When the idea of putting a brace on an AR or other firearm, at first I picked up a couple. One for an AR & another for an AK but I really didn’t like the idea or look, and the brace was almost as much to SBR anyway. This was the first time when the BATFE said it was okay to shoulder it that way.

Then they changed their mind and said it was an unregistered SBR ... at that point I SBR’d them.

Then they changed their minds again and said that if the brace “inadvertently touches your shoulder, we’ll, that was okay.

Then braces started to evolve with the Tailhook and other designs that would collapse, and looked more like a stock ... and some of these were way more than doing the SBR route ... but still had other advantages like taking out of state without “permission” and some states still don’t allow SBR’s ... so there’s that.

But now it looks like the pendulum is swinging back the other way ... again.

I’ve got a Ruger Charger with a Tail Hook and an HK MP5K clone that I’ll probably just return to pistols and maybe sell but the rest I don’t have to worry about as I SBR’d them long ago.

Time will tell what happens, In the mean time I'm not losing sleep. More worried about a boating accident.

nobody knows what they issue shortly. So let's say they say (as they already tried last dec.) NFA for a brace, but no cost. I'm not totally lost on that.
Others may be.

NFA = registration. That's the goal.

You can't un-ring the bell and confiscate millions of braces or force millions of firearms legally transferred as braced handguns to be registered as SBR's.

Remember, it's not about actual results, it's about appearances. The BATFE will devise a more specific rule about what constitutes a brace and what doesn't. They won't go back and change the decisions that have allowed the original cuff-style SB braces and the Tailhook. Stuff they didn't rule on may be affected, or future designs may have to go through an approval process.

^^^ Not only does NFA = Registration, it also equals $200 for each form. The govt finally figured out there is a shitload of money to be made via NFA and that's the route it will take.

Who knows what's going to happen? It's not as if any of the recent gun regulations are even remotely rational. In fact, if you go back and look at the legislative history of the 1934 National Firearms Act you will understand that creating a separate category for rifles with barrels under 16" is itself irrational and a historical accident.

I suspect what they will end up doing is issuing a reg. that says that guns with pistol braces are in fact SBR's and subject to the NFA. They will require you do all the paperwork to register these guns as SBR's but will waive the $200 tax if you get your paperwork in within 30/60 days. Of course, if you ever want to transfer your gun the next guy will have to pay Uncle Sugar his $200.

I do have to say I saw this coming, so not really surprised.

Another thing that might be worth worrying about - the $200 you are required to pay for normal SBR's, suppressors, etc hasn't gone up since 1934. Can easily see Biden deciding $2000 seems like a more reasonable tax in today's dollars.

What braced pistols? Got rid of them all generations ago.....

quote:

Originally posted by Houndog:

Another thing that might be worth worrying about - the $200 you are required to pay for normal SBR's, suppressors, etc hasn't gone up since 1934. Can easily see Biden deciding $2000 seems like a more reasonable tax in today's dollars.

As I recall in past discussions about why the tax stamp cost has remained at $200 for 87ish years, it is because that figure is specified in US Code. Increasing it would require the entire NFA being open for editing or (gasp) removal altogether. Grabbers would rather keep it and settle for $200 transfers over potentially losing it all.

It is the foundation for the 68 GCA and 86 Hughes amendment, and I’m not a lawyer by any means, but should the 34 NFA be revoked the rest of the house of cards crumbles too.

NFA 1934 has not really been through a real constitutionality case. The Miller decision affirmed the 2nd amendment's applicability to arms suitable for militia use, and at that time short barreled shotguns were not in common military use so they were subject to regulation. Neither were short barreled rifles, but now SBR's are standard issue (M4 14.5") along with all the shorter entry guns (MK18) and SMG's (HK, B&T, etc.).

I'm surprised the $200 tax wasn't challenged and overturned as being excessive and an undue burden, since it was equivalent to over $3K in today's dollars. I do not think efforts to increase the tax to make regulated guns unaffordable to normal citizens would not fly today.

As I said before, it is all about political appearances, not results. The AWB was meaningless in actual effect but continues to be touted as having reduced crime. They will codify the definition of a brace, future designs will conform to the definition, and they will claim a "win" in getting these "off the streets".

Considering the original SB/Sig rubber cuff brace was specifically approved as "not a stock" then similar designs including the SBA3 and SBA4 should still be OK. The fact that they are adjustable should not matter as long as they conform to any maximum length of pull and OAL rules, considering the telescoping Sig Brace on the MPX is adjustable too. Using a standard buffer tube might be an issue, since a stock could very easily be installed, but then again, that is already illegal and no one has stated that the issue is people converting braced guns to actual SBR's with stocks, only that the brace itself makes handguns "more deadly" because they can be fired more accurately. Isn't that funny? The anti-gun idiots would rather we fire AR pistols and Semi-SMG's "from the hip" without aiming? Aren't they against pistol grips and barrel shrouds for that very reason?

With an AR, if you have a rifle and a pistol, the uppers can be swapped in a few seconds, so the "easily converted" argument is weak. Doesn't mean they won't use it though.

quote:

The fact that they are adjustable should not matter as long as they conform to any maximum length of pull and OAL rules...

It'd be nice if there were a law, or a published regulation the could be relied on for guidance here, rather than the everchanging whims (dictates!) of the ATF....

The ATF consistently paints themselves into corners with their logic and shifting sands of regulation. No judge is going to enforce an arbitrary rule not placed in the Federal Register through the rulemaking process, an executive order or signed legislation not to mention they published several approval letters early on and then put out guidance a few years later that allowed them to be used as intended but not for a replacement of a stock.

So...to answer the question, no, I'm not worried. I'll worry when an action moves forward and I'll worry based on what it says. After living through last year here in VA with legit legislation making it's way through that banned everything, the anxiety it caused with a collection as large as mine caused legit anguish. I'm not going to live like that again and let it bother me; it's not a thing until it is.

Not at all worried.

Also, worth remembering that there is a big distinction between what can be done through Executive Orders or changes in the regulations/interpretations vs. what can be done through legislation.

Unless Dems. eliminate the filibuster, or can somehow pass legislation through reconciliation there is no way they're going to get 10 Republicans to go along with any of the items on their anti-gun wish list. Republican gun owners vote in large numbers and have no use for legislators that don't respect their Second Amendment rights.

Even if all that was required was a simple majority of the Senate its doubtful that Dems. could get 100% support from members of their own party for most gun legislation.

What I think we will get is Executive Orders and regs./interpretations of questionable legality that will eventually be challenged in the courts.

During the tax waiver period, can one SBR any AR15 pistol with any stock or only those with designated “pistol stocks/braces”? If they’re defining the latter as a stock, why can’t any stock then be used and the tax credit apply?

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
During the tax waiver period, can one SBR any AR15 pistol with any stock or only those with designated “pistol stocks/braces”? If they’re defining the latter as a stock, why can’t any stock then be used and the tax credit apply?

nobody knows because nothing has been stated. all hypotheticals but for sure, I'll be putting in F1's on a lot more items if there's accelerated paperwork (ha) and no fee (haha)

I hear ya. I have one or two F1's in mind...

If need be I will go back to the old days and rock a rifle buffer tube.

F the ATF! im done with their stupidity. I have 7 NFA items already and ill be damned if I register a brace. its complete stupidity from this administration and the goon he put in charge.

Don't care what happens... I am keeping my property.

I dare them to try to take it.

I don't mind being the plaintiff in a case where this goes in front of the Supreme Court... as comical as they have become (the court).

Also, I will move to AZ if OH is not a sanctuary state in time to protect me (there is legislation moving though our house to declare that the feds have no power in our state for new 2A infringements that may enacted).

Will likely be interesting if the knock on 1-2,000 doors asking about what they think someone may have?