I’d say so. I wouldn’t think you are registering the brace, but the gun it’s on. Once the gun becomes a SBR, you can knock yourself out, put on a real stock and VFG. Go wild!
|Music's over turn |
out the lights
This is the biggest gun registration in the history of the country. If this doesn't get people to wake the fuck up nothing will. We are at war with these clowns and I bet ¾ of people who have braces will be fine just making them into NFA items as long as its free
Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud. -Sophocles
To be officially published in the Federal Register tomorrow 12/18.
Interesting read, thanks for posting. This will be open for comment by citizens and industry so it's not a done deal.
Cut from the important section:
The objective design features ATF considers in determining whether a weapon with an attached “stabilizing brace” has been “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” include, but are not limited to:
Type and Caliber. The type and caliber of firearm to which the stabilizing brace or similar item is installed. A large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.
- So 9mm is OK, probably 5.56, maybe 7.62 x 39, but maybe not 7.62x51 NATO. Then again a .500 S&W and .460 VR can't really be fired one handed...
Weight and Length. The weight and length of the firearm used with the stabilizing brace. A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.
- So probably a 10.5" AR barrel is ok, but not a 14.5"?
Length of Pull. The “length of pull” refers to the distance from the trigger to the point at which a stock meets the shoulder. This is a measurement for rifles and shotguns used to accommodate shooters of different sizes. Because an arm brace need only reach the forearm, the distance between the trigger and the back of the brace is generally expected to be shorter than the distance between the trigger and the back of a stock on a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This measurement is not necessarily determinative of the intent of the manufacturer but is used in making an evaluation of the firearm. If a brace is of a length that makes it impractical to attach to the shooter’s wrist or forearm, then that may demonstrate that it is not designed as brace but rather for shoulder fire.
- LOP of 13" or lower seems to be the limit for braces based on SB's designs and the Q Honey Badger issue.
Attachment Method. The method of attachment of the stabilizing brace, to include modified stock attachments, extended receiver extensions, and the use of spacers. These items extend the distance between the trigger and the part of the weapon that contacts the shooter, whether it is a stock or stabilizing brace. Use of these items indicates that the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder because they extend a stabilizing brace beyond a point that is useful for something other than shoulder support.
- This is a restatement of length of pull, so telescoping braces that can extend longer than 13" may be an issue, and possibly those based on standard buffer tubes used for stocks.
Stabilizing Brace Design Features. The objective design features of the attached stabilizing brace itself are relevant to the classification of the assembled weapon, and include:
o The comparative function of the attachment when utilized as a stabilizing brace compared to its alternate use as a shouldering device;
o The design of the stabilizing brace compared to known shoulder stock designs;
o The amount of rear contact surface area of the stabilizing brace that can be used in shouldering the weapon as compared to the surface area necessary for use as a stabilizing brace;
o The material used to make the attachment that indicates whether the brace is designed and intended to be pressed against the shoulder for support, or actually used on the arm;
o Any shared or interchangeable parts with known shoulder stocks; and
o Any other feature of the brace that improves the weapon’s effectiveness
from the shoulder-firing position without providing a corresponding benefit to the effectiveness of the stability and support provided by the brace’s use on the arm.
- Implies that Shockwave Blades and SB rubber "cuff" braces are OK, but hard plastic or aluminum (Tailhook) might not be, unless they are found OK due to the limited amount of surface contact area. Also implies standard buffer tubes may be an issue.
Aim Point. Appropriate aim point when utilizing the attachment as a stabilizing brace. If the aim point when using the arm brace attachment results in an upward or downward trajectory that could not accurately hit a target, this may indicate the attachment was not designed as a stabilizing brace.
- Not sure about this, I'll have to check some examples, but I get the point.
Secondary Grip. The presence of a secondary grip may indicate that the weapon is not a “pistol” because it is not designed to be held and fired by one hand.
- Foregrips make a pistol an SBR or AOW already, unless they mean a grip-able handguard which is really pushing it.
Sights and Scopes. Incorporation of sights or scopes that possess eye relief incompatible with one-handed firing may indicate that the weapon is not a “pistol” because they are designed to be used from a shoulder-fire position and are incompatible for the single-handed shooting that arm braces are designed and intended.
- So a magnified scope with normal eye relief makes your pistol a rifle, but not a red dot? And aperture rear sights make a rifle while notch sights don't?
Peripheral Accessories. Installation of peripheral accessories commonly found on rifles or shotguns that may indicate that the firearm is not designed and intended to be held and fired with one hand. This includes, but is not limited to, the installation of bipods/monopods that improve the accuracy of heavy weapons designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or the inclusion of a magazine or drum that accepts so many cartridges that it increases the overall weight of the firearm to a degree that it is impractical to fire the weapon with one hand even with the assistance of a stabilizing brace.
- Ruger Chargers come with Bi-Pods and they have been classified as pistols or a long time (>10 years?). And now we might have magazine capacity limits based on weight? A 30 round STANAG is probably OK, but a 60 round drum makes it a rifle?
So overall they are saying that if it looks like a stock and functions like a stock and is not very good at being a forearm brace, then it's a stock. But they are also saying that it's a judgement call for them and not a list of specifications. It's also dependent on the firearm as a whole, so separate parts assembled by the owner may never get a determination.
* My MPX and Rattler came with copies of the ATF statement so they should at least be grandfathered.
* SBA3 and SBA4 are questionable since they use standard carbine buffer tubes. But they are limited to 5 positions with longest LOP <13", and have rubber cuffs that can function reasonably well strapped to an arm.
* SB side folders for Scorpion/SP5/etc. are OK on LOP and rubber, but not much of a cuff.
* Tailhook - actually is the best and most convenient at being a brace, but is either aluminum or hard plastic, but is hollow with not a lot of actual surface contact area.
Pretty sure what they are talking about on the “secondary grip” is having a pistol that is at least 26” OAL with a brace so it’s a “firearm”, not a “pistol”, and people are fitting them with VFGs.
Ah OK that makes sense.
Just finished skimming the ATF Federal Registry rule change proposal document.
In addition to the above mentioned speculation on the criteria the ATF is proposing they are also creating a new terminology for purposes of these rules... "affected stabilizer-equipped firearms".
Those that own an affected stabilizer-equipped firearm have five options; go through the NFA registry process (exempted from the $200 tax), permanently remove the stabilizing brace and destroy it, [EDITED: this ONLY applies to guns aquired BEFORE the proposal was published in the Federal Registry], replace the barrel with an appropriate length Title 1 barrel, surrender the firearm to the NFA, or destroy the firearm.
Also, among the criteria proposed is establishing an evaluation process for evaluating each individual firearm equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace, which includes a voluntary submission which is assigned to a Firearms Enforcement Officer (FEO), who then performs the evaluation as to whether the firearm is regulated by the NFA, GCA, or the AECA and publishes a report on his/ her findings. These findings are then peer reviewed by another qualified FEO. After the review of the two FEOs, the report is then submitted to the Chief of the FTISB for final review.
An observation of mine that I believe is worth noting is how the ATF's use of the Federal Registry process this time is so similar to the attempt made by the ATF under the Obama administration when they attempted to ban M855 as armor piercing ammunition. The Federal Registry process was started just about this time of year...as I recall they published the rule change proposal document December 26th (starting the Public Comments deadline clock), over the federal government Christmas holiday, when most government offices were closed and most of the public was also on holiday and not likely to know about, read, or comment on the proposal.
Also, the ATF's M855 ban proposal shortened the standard 120 or 90 day Public Comment period to just 30 days. This current ATF pistol/ brace evaluation criteria proposal ONLY ALLOWS FOR A 14 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD...DURING THE CHRISTMAS, HANNUKAH, NEW YEARS HOLIDAY! Obviously, the ATF is attempting to restrict the public's awareness of this new proposal and reduce the number of pubic comments they will receive that might influence their decision making.
Time to crank up the machine, spread the word, contact elected representatives, and make those public comments. 14 days puts us at a deadline of
ETA: 2 edits. Edited to point out that the first 2 options being allowed only apply to guns acquired before the Federal Registry proposal was published today. Also edited to correct the deadline date, apparently the Public Comments period doesn't include weekends so the deadline for the Public Comments period is 1-4-2021This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,
rlbuzz, I realize that you don't post often, but as the thread discussion OP you are the one able to edit the thread title. With the Federal Registry rule change proposal set to publish tomorrow we are on a tight deadline to make the public and gun owners aware of these proposals and make public comments.
Would you consider editing the subject line of the thread to something along the lines of *Alert- Action Required*- ATF Public Comments period on rule change of pistol/ brace evaluation criteria?
rlbuzz, thanks for the subject line edit!
Just a reminder, as of today the ATF has posted the letter with their proposed restrictions on pistol braces. It will be open for 14 days to allow for anyone to make their thoughts known on how they feel about this. I urge everyone to contact the President, your congressmen, the DOJ, and the ATF to let them know your thoughts. Keep it civil, and respectful, but let them know that this IMO, illegal change is not alright. This proposed new set of regulations has only been made known just shortly before the Christmas holiday because the ATF knows that everyone is busy with the Christmas season and will probably overlook this. That is what they are counting on. Don't let them get away with it.
Remember when they made their ban on bump stocks? Everyone sat back and thought that since most of us don't use bump stocks anyway, it wasn't worth fighting. But now bump stocks are history. Now the AFT is after pistol stocks and 80% lowers. If everyone sits back and does nothing and the AFT regulates away this right, then what's next? Will it be ALL semi-auto rifles next, or will it be anything that has a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds? If the anti-gun crowd gets their way it might happen, especially if no one lifts a finger to at least know your opposition to this plan. If you sit back and do nothing, don't come around whining and bellyaching when the ATF comes after their next item that they want to ban.
In some of the comments, some are implying that this is almost a good thing. They think that they can now make their pistol a sbr by putting a stock on it, avoid the tax penalty for now, and everything will be fine. But remember they are requiring you to register your pistol as a NFA item and registering your firearms in a national registry makes a possible mandatory buyback/confiscation all that much easier at a future date, and if/when the Biden/Harris administration takes over they have already practically promised to institute widespread bans on firearms. So think before you act.
Check out this video, it has a lot of good information, as well as links to how you can make your thoughts know to the ATF.
link to the ATF form https://www.federalregister.go...ription+mailing+list
I still don't understand the tax exempt registration. Is it only if I keep the brace on it, but the second I put a stock on my "NFA"'d brace pistol/sbr it becomes an illegal sbr unless i pay the stamp? I have several sbrs already and one braced pistol.
|Fighting the good fight|
No, the proposal appears to be to allow you to stamp it as a standard SBR, without the usual $200 fee but still with all the other NFA hoops, including application, fingerprints, background check, registration, engraving,, etc., plus the standard NFA requirement for application for written approval from the ATF any time you move out of state or plan to take the NFA item out of state temporarily.
Also, doing so would make it officially a rifle, not a pistol, which may impact how you can legally transport it in your state. (For example, some states allow loaded handguns to be transported in the passenger compartment of a vehicle if you have a CHL license, but not rifles, which have to be transported unloaded in the trunk.)
Plus, some states have state laws with other restrictions on rifles and specifically short-barreled rifles, which wouldn't apply to a pistol.
Y'know... Just all the hassles that folks were trying to avoid by buying a pistol instead of an SBR.
One of the most obvious, yet puzzling things I have noted in these discussions is how parochially minded many gun owners are in their inability to understand that very often others’ situations are far different from their own.
The person with multiple NFA items may think it’s no big deal to add another to his collection, but for many people that’s difficult or even literally impossible. My CHP gives me legal authority to transport an MCX concealed and have it loaded at all times like any other handgun; neither would be true of an SBR, not to mention all the other issues associated with an NFA item.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
— Thomas Paine
As an aside to the main discussion, the fact that the ATF is willing to waive the $200 NFA tax on this issue pretty much sets aside the silly argument that further gun control measures like the ones being proposed have anything to do with generating revenue for greedy politicians, bureaucrats, and agency budget shortfalls.
I almost wish the ATF had not proposed exempting owners of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms from the $200 tax, as I would think it would be one more arrow in the quiver as to legal injury and standing if this finds this way into legal challenges...but then again, the ATF lawyers probably realized this as well.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,
|Sigforum K9 handler|
The flip side to this is that in many states, NFA items are illegal. Pistol brace ARs are legal. Is this the trend that the .gov is going to get NFA items passed in all states by some deal with the states? Or, if this is passed, will states with no legal provision for NFA items sue the ATF/.gov for violations of the Constitution?
"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"
Are handstops on a SIG MPX now going to be illegal?
Democracy is 2 Wolves & a Lamb debating the lunch menu.
Liberty is a well armed Lamb!
Nothing is illegal yet, BATFE is still trying to clarify their unclear clarification that seems to be unclarifiable.
"Para ser libre, un hombre debe tener tres cosas, la tierra, una educacion y un fusil. Siempre un fusil !" (Emiliano Zapata)
|Music's over turn |
out the lights
I am a little disappointed to only see 2 pages of this thread, it shows either complacency to just allow another thing to be taken away or the lack of knowing anything about what is going on. Last I saw there was only 13,000 comments on the ATF page, that is pathetic to say the least.
This thread should be stickied on the lounge section.
Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud. -Sophocles
Yeah, I was hoping for more concern and enthusiasm and motivation to act on this issue. But, I'm going to hope that most members are taking their time and shaping their Public Comment responses in logical constructive arguments, perhaps with plans to send them over the upcoming holidays.
Oh, and while this thread isn't stickied in the Lounge, the other one on this topic is.
As we have a few members now posting in this thread that don't often stray from one or two subforums I'm going to post a link to the ongoing discussion in the thread stickied in the Lounge:
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.
I just posted my comment and there were 48,354 comments as of 5 mins ago...and they update the numbers once a day.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|