SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Proposed rule to regulate pistol braces

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Proposed rule to regulate pistol braces Login/Join 
Member
posted
It’s pretty complex. Have to use a worksheet and assign points to see if a brace design is a stock, or if it’s used as a stock.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...d-stabilizing-braces

Ammoland article.

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/...-pistol-brace-rules/
 
Posts: 2495 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Laugh or Die
posted Hide Post


I thought they literally just said pistol braces were ok and they were going to reevaluate in Dec. I guess "reevaluate" just means "figure out a different way to turn you into an overnight felon".
 
Posts: 9932 | Location: NC | Registered: May 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Read the whole thing. Pretty much everything except the original cuff designs on a fixed short mount are going to result in the pistol being deemed a short barrel rifle under NFA. Also, all previously approved braces are no longer approved and must be re-approved under the new rules. My MPX-K and Rattler came with approval letters stating the factory installed braces (telescoping PDW style with rubber cuff) were legal. Now they might not be.

Everyone who bought a braced pistol with an SBA3 or KAK Blade on it in the past few years is going to have to remove it. Even the Tailhook which was previously approved is penalized for being able to fold up into a hollow stock shape when it's not opened up to counterbalance under your forearm.

A whole lot of people who just bought a gun at the store who are not experts on firearm and brace design are going to become federal felons in waiting if they aren't aware of this rule and don't complete the worksheet and make whatever modifications are necessary. And the worksheet leaves a lot open to interpretation.

They really need a grandfather clause on this. Hopefully public comment and objection will lead to something less strict.
 
Posts: 3080 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
The Ammoland article spells out some things that aren’t made clear from the ATF “official-speak” in reference to barrel length, overall length, overall weight, red dot sight usage, and more. This is a foray into confiscation and creating instant felons.




“We have put together, I think, the most extensive and and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”- Joe Biden
 
Posts: 12753 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of FlyingScot
posted Hide Post
This is entirely about confiscation, criminalizing owners, and economically damaging the gun industry. Leave comments on the proposal if you can, contact your congress critter. Sad thing this is probably the first real attempt of many on our 2A rights by this administration.





“Forigive your enemy, but remember the bastard’s name.”

-Scottish proverb
 
Posts: 1999 | Location: South Florida | Registered: December 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Laugh or Die
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 9932 | Location: NC | Registered: May 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
I am totally against any such regulation. There should be no tax stamps for SBRs, AOWs, or any distinction between pistols and rifles in the law.

But, you have to admit that most of the braces are actually stocks.

It shouldn't matter whether it is a stock in the first place.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 50149 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Confusion, that’s how it’s done.
 
Posts: 103 | Location: DFW | Registered: April 19, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The problem I have is if this is allowed and I wanted to get a tax stamp for my pistol I would be denied. Seems the FBI feels the marijuana plant I got caught growing back in 1978 while at college proves that I am a danger to society.
 
Posts: 2430 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
For real?
Picture of Chowser
posted Hide Post
Speaking of stamps, that bs back in December about free registrations never happened, right?

Someone is telling me they registered a 16” rifle and two stripped lowers as sbrs for free back in December and I’m like, “You’re full of shit.”



Not minority enough!
 
Posts: 7093 | Location: Cleveland, OH | Registered: August 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Proposed rule to regulate pistol braces

© SIGforum 2021