an element that sees the NFA as a construct meant to combat a form of crime that to a large part doesn’t exist anymore and can be combatted in other ways that don’t mean taking ~2” off of a barrel (in certain instances) turns a legally owned rifle into a class of firearm that, without the appropriate approval and tax, would now see that owner guilty of a felony. Especially as the loss of barrel length in that case likely doesn’t dramatically impact concealability (subjective opinion to be fair) and generally decreases lethality (I fully admit there are cases of much greater reduction in overall length, but this example shows the difficulty in picking a threshold). It also hasn’t stopped criminals from going that route (the Washington Naval Yard shooter made a short barreled shotgun, illegally), though it does create a potential charge when/if that person is caught.

I don’t think and I’ve never thought that pistol braces were any form of solution. Some people see using those loopholes as a form of defiance, and I get that, but if you take issue with the NFA then your goal should be working on the NFA. An admitted problem on that is in a Congressional environment where passing any form of legal changes as it relates to gun control is seemingly impossible (on both sides), that’s not an option. These loopholes become the target and people will exploit them, not really for nefarious intent but because they are often the path of least resistance.

[Bill DeShivs]

There are no "loopholes." That's a liberal term for anything they don't like.
Things are either illegal, or legal. If they aren't illegal, they are legal. There is no grey area.
The fact that "firearms" are neither pistol or shotgun, is because the law says so.
The ATF agreed that arm braces are legal. Many millions have been sold legally on THEIR ruling. To suddenly change that ruling for any reason-much less because our executive branch is anti gun, and make millions of law abiding citizens felons is absurd.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by reddog81

Do FFL's in your area give out copies of 4473's? I think most of the time I fill one out the FFL enters all their details after I fill out the form and would never have the chance to see what they enter.

No, the FFLs I deal with don't give me a copy of the 4473, but I do know what the item I'm buying is classified as.

Link to the new (December 2022) 4473: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

The classification of the firearm is question #24, the first item after the buyer's signature and date. Note that above question 24 it says, "Section C - Must Be Completed By Transferor/Seller Prior To The Transfer Of The Firearm(s)". It was also question #24, just below the buyer's signature, on the 2020 edition of the 4473.

That means before you -- the buyer -- take possession, and before you walk out the door with your new toy. The FFLs typically fill that out while waiting for the authorization on the phone, and they have usually filled out the information about me and my identification before I sign the 4473.

On the 2016 version of the 4473, this was question #16, and that section was Section B. The classification question (#16) was also the first question below my signature.

Are you actually suggesting that you have bought firearms without knowing what type of firearms they were? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?