Pistol Braces legal again ??

[seanc]

*Remember, the brace issue is political and the law is on the books

Nope! There's no law on the books here. That's the issue: the ATF pulled this out of their rear. They don't have the authority to do that and these lawsuits are making that point.

[44 AMP]

Not to put too fine a point on it, there is a law, and then there is the ATF's authority under the law.

The ATF reviews designs and makes determinations where they fit, under the law. This is not the issue.

But, when something they previously ruled non regulated is "redetermined" to be an NFA item after some years have passed and without any obvious change in anything but their reclassification of the object, it calls into question both their credibility and legal authority to do so.

They have played this sort of game with stocked pistols before, several times over the years, but since their flip flopping only affected a relatively small number of people there wasn't enough interest or outrage to generate legal action against it.

Because there are a great many more people with AR pistols than folks with the "curio & relic" handguns that take stocks it makes a difference. While I have no personal interest or stake in AR pistol braces /stocks I am pleased that legal action is underway and hopefully the ATF will be spanked for their inconsistencies this time, at least.

[stagpanther]

I yanked my pistol barrels and converted my AR pistols to carbines--even though I had nothing but bare buffer tubes which had no means of attaching anything that could be adjustable. It was a cool little fad while it lasted, but having a weapon who's chief advantage from my point of view was concealability anyway, just wasn't worth it to me. The argument of brace vs stock on a pistol is as rigidly unambiguous as why some people say to-may-tow--and others say tow-mah-tow.

[FrankenMauser]

Indeed.
I thought pistol braces were stupid, but tried one to be sure.
Even stupider than I expected.

I find SBRs to be more useful, and went that route.

But that doesn't mean that I don't care. I am happy to see someone finally trying to get the ATF to abide by the law and stay within its limits.

[wild cat mccane]

Most braces can't even function as a brace. Most don't even come with a velco attachment.

Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...

I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.

Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.

[Hellcat1]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Most braces can't even function as a brace. Most don't even come with a velco attachment.

Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...

I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.

Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.

There are actually 3+ states where SBRs are illegal, including mine. And count me as at least one person who actually uses a brace for its intended purpose because my support hand, which I've had three surgeries on, is still all screwed up, making me unable to shoot a rifle normally. I did convert my AR pistol to a carbine because of the ATF ruling, but haven't been able to shoot it since. It was my only option in order to be in compliance.


Frank

[wild cat mccane]

So...wouldn't it make more sense to special class a brace for those with need vs opening fake braces out there that 99.9% use as an SBR? Brace makers used the veteran in their advertisement. Let's see some genuineness from the makers.

In fact, we see more and more than braces are just actually stocks and functionally impossible to be a forearm brace. The velco strap is where on all braces at this point? no where. So forearm attachment is where?

So while you have a use, the makers are just straight up trying to break the intent of the NFA laws on SBR. Shame on them.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.

Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.

Whether the arguments for or against braces are valid is currently irrelevant.

The current ruling on braces (Britto v. BATFE) and the injunction against the ATF rule are based on the ATF failing to follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act in adopting the rule. Simply put, government agencies must follow the process established by Congress and cannot just dream up regulations

[seanc]

the makers are just straight up trying to break the intent of the NFA laws on SBR.

And that's why I support them in this back-door attack on the NFA. Personally, I'm not a fan of AR/AK pistols, braced or not, but if this puts a bullet in the NFA, I'm all for it!

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

So while you have a use, the makers are just straight up trying to break the intent of the NFA laws on SBR. Shame on them.

The SBR/SBS part of the NFA makes little to no sense to me in a world where the NFA didn’t include handguns as being under its regulation, which per my understanding was the original intent.

Besides the cost of the tax stamp of an SBR, the larger annoyance is, imo, the regulations regarding interstate travel, especially for folks that live close to borders on other states and travel on routes that cross those borders. I am somewhat skeptical that the NFA stops crime when talking specifically about SBRs/SBSes. The Washington Naval Yard shooter made an illegal SBS when he went on his rampage. He used a hacksaw to cut the barrel and stock. In the realm of it adding an additional charge to a person already being charged with committing a crime, I guess it’s something, but I’m not sure how much additional criminal behavior laws about SBRs/SBSes prevent.

[FrankenMauser]

The NFA was meant to ban or severely restrict all handguns.

But someone involved questioned, "What if someone just cuts down a rifle?"
So, SBRs and SBSs were created (and "banned") as classes of weapons.

The the handguns got taken out before it passed, but a vestigial limb remained - SBRs and SBSs.

[44 AMP]

Most of this whole issue turns on definitions, and even more specifically items made to be mounted on AR pistols, ALONG with the blurring of intended designed use vs. the way people ARE using them.

stir in a dollop of manufacturers making anything for a buck and (potentially) false advertising claims and its a pretty stinky stew.

Under the Fed law, if its a pistol BRACE, its not an NFA item. If it is a pistol STOCK it is.

I think it might have been in the Pogo comic, originally not sure, but there's a line that goes "we has met the enemy and they is us!"

And in this case, I think there is an element of truth to that.

the ATF looked at several brace designs, and ruled that they were braces, NOT STOCKS, using the designer's/makers intent and instructions for use. They were not wrong doing that.

Then along comes a bunch of grown up children putting those braces to their shoulders, and showing off on UTube, chanting neener neener, we can do this and get what amounts to an SBR without paying the tax or getting approved, its legal and you can't do anything about it!!!

In other words, due to the actions of some shooters, and specifically their "in your face" videos on the net, this matter became something affecting the power, prestige and PRIDE of a branch of the Fed govt.

I'm sure there was pressure from the top administration to act on this, and the ATF's response was, essentially, "fine, if you're going to use it as a stock, we will redefine it AS a stock, and THAT makes it an NFA item".

"you can remove it (lose it) or register it as an NFA item, and to sweeten the deal, we're offering a free "amnesty period" to do it in."

The big point to the legal challenges are that a regulatory agency (ATF or any other) doesn't get to change the rules as they see fit and make up stuff as they go along or swap positions to please the current elected administration all on their own.

CONGRESS can change the law, using their due process, but unless/until they do, the law is fixed at what it is and various enforcement agencies are limited in what they may do enforcing the law, and are not allowed to "make law" with their regulations.

It does make we wonder where we would be today, if the ATF had chosen the more difficult, time consuming and more expensive option of sending agents to track down the U Tube (etc) posters and charge them, individually, with violating the law using a brace as a stock in order to avoid the laws registration and tax requirements. They have the videos as proof the violation occurred, seems like a slam dunk case to me.

Instead they chose to make a rule change affecting those who were "misbehaving" and those who were not.

Right now, we have court ruling putting a hold on the ATF enforcing their rule until court challenges are settled. Get some fresh popcorn and watch the show....because it is political theater, as much as anything else.

[wild cat mccane]

I'll not indiana jones it, but;
is an sbr legal? yes.
is anyone using the brace as a brace? not really, no.

Arguing in between is a loser for the gun community. Winning on technicalities and not substance is kinda...well, you don't win support with that method. So original question, are braces used as braces, patently no as many out there right now can't even function as a brace.

Take the injunction win. War lost.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I'll not indiana jones it, but;
is an sbr legal? yes.
is anyone using the brace as a brace? not really, no.

Arguing in between is a loser for the gun community. Winning on technicalities and not substance is kinda...well, you don't win support with that method.

The entirety of gun laws in this country is based on technicalities, even if the general populace is unaware. When I explain existing gun laws to most “non-gun” people they almost without an exception have little to no idea of the existing laws, especially when we get into nuances like the implications of barrel length on the legality of a firearm.

In terms of winning support, the only people who know these nuances are the people who have to live within them, and even a good number of those people don’t even know. It’s hard to win support among people that are often ignorant about the topic, especially when those same people generally view the people trying to educate others as spewing propaganda.

As far as this decision costing the “war”, many gun owners I know have no idea this injunction is even a thing. I’m extremely skeptical that most non gun owners even know about this, so I don’t see this “battle” as having much of any impact among those folks. I haven’t even seen this covered prominently by larger news organizations.

[wild cat mccane]

I hear you.

On the same vein, everything you read on pro brace posts act as if the TX injunction is a permanent stay.

It is not.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

On the same vein, everything you read on pro brace posts act as if the TX injunction is a permanent stay.

It is not.

While the injunction in Britto v. BATFE is not final or permanent, the Fifth Circuit essentially put a spike through the heart of the ATF rule in Mock v. Garland:

In conclusion, it is relatively straightforward that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, and the monumental error was prejudicial. The Final Rule therefore must be set aside as unlawful or otherwise remanded for appropriate remediation.

[Dashunde]

Indeed and I agree. They look pretty stupid standing there like that.

My point was how they were selectively prosecuted.
Search Kimberly Gardner.. she'll make you sick and mad at the same time.

[5whiskey]

the ATF looked at several brace designs, and ruled that they were braces, NOT STOCKS, using the designer's/makers intent and instructions for use. They were not wrong doing that.

Then along comes a bunch of grown up children putting those braces to their shoulders, and showing off on UTube, chanting neener neener, we can do this and get what amounts to an SBR without paying the tax or getting approved, its legal and you can't do anything about it!!!

In other words, due to the actions of some shooters, and specifically their "in your face" videos on the net, this matter became something affecting the power, prestige and PRIDE of a branch of the Fed govt.

I'm similarly as critical of the ones who made videos (and marketed) of "pistols" being shoulder fired. It's saying the quiet part out loud.

On the other side of the coin, this has been going on for years and the ATF has turned a blind eye. Sure the first brace was an actual brace, and very ill suited as a stock. Sure it could be shouldered. Better than a bare buffer tube. But it was a real pistol brace and was terrible as a stock.

Most braces can't even function as a brace. Most don't even come with a velco attachment.

Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...

I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.

Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.

McCane, I don't completely disagree with you. Or 44amp. In fact, I largely agree that the gun community was a bit too callous and nonchalant about flouting the brace "loophole." At the same time, it wasn't lost on the ATF how the majority of "braced pistols" were actually used (as SBRs) going back to the Obama presidency. It's easy to criticize the fact that they ultimately approved something, looked the other way for 10 years when people obviously exceeded the technical scope of the approval, wait for hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of them to be sold out into the wild, and then all of a sudden blow the whistle and cry foul because the chief executive at the time wants to "look tough on guns" 10 years later.

Sure, gun owners were stupid in overtly flouting the the NFA with the braces on video. The ATF was pretty stupid for looking the other way and pretending it wasn't happening (and that's how that happened, you bet the ATF was privy to the real use of pistol braces) until they were in such common use, and after so much time had passed.

[RickB]

The SBR/SBS part of the NFA makes little to no sense to me in a world where the NFA didn’t include handguns as being under its regulation, which per my understanding was the original intent.

Exactly.
The purpose of SBR was to prevent people from turning their non-NFA rifles into NFA pistols. The dimensions of a rifle were included so everyone would know they could not avoid the tax on pistols by cutting-down a rifle to handgun size.
It has nothing to do with concealability or "deadliness" of a short barrel.

[Swifty Morgan]

Poking the bear is never smart.

People in the government generally care very little about doing their jobs, but they really hate it when people make them look bad or challenge their dominance. That's when they start showing something resembling zeal.

[44 AMP]

I would point out that lumping the entire "gun community" into the same group as the UTube yammerheads isn't particularly fair, or accurate.

While there are a large number of people who own AR pistols and I guess quite a few of them have braces, they are a small percentage of the gun community, and the morons who thumbed their noses at the ATF with their videos are a much, much smaller percentage of AR pistol owners.


I went through a version of this a couple decades ago, with an actual "stocked pistol". It was a Broomhandle Mauser, made to take and be used with the wooden stock/holster.

For many, many years the ATF position was fixed, if you had a stocked pistol (or the pistol and the stock together where they could be assembled) it was an NFA item. SO, I had the pistol, and no stock.

Then they changed the ruling and allowed "curio & relic" class to have a stock without being an NFA item. Since my pistol was now in that class, I got a reproduction stock/holster. I assume it was a reproduction, there were no markings on it, and while it obviously wasn't new, there was no way to determine it was of the 1920s vintage that my pistol was.

And, THAT is the reason I had to get rid of the stock about a decade later when the ATF changed their rules AGAIN, and decided that ONLY original curio & relic shoulder stocks were exempt from the NFA requirments, and a reproduction stock (even though physically identical to the original) made the combination an NFA item.

SO, I sold the stock, and a few years after, sold the pistol as well. Point here is that the ATF changed their rules, back and forth, and that left more than just a sour taste in my mouth about them. SO, I can sympathize with the AR pistols owners being screwed with over what is a brace, and what is a stock.

I think the ATF would have gone on the way they had been for years, essentially ignoring the "brace" issue, even with pressure from the upper administration, had it not been for the adult "children" using their videos to taunt the ATF for the entire world to see. (yes the entire world who could log into UTube)

There are very few things bureaucrats and politicians hate worse than losing their authority & control is that being shown in public.
just my personal opinion, and worth what you paid for it, or possibly less.

[Swifty Morgan]

In any case, the SB Tactical FS1913 brace, which used to be easy to find, is now unobtainable, so I guess people were waiting for this injunction.

[TunnelRat]

While I wouldn’t personally take and post video of myself shooting firearms in a questionable state (I wouldn’t take and post video of myself shooting any firearms if I’m honest), I don’t necessarily hold the people that posted to YouTube responsible. I’m not a fan of things that are legal with a wink and a nod or are legal when people aren’t looking your way. This is especially true when the punishment for the violation of laws related to firearms is often a felony with years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. As has been covered, the ATF has already changed its mind on things multiple times. Owning a thing that is legal as long as I don’t “taunt” the ATF has little to no appeal to me. I would rather the ATF be required to make a decision, and if that decision doesn’t seem legal/reasonable then to support those challenging them in court. This situation isn’t over yet, but I’d personally rather be in the position we are today than where we were a year ago.

[Dashunde]

Most braces can't even function as a brace. Most don't even come with a velco attachment.

Flying your flag on the brace when an SBR isn't illegal...

I think the gun community is wrong on this one. It's an argument that shows no respect to a valid point. Almost no one uses these as a brace.

Me point that out isn't me stirring a pot. Claiming I'm wrong simply ignores reality.

1st - the "most" and "most" above is fairly incorrect.. SB's are the original and most common I've seen and they all have velcro and do function as a forearm brace.

2nd - there are issues regarding the NFA and having SBR's in it to begin with. But, its not illegal if you pay up and register. How does that rectify with the 2nd? It doesn't.

3rd - Fact, disabled people legitimately do use the braces, velcro and all. And the ATF has previously a) approved the product, b) ok'd the shouldering of it, and c) allowed them to accumulate in the millions for more than a decade. Now comes a senile old man with his minion hoard of Constitution haters and here we are with a half-baked cobbled up nonsensical "rule" created with their bountiful power of ineptitude.

What is the "valid point" here? That we're not supposed to buy and use what they've said was ok for a decade? Now we're supposed to cower to the partisan bureaucrats? I think not.

I don't agree with their "valid point" nor have any respect for it.
The reality is the ATF has overstepped.

[HighValleyRanch]

Saw this on a Facebook feed.
What is he shooting? Looks like a Glock with pistol brace?
Legal or not?