Its a big photo, nothing I can do to fix that as it isn't mine but is making the rounds. Yeah the guy failed at redacting all his info but oh well.

Doesnt seemed like anything has changed, just says not to alter your brace in any way?

This is where it is vague. IMO. I'm not a lawyer.


If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock -

for example -

*****

-
and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock.


They are very vague about steps to configure.


What's to say that one day they say that installing the brace at a specific length constitutes configuring. I know there are braces out there that come with a tube where the brace is designed to stop at a certain length making it a nice sbrish length.

I gave up trying to figure out what's what and sbr'd a bunch of lowers when eforms was taking about a month to process way back in the beginning.

This is why we all need SBA3 braces.

Seems their position has not changed, just a bit more clarification.
1) Do not alter the brace. 2) Do not utilize the brace to intentionally use it as a stock.

May be some legal implications for a brace mounted on a buffer tube; on a firearm which did not come with or need one to operate.

None of this is any different than what’s in the 2017 letter to SB Tactical which also clearly said that an item that functions as a stock and objectively allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder may be considered a SBR. People tend to gloss over that in the 2017 letter because they focused on the OK to shoulder part.

Regarding the SBA3, the interesting thing is that this letter refers to the acceptance of braces reviewed by and approved by the ATF, and the word is that SB Tactical has not sent the SBA3 in for review and they don’t intend to. I’d be more worried if I had a brace that works pretty poorly as a brace (because the strap is too short or the flap that goes around the arm is too rigid) but much better as a shoulder stock.

More blahblahblah on the subject from ATF which changes nothing at this point.

What people really need too focus on is that pistol braces have been out for quite some time and blood has not filled the streets up to the curb tops. This should add momentum to the fact that SBR's should not be an NFA item at all. They simply are not used in crimes, and the hoops to own one are excessive.

Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc

quote:

Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc

Or financially viable for the Feds.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc

Or financially viable for the Feds.

True indeed

cc

I don’t know I’ve always thought the brace would help push SBR’s off the NFA list. One is a pistol but the other is a rifle? Not sure they will ever let silencers off.

quote:

Originally posted by KML:
I don’t know I’ve always thought the brace would help push SBR’s off the NFA list. One is a pistol but the other is a rifle? Not sure they will ever let silencers off.

Put both in front a jury and they would probably scratch their heads.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
None of this is any different than what’s in the 2017 letter to SB Tactical which also clearly said that an item that functions as a stock and objectively allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder may be considered a SBR. People tend to gloss over that in the 2017 letter because they focused on the OK to shoulder part.

Regarding the SBA3, the interesting thing is that this letter refers to the acceptance of braces reviewed by and approved by the ATF, and the word is that SB Tactical has not sent the SBA3 in for review and they don’t intend to. I’d be more worried if I had a brace that works pretty poorly as a brace (because the strap is too short or the flap that goes around the arm is too rigid) but much better as a shoulder stock.

Well if its adjustable I figure that would rule out the ATF being able to hamstring you by saying you "adjusted your brace to rifle length, permanently" I have long arms, my bracrs are set pretty far back on the tube.

Thye need to sit on a brace for a couple of days, then spin.

Meh...

Where's the old Jurrasic Park meme about "shouldering the brace and the ATF" when I need it?

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by ccmdfd:
Seems to me they are leaving themselves a lot of wiggle room and will decide on a case by case basis what the intent of the owner is wrt making an NFA item.

I'd love to see suppressors and SBR's come off the NFA list, but just don't think it's politically viable.

cc

Or financially viable for the Feds.

Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.

Money is Money to the government !

https://rocketffl.com/nfa-fire...-revenue-statistics/

quote:

Originally posted by CandyMan.45:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Do you seriously think $200 and $5 tax stamps bring in more than it costs to process the applications, and maintain the NFRTR? Because they do not.

Money is Money to the government !

https://rocketffl.com/nfa-fire...-revenue-statistics/

Exactly. They could give a flying flippety fuck if it costs more to do the work than what they take in. If they were asked to explain it, the fed would happily provide what appears to be a profit, conveniently leaving out the other side of the ledger.

Use a brace as a brace. If you do that, you're good. If you use it as a way around an SBR, you could get yourself in trouble.

I have one AR pistol with a brace on it and use it that way. My preferred method is to brace it on my chin rather than the arm strap. I do use the arm strap too though.

I don't shoulder it. I like that the ATF allows incidental shouldering so that I don't have to worry about some technicality being a felony if it brushes up against my shoulder...especially when I have a coat on.

Using it as an end-around for the NFA is playing with fire IMO.

As a complete aside, if you'd like to avoid all of this gray area, just buy yourself an IWI X95. I have one and love it. It's basically a 10" SBR in OAL.

I like owning a pistol AR for the fact that it's covered under my CCW. Otherwise, I'd just take my X95 everywhere.