I use the KAK Shockwave because they are light, work well on the forearm or cheek, and the cost is reasonable. Some designs are a stretch of the intent, expect further rule changes in coming election cycles. The bull pups like the X95 are on the gotta have list to keep things short and legal.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

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.

Doesn’t matter whether they make a profit or not. The law fixes the prices at $200, so they cannot legally charge anything different. When the NFA was approved in 1934, $200 was a lot of money and they probably did make a profit. However, the law didn’t allow for any price increases due to inflation, so they are stuck.

If anyone thinks that bringing up the argument that they are losing money will be a basis for repealing the NFA, that will never happen. If anything, the governments response would be to amend the act to increase the price to make it profitable again, and allow indexing for inflation.

To be fair, we’re lucky it’s fixed at only $200. Given the number of SBRs, suppressors, and MGs out there, the price doesn’t seem to be much of a hinderence to most people.

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/

What surprises me is the number of "Destructive devices" out there.

quote:

Originally posted by myrottiety:

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/

What surprises me is the number of "Destructive devices" out there.

Remember that flash bangs are destructive devices. Those NFRTR stats don't just take into account private ownership, but government ownership too. So it's really not too crazy when you think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:

quote:

Originally posted by myrottiety:

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/

What surprises me is the number of "Destructive devices" out there.

Remember that flash bangs are destructive devices. Those NFRTR stats don't just take into account private ownership, but government ownership too. So it's really not too crazy when you think about it.

Ahhh... good point.

ATF sent me a list a few years ago about what's registered to my agency. There were pages of destructive devices and two short barreled shotguns which didn't belong to us.

Government stamps are free to agencies. So they don't make money on those.

This is why I went through the time and expense to SBR my rifle. I don't want anything to be open to interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Doesnt seemed like anything has changed, just says not to alter your brace in any way?

That's my take on it. Pretty clear to me.
You haven't made it a NFA firearm, even if it happens to be fired from the shoulder, as long as "the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock".

So, the take home lesson is, do not alter/re-configure your arm brace. Leave it as is, as came from factory. And, you'll be fine,........for now.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Doesnt seemed like anything has changed, just says not to alter your brace in any way?

That's my take on it. Pretty clear to me.
You haven't made it a NFA firearm, even if it happens to be fired from the shoulder, as long as "the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock".

So, the take home lesson is, do not alter/re-configure your arm brace. Leave it as is, as came from factory. And, you'll be fine,........for now.

Is anyone out there really modifying their “braces”? Most of the newer ones from SB like the SBA3 are so stock-like out of the box, why would anyone even bother modifying it? You can shoulder most of the newer ones quite easily as they come.

I think people are misreading this letter and the 2017 letter as being OK to shoulder all of the time. Neither letter says that. What they both say is that the analysis of whether it falls under the NFA doesn’t depend only on whether the gun has been fired from the shoulder. Explicitly it says that an NFA firearm has NOT NECESSARILY been made if a non-reconfigured brace has been fired from the shoulder. It doesn’t explicitly rule it out. All the letters explicitly say is that if you do modify the brace, then you have HAVE made an NFA firearm. The reverse isn’t necessarily true, although people believe it is.

The 2017 Letter to SB Tactical talks about “incidental, sporadic, or situational” use of an arm brace from the shoulder as being OK. However, again if people are firing their braces from the shoulder all of the time, that doesn’t really fit in with the terms “incidental” and “sporadic”. In fact, if you really read the SB letter, it appears that SB was wanting the ATF to rule that using a brace as a shoulder stock was OK simply because it wasn’t designed or intended to be used that way. The ATF’s response was that “such an absolute result is simply not consistent with the (2015 Open) letter and the intent of the NFA.” In other words, they rejected SBs argument on that point.

The following points in the letters seem clear to me:

- Attaching a brace doesn’t automatically make an NFA weapon.

- Modifying a brace so that it functions better as a stock is a big no-no and would probably be considered making a SBR, whether you ever shouldered it or not.

- Having an unmodified brace hitting your shoulder sporadically or incidentally while firing doesn’t constitute “redesign” of the weapon for NFA purposes.

Other than these points, the rest is written in legalese with enough wiggle room for things to be open to interpretation. The ominous wording that “an item that functions as a stock, if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the objective purpose of allowing the firearm to be fired from the shoulder, may result in the making of a short barreled rifle even if the attachment is not permanent or the original intent of the parts manufacturer.” Similar wording in the 2017 letter where everyone said “hallelujah, we can shoulder braces again!”

They make it pretty clear in both letters that under certain circumstances, using a brace as a stock CAN make a SBR. They just aren’t clear on what all those circumstances are (other than modifying the brace to make a better stock). I think that if you shoulder your braced pistol 99 or 100% of the time, you’re running some risk. I just got my first 3 braced pistols within the last few months and put in SBR paperwork on all of them. Yes it’s a hassle, and it’s $200 a pop, but there will never be any question on holding it against my shoulder every....single....time.

I have a gut feeling that this arm brace thing isn't going to ultimately end well.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
I have a gut feeling that this arm brace thing isn't going to ultimately end well.

Maybe. If anything kills it, it will be all of the articles on gun websites trumpeting how it’s OK to shoulder braces again, all of the youtube videos of everyone shoulding their braced pistols, and all of the forum postings and polls were people say why bother SBRing anymore since they can just shoulder braced pistols. Soon it may be so much that the ATF can’t ignore any more that a lot of people are using braces as stocks and have to crack down. I don’t think they will ban them because I don’t think they can, but they might be likely to put the hammer back down on shouldering them.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
I have a gut feeling that this arm brace thing isn't going to ultimately end well.

And should something happen it's a few moments from no longer being installed on the pistol. Unless you mean an ATF agent picking an individual to charge with a crime and not just another decision which dictates law.

Pistols are legal to have in your vehicle in Michigan if you have a CPL. Rifles are not. The pistol configuration makes it cheaper, keeps me off the ATF radar since I currently don't have any NFA stamps, and makes it so I can (if I choose) have more than a handgun concealed on my person or vehicle including neighboring states that recognize my permit and the pistol status of the firearm.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a vertical fore grip and a pistol brace would be a no-no, even if the firearm is over the 26" length.

I have seen this combo at a few gun shows and thought it is an either or type situation.

quote:

Originally posted by am94pm:
Correct me if I am wrong, but a vertical fore grip and a pistol brace would be a no-no, even if the firearm is over the 26" length.

I have seen this combo at a few gun shows and thought it is an either or type situation.

As long as it is not concealed, an OAL of 26"+ on a firearm without a stock makes it a "firearm". The fact that it has a VFG only makes it not a pistol, and since over 26" is "not concealable" it's not an AOW. The brace is not part of the "firearm" formula (smoothbore, rifled, OAL, barrel length, concealable, shoulder stock, vertical foregrip, etc being elements of the formula) and its presence is of no consequence.

If state law defines this differently I don't know. In Michigan, unless registered before 2013, a firearm with an OAL of 26"+ cannot be considered a pistol. Cannot be concealed with CPL, doesn't need to be registered, sold as a rifle (meaning no additional Michigan steps that pistol sales have). So if it's not a pistol, over 26", barrel under 16", no stock, it's a "firearm" and can have a VFG.

Thanks Rustpot.

Back in the first brace craze I bought 3, when people were abusing it and the rules changed I SBR'd the rifles I was using them on ... They weren't that comfortable and were ugly to boot.

Recently I've bought 2 of the SBA3 braces and I've used them as designed. I liked the first so I bought a 2nd. The brace is a bit tight on the forearm but they're comfortable used as a cheek piece and they're not bad looking but they aren't cheap either. Further they are short for a stock, even extended unless you're a 10 year old. The best part, of course, is that I can take it out of state without permission, more powerful than a handgun.

The ATF "White Paper" the unintended use of braces should NOT be looked upon as "making" an sbr...
I highly doubt they are going to be dropping any hammers unless people go out of their way to specifically throw it in their faces... like writing hundreds of letters asking them if its ok to shoulder a brace like so many jerkoffs did a short time ago. This letter looks like another idiot, writing letters to the ATF trying to get them to put something in writing stating its ok to circumvent the NFA...

If you ask them to put something in writing, they are going to say its illegal, every time!!!

But if everyone just keeps to themselves and doesn't poke the lion, we will be fine with braces.

The first time someone is charged with a felony under the NFA for shouldering a brace (and not in connection with 50 other felony charges), then we have something to worry about.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
I have a gut feeling that this arm brace thing isn't going to ultimately end well.

That's because so many asshats keep pressing the topic with the ATF. It just needs to be left alone. Let SB Tactical worry about the ATF and lobbying efforts for clear interpretation and approvals.

quote:

Originally posted by NYresq:
<SNIP>
But if everyone just keeps to themselves and doesn't poke the lion BEAR, we will be fine with braces.

The first time someone is charged with a felony under the NFA for shouldering a brace (and not in connection with 50 other felony charges), then we have something to worry about.

This is what I'm thinking too ... posting pictures and bragging about shouldering a brace on forums, Facebook and other social media is rubbing their face in it too.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
I have a gut feeling that this arm brace thing isn't going to ultimately end well.

That's because so many asshats keep pressing the topic with the ATF. It just needs to be left alone. Let SB Tactical worry about the ATF and lobbying efforts for clear interpretation and approvals.

This. Carl will once again fuck it up for everyone.