I find it odd that an official publicly released letter cannot be found on ATF's site pertaining to their stance on this issue. I would have thought something with this potential impact would have been made public by the ATF.

If they're saying you can't have a a VFG on a pistol, that's not new. (Just because it looks like and you use it like a rifle doesn't change the law)

If they're saying you can't have a folding brace on a rifle... If the shooting world at large claims it isn't a stock when you put one on a pistol, we can't expect it to count as a stock if you put one on a rifle.

Which we're talking about, I couldn't tell from the OP. lol

Summary: Much ado about nothing. When they start ruling the SB NFA item, then we'll start bitching.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
If they're saying you can't have a a VFG on a pistol, that's not new.

Which is why it’s not legal to put one on Glock or P226 (something I didn’t know at one time, but learned here some years ago [thanks again, SIGforum]).

I’ll just keep on, keepin on here.

Wait times on a Form 1 run about 11 days now, so I really think the wait time theory is not valid.

This is the thing - if your 'pistol' was over 26", it was just a 'firearm' and you could have a VFG on it.

But now with the new measurement ruling (that you go from muzzle to the end of the buffer tube (AR) or receiver (AK / Scorpion / MPX / MPC), some that were over 26" are now considered under, making them 'pistols'.

Easiest thing to do is NOT have a VFG on one of these, regardless of which way the ATF blows.

quote:

Originally posted by AZSigs:
It is sad news for many using a law tactical hinged brace on their AR pistols.

Many think that that since the AR would need to be unfolded for 'function', it would still apply. But I don't have one, so beyond hearing that I don't really know.

A friend sent this to me after the previous was posted.
Just for those that think it is or is not real.

https://princelaw.files.wordpr...d-brace_redacted.pdf

Like I said, don't shoot the messenger as I was passing on info for the good of us.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Big Bore Lover,

I don't understand what the ATF or the article is talking about. Any firearm with a stabilizing brace is not a rifle reguardless of length because said firearm is not designed to be fired from the shoulder. Am I wrong?

Also, nothing I've read here seems to apply to the Law Tactical folding hinge thing. It's only talking about stabilizing braces. The ATF letter even says, if it's folding and has a stock attached, the stock must be considered in the overall length.

Sweet Jesus. Again, this is nothing new.

Don’t set on top of a pallet of cocaine with one of these in a free state and you’ll be just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Sweet Jesus. Again, this is nothing new.

Don’t set on top of a pallet of cocaine with one of these in a free state and you’ll be just fine.

Those dam pallets of coke will get you every time.

What’s the reason for short barrel rifles being so scary anyhow?

If it’s concealment an AR can be broken down and put back together in what 5 seconds?

Personally, I don’t see the benefit of a vertical fore grip over an angled one; the latter is much more natural (at least to me) for pointing at stuff and feels far less awkward. Let’s just hope they don’t include all fore grips at some point but if it does come to pass I’ll just go back to a bare hand guard.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gearhounds,

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Sweet Jesus. Again, this is nothing new.

Don’t set on top of a pallet of cocaine with one of these in a free state and you’ll be just fine.

Huh? I don't see the issue.

If anything, the letter is a good thing for people with pistol braces as it reinforces that they are accessories and does not turn them into SBRs.

This is much ado about nothing. If you made a 'firearm' you better remeasure without the brace. If it's not long enough, just take the vfg off and it's back to being a legal pistol.

NO BIG DEAL

My take on this subject... #1, AR pistol, 26" or less with a brace, no vertical foregrip, measured from end of buffer tube (brace removed) to barrel threads. #2, AR pistol with law folder and brace, 26" or less, no vertical foregrip, measured (folded), So you measure from the end of the receiver to the barrel threads (thus making it shorter than #1...This new ruling only really affects people who are measuring with the brace extended or folder also added (to increase length), so they can exceed the 26" length requirement, making it a rifle instead of an 'any other weapon'.

I am not a lawyer and as such take my view on it for what its worth.

Thanks hvyhawler, I agree and here is my simple version of yours. It is simple, no vertical foregrips on pistols. Simple as that.

The rest has to do with where measurements are taken from.

If you don't have a vertical foregrip it doesn't impact to your pistol. If you do.....deal with it.

Sorry BBL, but almost all pistols have vertical foregrips.