Open Letter on the Redesign of "Stabilizing Braces"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    Here it is folks, the official word re pistol "stabilizing braces" (e.g., the SigSauer SB15/47).
    Probably apropos to other forums, but this is where I thought it'd be most relevant.


    OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

    The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

    These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

    The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

    Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

    In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

    The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

    In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

    ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed*to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand*the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

    The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

    The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

    Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

    If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

    Max M. Kingery

    Acting Chief

    Firearms Technology Criminal Branch

    Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division


    *This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the "News" tab.

    Bookmark and Share
     

    Wojo

    What's that Smell
    May 8, 2012
    2,488
    Wrong side of the Potomac
    Pertinent portion is this part...

    The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

    Available here...

    http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USATF/bulletins/ea3937#.VLmEvJhfAUE.facebook

    I have one and only use it as a brace... Since this ruling. I also fire from my pelvis... Thrusting motion
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    To be honest, I was very surprised at how long ATF waited to make an official ruling, but not how they ruled.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    6,251
    Crofton/Davidsonville
    Also NO SBR stamps being approved in MD at this point. Please dont start the thread on Trusts, or what might be next, or send letters asking too much, it gives ideas. Just my opinion.
     

    1time

    Active Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    1,866
    Baltimore, Md
    Since a pistol by definition is designed to be fired 1 handed, I wonder if it is legal to fire my glock or sti with 2 hands. Seems like it may be a redesign...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    vgplayer

    Active Member
    Jan 17, 2013
    1,065
    King George, VA
    Since a pistol by definition is designed to be fired 1 handed, I wonder if it is legal to fire my glock or sti with 2 hands. Seems like it may be a redesign...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    ...watch out for your cornhole, bud.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    258,682
    Messages
    6,537,284
    Members
    29,479
    Latest member
    Surf

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom