ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[outrider58]

I feel you. It's total bs.

Regarding your comment about removing the brace...
What is your take on...

A. Some people bought a pistol with a brace already attached.
B. Some people bought a pistol with no brace attached and never put a brace on.

Would A. need to register? My take - Yes
Would B. need to register? My take - No

The way I am interpreting is those who never put a brace on wont need to register because they are not considered sbr.
Is this info valid?

If you don't have a brace on it, it isn't illegal.

 

[wbw2123]

The rule is published.

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[alucard0822]

If you don't have a brace on it, it isn't illegal.

Another thing to note, an NFA firearm only has the travel and possession restrictions when configured as an NFA firearm. Until today, you could put a 16" barrel on, or slap a brace on an SBR and travel without a form 20. So even if you SBR a braced pistol, soon as the rule gets shut down by the courts (IMO it will), it will basically be a braced pistol again when configured that way after the rule gets smacked down.

 

[outrider58]

Another thing to note, an NFA firearm only has the travel and possession restrictions when configured as an NFA firearm. Until today, you could put a 16" barrel on, or slap a brace on an SBR and travel without a form 20. So even if you SBR a braced pistol, soon as the rule gets shut down by the courts (IMO it will), it will basically be a braced pistol again when configured that way after the rule gets smacked down.

That was always a nice workaround.

 

[5string]

Provided you meet the 29inch OAL requirement if living in Maryland.

I keep forgetting that y'all are in Maryland, I'm farther south.

 

[outrider58]

I keep forgetting that y'all are in Maryland, I'm farther south.

This is Maryland Shooters, after all...

(but we don't discriminate )

 

[5string]

This is Maryland Shooters, after all...

(but we don't discriminate )

Had to find a new shooting site, too many liberals on the old one.

 

[Stoveman]

FPC has filed suit to stop the shenanigans.

Mock v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule

Mock v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's Pistol Brace Rule

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[alucard0822]

The rule is published.

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[wbw2123]

View attachment 399231

Haha, exactly. Now for the new game. Who gets the highest number of forms 1 through with forbearance...

 

[workshop777]

I keep seeing, just remove the brace, as an option. Scrolling through the published rule, it's not gonna be that easy. You are going to have to remove your sights/optics as well.

"For instance, back-up or flip-up sights that can only be effectively used when the firearm is shouldered are an indicator that a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Similarly, the presence of a reflex sight with flip-to the side magnifier that has limited eye relief (i.e.,the sight is unusable unless aimed and fired from the shoulder) is a design incorporated on firearms designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder."

Based on that little blurb, they are trying to qualify red dots and flipups/backups as sights that are intended for shoulder fire...

 

[Kman]

Damn. If I had an AR pistol with a brace I can't put video of me shouldering it on FB or twatter. Couldn't have range time with my ATF buddies either.
Bummer.

 

[1841DNG]

I keep seeing, just remove the brace, as an option. Scrolling through the published rule, it's not gonna be that easy. You are going to have to remove your sights/optics as well.



Based on that little blurb, they are trying to qualify red dots and flipups/backups as sights that are intended for shoulder fire...

Did not watch it myself and I certainly don't trust them but apparently the ATF said on a Q&A that red dots should be fine.

 

[RRomig]

Did not watch it myself and I certainly don't trust them but apparently the ATF said on a Q&A that red dots should be fine.

I did and that is what was said including a flip up magnifier

 

[workshop777]

Is there a link to that video anywhere?

 

[jcutonilli]

The way I understand it is, If bought as a pistol, you can NOT SBR it and keep it as a pistol. Just have to remove the Brace and throw it in trash or modify the brace so it can’t be reattached.

The video is a few days old so they did not know that the rule has been officially published as of today (1/31/22).

One of the issues that arises from the new rule is that firearms with these braces were thought to be pistols but are considered SBRs under the new rule. You cannot convert a rifle to a pistol. It appears that the ATF will overlook this conversion if it takes place before the effective date of the new rule 120 days from now.

For those that want to SBR it under the free tax stamp may not be able to covert the firearm to a pistol after the effective date.

Trashing or modifying the brace is certainly the most conservative option. The problem with just removing the brace is constructive intent. The brace does not need to be attached to the firearm for there to be constructive intent. You might not need to dispose of the brace if there are additional parts such that there is no longer constructive intent.

 

[jrumann59]

7.5" won't. 10.5" with a 6 position buffer tube and a Magpul CTR will get over 29" OAL. Once you have the stamp, you can put a stock on it.

10.5 with an Armaspec PDW stock will work if you have a 3-d printer

 

[Wayne1one]

I keep seeing, just remove the brace, as an option. Scrolling through the published rule, it's not gonna be that easy. You are going to have to remove your sights/optics as well.



Based on that little blurb, they are trying to qualify red dots and flipups/backups as sights that are intended for shoulder fire...

That will be hard to prove with all these pistols (handguns) out here with Suppressor height sights and red dots. I don't see a difference, they wrote that with a 2010 mindset, good thing it's 2023, and handguns that are meant to fire with one hand regularly have such attachments.

 

[Wayne1one]

Trashing or modifying the brace is certainly the most conservative option. The problem with just removing the brace is constructive intent. The brace does not need to be attached to the firearm for there to be constructive intent. You might not need to dispose of the brace if there are additional parts such that there is no longer constructive intent.

Here is your constructive intent argument:

 

[outrider58]

Here is your constructive intent argument:

A-fvcking-men!