I would fully expect there would be lawsuits about this. But unlike some of the other lawsuits percolating through the courts now that are based on the NYSRPA decision, I think the ATF / DOJ could get any sort of restrictions on pistol braces upheld. This is because they largely function as SBRs. Unless the courts are willing to whack out the SBR restrictions in the NFA, or, dare I even dream it, whack out the NFA in its entirety, the ATF is within its legislative authorization to restrict/regulate/tax SBRs.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
i hope there will be lawsuits against the ATF regarding this.

I don't see the point of accepting an "amnesty" to now make what is currently a pistol into an SBR and subject to the restrictions and limitations of an SBR.

I'm actually waiting for a lawsuit to void the NFA.

We’ll see lawsuits happen closer to December. The other thing the AFT has going against them is this is counter to how they’ve handled pistol braces for the past 15 years.

The flip flopping on this subject could definitely be used against them.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
We’ll see lawsuits happen closer to December. The other thing the AFT has going against them is this is counter to how they’ve handled pistol braces for the past 15 years.

https://youtu.be/HldLoY8GpeA

Interesting video for a detailed explanation from a lawyer.
For shits and giggles, I downloaded the ATF form and went through it. I have no reservations that I'll actually file one but I wanted to actually see the scoring system.

Another interesting point in the video is when this all might come to fruition for the ATF. I did not know about the 120 day law that's mentioned in the video.

Just thought I'd pass this along for more information.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The flip flopping on this subject could definitely be used against them.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
We’ll see lawsuits happen closer to December. The other thing the AFT has going against them is this is counter to how they’ve handled pistol braces for the past 15 years.

It seems to expose the fact that the agency is attempting to circumvent the legislative process as well as the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
It seems to expose the fact that the agency is attempting to circumvent the legislative process as well as the constitution.

And no federal law or court case has occurred for the AFT to say, “Well, we could continue as we would, but after PedoJoe vs. Yo’ Mamma LLC, we’ve had to change how we evaluate pistol braces…”

I don't know that you can say that in this particular case. I think it comes down to them changing there rules under political influence. Biden is looking to stick it to gun owners any way he can without having to pass legislation. This is pretty low hanging fruit.

The fact that the ATF approved the manufacture and sale of these devices, let millions of them be sold over almost a decade, THEN decided to turn any pistol with one installed into an SBR might raise the ire of some of the federal judiciary. But as long as the NFA itself is upheld, along with it's SBR provisions, the ATF decides what is considered a SBR, within the definitions of in the NFA. I don't see that getting overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The flip flopping on this subject could definitely be used against them.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
We’ll see lawsuits happen closer to December. The other thing the AFT has going against them is this is counter to how they’ve handled pistol braces for the past 15 years.

It seems to expose the fact that the agency is attempting to circumvent the legislative process as well as the constitution.

For an AR, a Phase 5 Hex Tube with a Tailhook Mod1C passes the "tests". OAL is less than 26" without a muzzle device, LOP is short enough, none of the parts are modified stock parts - Hex Tube can't fit a normal stock, and the tailhook is not a stock. You get a couple points here and there, but it passes. As long as you don't use magnified optics.

SB Tactical folding braces for Scorpion, SP5, etc. fail due to LOP, but they can probably make shorter versions that pass, have non-elastic straps (because elastic makes a gun deadlier) and other changes to comply. The new versions may look funny, but they can make a design that is legal.

The rule will go to court as an arbitrary reversal of prior decisions, restriction of firearms in common use, and effect of turning millions of Americans that don't watch these issues closely into overnight felons. If you bought it legally with the brace installed by the manufacturer, then it has to be legal forever.

There is no evidence that braced pistols are being used in crime to any significant degree. We all know rifle caliber firearms are very seldom used in crime, it's almost all handguns.

Forgive the civilian , Novice question but why could you not just remove the brace from the buffer tube and be good to go? Would it require a different length/style of buffer tube? Thanks in advance.

^^^
You (likely) could.

However, keeping the brace might constitute one or more "constructive possession/constructive intent".

And may or may not be spelled out in the "verbiage" of the regulation.

It may be that the brace must be "disclosed" and "attached" (photo proof to register), and otherwise the brace may need to be destroyed, or "turned in" or who knows what.

Certainly there will be some back and forth on this. It is difficult to walk a clear straight line wearing big red floppy clown shoes while drunk on power...

And some ranges require a stock or a brace to use their range.

quote:

Originally posted by cmartin:
Forgive the civilian , Novice question but why could you not just remove the brace from the buffer tube and be good to go? Would it require a different length/style of buffer tube? Thanks in advance.

No buffer tube on mine at time of purchase, just an end cap.
Brace I purchased replaced the end cap and tightened down with a few bolts.
It does fold to one side or the other depending on how you mounted it.
I'll happily admit that it's addictive to shoot it in this configuration and have let a few friends shoot it also and they all loved it.
Could I take it off and put the stock cap back on? I could and I'd be fine and not have to think about the whole thing. I have it in the box the brace came in. It's technically a pistol and legal so there would be nothing illegal about it.
I have until April to figure out what I'm going to do but registering it isn't going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
And some ranges require a stock or a brace to use their range.

That's just plain dumb. The AR pistol was around long long before the invention of the brace. Did they prohibit it at their ranges then?

So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

It is worse than that. The ATF approved braces when they were first developed by SIG. Then they approved every brace that has hit the market separately. All the manufactures had to send them to the ATF for evaluation.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

It is worse than that. The ATF approved braces when they were first developed by SIG. Then they approved every brace that has hit the market separately. All the manufactures had to send them to the ATF for evaluation.

By SB Tactical. SB Tactical subsequently came into sales agreement with SIG.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

It’s bureaucratic tyranny. Bureaucrats are unaccountable, unelected agents who leverage our liberty and rights against the prosperity of their family. Guess who gets the short stick. Bureaucracies never die. They never retire. They consume assets and accumulate power. Of course they’ll make and execute law. Who’s to stop them?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

It is worse than that. The ATF approved braces when they were first developed by SIG. Then they approved every brace that has hit the market separately. All the manufactures had to send them to the ATF for evaluation.

By SB Tactical. SB Tactical subsequently came into sales agreement with SIG.

Thanks for the clarification. The bottom line is the ATF allowed them to be brought to the market in the first place.

They made it legal in the first place. SB Tactical and/or SIG went to the ATF, showed them the original pistol brace, showed it how it was supposed to be used, and the ATF gave them an approval letter (or whatever it's actually called.) They ignored the fact that it looked very much like a stock. The ATF could have stated that these devices were stocks, and that guns with them installed were SBRs. But they didn't do that.

Then, they started getting word that LE was seeing these devices being used as stocks, likely in the commission of crimes. So the ATF made a half hearted attempt to reign that in. They said the he use of these devices as a stock has the effect of making the legal pistol (with the brace attached), into an illegal SBR (as the exact same gun.) This seemed to have crashed and burned. I never actually heard of any attempt to actually enforce this.

Now its a few years later, and the ATF is trying to fully reverse it's initial approval, and declare pistols with braces attached as SBRs under the NFA. Since they had the power to approve it in the first place, they may be found to have the power to now reject it years after the fact. Or they may not. It will be up to the courts.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
So they can just wave a wand and declare something previously legal as illegal?
Dangerous precedent.

https://youtu.be/9FQWJalNc-k

Some more information.
Basically all the same at this point but I didn't know about the one case in court right now.

https://nclalegal.org/aposhian-v-garland/