ATF to Institute Rulemaking Regarding Stabilizing Braces and Require Registration of Currently Owned Braces

[The Annoyed Man]

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Charles, respectfully, I’d be perfectly candid, speaking for myself, exactly as I have previously been when I’ve admitted in other posts exactly why I built a braced pistol lower when I already owned registered SBR lowers—so that I can carry my SBR upper as a pistol across state lines when I want to bring it as a personal protection weapon when traveling......say to Oklahoma, or Arizona.....without having to jump through the tedious and time-consuming hoops imposed by BATF before I can do so. I will speak for myself. I can’t definitively presume for sure why others buy them, but would agree that most probably do so to circumvent the NFA, exactly like I’m doing. I would never attempt to transport either an SBR or a braced pistol into a state where those things are illegal according to state law. But neither Oklahoma nor Arizona have state laws against the ownership/lawful possession of either configuration of a short barreled weapon, so the interstate transportation blockade is strictly an ATF problem. I’d much rather travel with the firearm in its SBR configuration, because it is ergonomically better and balances better that way, but I can’t because the ATF imposes a stupidly arbitrary rule making it very difficult to do so. Switch a pistol lower, and voila, the problem (for me) is gone.

Restricting the use of SBRs to only those who pay for the stamps and dance to ATF's tune is ridiculous, and I’d like to see some real statistics showing exactly how much murder is committed using these kinds of weapons. When the Security Branch of the DNC's (AKA “FBI”) own statistics show that not more than about 350-400 homicides nationwide are committed with rifles annually—ALL kinds of rifles, of which semiautos are a subset, and SBRs are most likely statistically insignificant—there is literally no argument to be made that SBRs are somehow more dangerous, or that they are the choice of any well accessorized gangster. It’s crazy to insist that they are, and the numbers back me up. I have, under philosophical protest, paid the taxes for more than one SBR lowers and (for now) 4 suppressors. I can carry the suppressors across state lines without jumping through hoops as long as they are legal in the state into which I am traveling, and yet they are "firearms" per the NFA....and must be registered because they are dangerous....another patently ridiculous lie fed to the uncritically credulous unwashed masses. Both the suppressor and the lower must be registered because they are "dangerous" firearms, but one can be transported across state lines without convoluted permissions, while the other cannot? I can’t even transport that registered lower across state lines with a 16” or 20” upper on it, so that it’s not even technically an SBR any longer! The law is stupid.

So yes, I have ABSOLUTELY built a pistol lower to cynically take advantage of a loophole in the ATF's wording......JUST like I’d take advantage of any other tax law loophole. Don’t blame me. Blame the gov’t for writing bad law that makes it possible. I call it the "Trump Tax and Bankruptcy Doctrine", and if it was good for him and other rich people, then it’s good for the poors like me.

And actually, put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Congress for, instead of writing well defined law, creating agencies and then giving the unelected bureaucrats the authority to write regulations without their being put up for a vote by the people’s alleged "representatives"—most of whom are far to busy trying to line their pockets or arrange "romantic interludes" to do their damned jobs.

I know, I know. I’m ranting....not at you Charles, but at how massively stupid the whole thing is. But yes, I’d be candid, exactly as I am being candid now. So if a US Senator asked me to be candid, I’d be candid. If they don’t like the answer, then let them do their damned jobs and try to pass legislation against it......if they can. I hold most of them in contempt anyway, so I have no problem being candid with them. Speaking which, who is the stupidest Senator of all, and why is it Hirono?

And for the record, I actually have tried firing my AR pistol while using the brace as it was designed....on my forearm, with a micro RDS mounted for sighting. It works, sort of. I can hold it up and get a few shots of off before my arm tires, but with nowhere near the accuracy that I can get if I shoulder it, or than I can achieve with a regular handgun. And that greater accuracy when shouldered makes the weapon more safe, not less. So ATF and everybody else in that swamp should be happy that some would go ahead and shoulder the weapon.

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

Man. I wish you hadn't put that idea in my head. I don't have an SBR because I've never wanted the NFA hassle and the $200 stamp. But I would like to have an SBR. I have enough spare parts lying around (buffer tubes, plain-Jane milspec triggers, pins & springs) to put together a couple of lowers and all I'd need to buy would be the cheapest brace I can find. Hm. And like you I have a few stripped lowers in the safe. 'Course, I'm going boating on Lake Conroe for Christmas, so you never know...

Now we have a conundrum wrapped in an enigma... I have a few stripped lowers as well...

You are both welcome.

God how I loath gov’t sometimes. It is just SO monolithically stupid most of the time.

[Scott B.]

ATF's proposed rule is a solution to a problem that we do not have. We do not have a problem with 'pistol braced firearms' committing crimes. We have a problem with criminals committing crimes who are emboldened by a justice system that will not bother to prosecute them.

The NFA is a waste of government resources, an onerous burden on the public, and an infringement on the 2nd amendment - and has been for almost a century.

Good riddance.

Please note that ATF will not accept comments during the all-to-brief comment period if they do not conform exactly to their requirements. Of course I'm certain we'll see maximum engagement by the public during this brief window during CHRISTMAS and NEW YEARS. Talk about transparent intentions.

---
From ATF's General Notice, Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces"

All comments must reference this document's docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity.

Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

---

Link to the proposed rule in the federal register

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ing-braces

Where to submit a comment, please follow their instructions or your time will have been wasted.

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=A ... -0001-0001

[extremist]

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

The ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

You are correct I apologize. In response to Charles' question, I agree with TAM, I would tell the senator hell yes I'm using the brace loophole created by an agency that violates the 2nd Amendment by its very existence. And by the way senator, what does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? And don't tell me that the Supremes settled that back in US v Miller, we all know why that was decided that way. NFA is unconstitutional in many people's minds as are all gun control laws (shall not be infringed is pretty clear).

[The Annoyed Man]

ATF's proposed rule is a solution to a problem that we do not have. We do not have a problem with 'pistol braced firearms' committing crimes. We have a problem with criminals committing crimes who are emboldened by a justice system that will not bother to prosecute them.

The NFA is a waste of government resources, an onerous burden on the public, and an infringement on the 2nd amendment - and has been for almost a century.

Good riddance.

Please note that ATF will not accept comments during the all-to-brief comment period if they do not conform exactly to their requirements. Of course I'm certain we'll see maximum engagement by the public during this brief window during CHRISTMAS and NEW YEARS. Talk about transparent intentions.

---
From ATF's General Notice, Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces"

All comments must reference this document's docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity.

Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

---

Link to the proposed rule in the federal register

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ing-braces

Where to submit a comment, please follow their instructions or your time will have been wasted.

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=A ... -0001-0001

"All comments must reference this document's docket number (ATF 2020R-10), be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address."

Of course they want the address of any person commenting, nearly ALL of whom probably have pistol braces. How nice and tidy for them to put a bow on their door-knocking list. I wonder if any of the lakes around here have physical addresses.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.

I agree that suppressors, SBRs and SBSs should be removed from the NFA. In my view, that's a much better argument than trying to convince people outside of the gun culture that a weapon that looks just like a SBR is actually a pistol.

Here is an important fact that I suspect most folks do not know. I am aware of it only because the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund helped to fund the defense. There was a SCOTUS case where a former police officer was asked by his Uncle to purchase a Glock at his discount with money supplied by the Uncle. The Uncle was not a prohibited person and he could legally own and possess a handgun in his home state. The former officer bought the gun with his Uncle's money and it was delivered to the Uncle. I'm not sure, but I think the handgun was transferred to the Uncle through an FFL in the Uncle's state of residence, but I may be mistaken.

The former officer was convicted of making a straw-man sale and sentenced to federal prison. Part of his defense/appeal was that the BATFE website expressly stated that such a transaction would be illegal only if the ultimate possessor of the firearm was a prohibited person. The SCOTUS rejected this argument noting that the BATFE's opinion didn't matter. The law is clear that purchasing a firearm for someone else was a straw-man sale. So arguing with and about the BATFE "opinion" concerning pistol v. SBR is more than a little dangerous.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I agree with everything you wrote. My problem is two-fold. First, as I noted in response to another Member's post, once in federal court, the BATFE's opinions, rulings and definitions do not matter one bit. People can rely upon them and land in prison. Secondly, even if the BATFE's "opinions" were authoritative and could be relied upon, one-handed shooting of braced pistols is practiced by a tiny fraction of people owning such weapons. This fact makes it difficult to defend braces while maintaining even a modicum of credibility. If you lose that credibility, you may as well withdraw from the fight to save the Second Amendment.

Chas.

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Charles, respectfully, I’d be perfectly candid, speaking for myself, exactly as I have previously been when I’ve admitted in other posts exactly why I built a braced pistol lower when I already owned registered SBR lowers—so that I can carry my SBR upper as a pistol across state lines when I want to bring it as a personal protection weapon when traveling......say to Oklahoma, or Arizona.....without having to jump through the tedious and time-consuming hoops imposed by BATF before I can do so. I will speak for myself. I can’t definitively presume for sure why others buy them, but would agree that most probably do so to circumvent the NFA, exactly like I’m doing. I would never attempt to transport either an SBR or a braced pistol into a state where those things are illegal according to state law. But neither Oklahoma nor Arizona have state laws against the ownership/lawful possession of either configuration of a short barreled weapon, so the interstate transportation blockade is strictly an ATF problem. I’d much rather travel with the firearm in its SBR configuration, because it is ergonomically better and balances better that way, but I can’t because the ATF imposes a stupidly arbitrary rule making it very difficult to do so. Switch a pistol lower, and voila, the problem (for me) is gone.

Restricting the use of SBRs to only those who pay for the stamps and dance to ATF's tune is ridiculous, and I’d like to see some real statistics showing exactly how much murder is committed using these kinds of weapons. When the Security Branch of the DNC's (AKA “FBI”) own statistics show that not more than about 350-400 homicides nationwide are committed with rifles annually—ALL kinds of rifles, of which semiautos are a subset, and SBRs are most likely statistically insignificant—there is literally no argument to be made that SBRs are somehow more dangerous, or that they are the choice of any well accessorized gangster. It’s crazy to insist that they are, and the numbers back me up. I have, under philosophical protest, paid the taxes for more than one SBR lowers and (for now) 4 suppressors. I can carry the suppressors across state lines without jumping through hoops as long as they are legal in the state into which I am traveling, and yet they are "firearms" per the NFA....and must be registered because they are dangerous....another patently ridiculous lie fed to the uncritically credulous unwashed masses. Both the suppressor and the lower must be registered because they are "dangerous" firearms, but one can be transported across state lines without convoluted permissions, while the other cannot? I can’t even transport that registered lower across state lines with a 16” or 20” upper on it, so that it’s not even technically an SBR any longer! The law is stupid.

So yes, I have ABSOLUTELY built a pistol lower to cynically take advantage of a loophole in the ATF's wording......JUST like I’d take advantage of any other tax law loophole. Don’t blame me. Blame the gov’t for writing bad law that makes it possible. I call it the "Trump Tax and Bankruptcy Doctrine", and if it was good for him and other rich people, then it’s good for the poors like me.

And actually, put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Congress for, instead of writing well defined law, creating agencies and then giving the unelected bureaucrats the authority to write regulations without their being put up for a vote by the people’s alleged "representatives"—most of whom are far to busy trying to line their pockets or arrange "romantic interludes" to do their damned jobs.

I know, I know. I’m ranting....not at you Charles, but at how massively stupid the whole thing is. But yes, I’d be candid, exactly as I am being candid now. So if a US Senator asked me to be candid, I’d be candid. If they don’t like the answer, then let them do their damned jobs and try to pass legislation against it......if they can. I hold most of them in contempt anyway, so I have no problem being candid with them. Speaking which, who is the stupidest Senator of all, and why is it Hirono?

And for the record, I actually have tried firing my AR pistol while using the brace as it was designed....on my forearm, with a micro RDS mounted for sighting. It works, sort of. I can hold it up and get a few shots of off before my arm tires, but with nowhere near the accuracy that I can get if I shoulder it, or than I can achieve with a regular handgun. And that greater accuracy when shouldered makes the weapon more safe, not less. So ATF and everybody else in that swamp should be happy that some would go ahead and shoulder the weapon.

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

Man. I wish you hadn't put that idea in my head. I don't have an SBR because I've never wanted the NFA hassle and the $200 stamp. But I would like to have an SBR. I have enough spare parts lying around (buffer tubes, plain-Jane milspec triggers, pins & springs) to put together a couple of lowers and all I'd need to buy would be the cheapest brace I can find. Hm. And like you I have a few stripped lowers in the safe. 'Course, I'm going boating on Lake Conroe for Christmas, so you never know...

Now we have a conundrum wrapped in an enigma... I have a few stripped lowers as well...

You are both welcome.

God how I loath gov’t sometimes. It is just SO monolithically stupid most of the time.

[extremist]

If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.


Chas.

I did answer your question in post #33.

"I would tell the senator hell yes I'm using the brace loophole created by an agency that violates the 2nd Amendment by its very existence. And by the way senator, what does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? And don't tell me that the Supremes settled that back in US v Miller, we all know why that was decided that way. NFA is unconstitutional in many people's minds as are all gun control laws (shall not be infringed is pretty clear)."

[K.Mooneyham]

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.

I agree that suppressors, SBRs and SBSs should be removed from the NFA. In my view, that's a much better argument than trying to convince people outside of the gun culture that a weapon that looks just like a SBR is actually a pistol.

Here is an important fact that I suspect most folks do not know. I am aware of it only because the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund helped to fund the defense. There was a SCOTUS case where a former police officer was asked by his Uncle to purchase a Glock at his discount with money supplied by the Uncle. The Uncle was not a prohibited person and he could legally own and possess a handgun in his home state. The former officer bought the gun with his Uncle's money and it was delivered to the Uncle. I'm not sure, but I think the handgun was transferred to the Uncle through an FFL in the Uncle's state of residence, but I may be mistaken.

The former officer was convicted of making a straw-man sale and sentenced to federal prison. Part of his defense/appeal was that the BATFE website expressly stated that such a transaction would be illegal only if the ultimate possessor of the firearm was a prohibited person. The SCOTUS rejected this argument noting that the BATFE's opinion didn't matter. The law is clear that purchasing a firearm for someone else was a straw-man sale. So arguing with and about the BATFE "opinion" concerning pistol v. SBR is more than a little dangerous.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I do not own a braced pistol. So, I don't have any direct skin in this particular game. However, in another respect, I do care about this for a particular reason. So, WHO would be arresting someone for having an "improperly stocked pistol" (aka unregistered SBR)? As an example, are the sheriff deputies in my rural county going to do that? I'll tell you now that I am reasonably certain they would not. The deputies here only care if someone commits a crime with a firearm, as it should be. I suspect it is likely the same in much of this state. So, discounting some wound-up police officer who is anti-firearms at heart, it would likely be the Federal agents themselves who would arrest someone for having an "improperly stocked pistol", after the owner of said firearm was reported by someone. So, if we don't know EXACTLY what the Feds are going to use as criteria for deciding to arrest someone or not, how can we ensure we stay inside of what THEY consider the law to be, since THEY are the ones who will be arresting people? Even if the court doesn't care what the BATFE's opinion of this might be, and I certainly am not disputing your knowledge on that, the BATFE would likely be the ones to put a Texan in front of a Federal court on this matter. Again, I do not personally own one of those items, but I still don't want to see someone I do know get arrested simply because they were ignorant of the situation. I feel our state has done some solid work to clean up laws regarding firearms and self-defense over the years. I cannot say that about Federal law in the least. To make it worse, as you've pointed out, not everyone who owns guns is as savvy regarding firearms laws as the folks on this forum.

[extremist]

I agree with everything you wrote. My problem is two-fold. First, as I noted in response to another Member's post, once in federal court, the BATFE's opinions, rulings and definitions do not matter one bit. People can rely upon them and land in prison. Secondly, even if the BATFE's "opinions" were authoritative and could be relied upon, one-handed shooting of braced pistols is practiced by a tiny fraction of people owning such weapons. This fact makes it difficult to defend braces while maintaining even a modicum of credibility. If you lose that credibility, you may as well withdraw from the fight to save the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So for credibilities sake, how do you square with the following in court:

- Multiple reputable manufacturers produced and sold AR15 "Pistols" with SBA braces (SOB, SBA3, SBPDW, SBA4) with the full knowledge and approval of the ATF. This is not just about Q manufacturing any more.
- Buyers (including myself) dropped $1200+ on these legally purchased "Pistols" as classified by the ATF.
- Examples: Daniel Defense MK18 Pistol, Springfield Armory SAINT Pistols, S&W just introduced their M&P 15 Pistol (.223 and .22LR), Geissele, Wilson Combat, Palmetto State Armory (shipped I would guess thousands of complete pistols and kits(less lower)), Sig Sauer, PWS, etc.

Now, what do you do with those? Why does one have to defend braces when these firearms were legally sold as configured? It's a legally built and purchased product. It would seem to me a 2nd Amendment supporter would be able to take the position that "this was a legally purchased product under the definition that was in effect and it shouldn't matter if I don't shoot it one handed". Those were the rules, I obeyed the rules, you can't go and changing the rules now. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f ... ted_States

Now for those that build their own guns. If one builds a gun that is an identical configuration to a configuration produced by a manufacturer and presumed to be legal since you are building something that is sold legally - well what do you do with those?

What is the law?
From ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-f ... -under-nfa
[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
# 3 and 4 apply:
3. A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
4. A weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

This law does not apply to a PISTOL, as these defined by ATF itself. They are not rifles, they are pistols.

Rifle is defined in 18 USC 921 as:
(7)The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

So what does "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" mean in relation to Pistol "Braces".

I guess that is what would have to be argued in court. Certainly SB Tactical designed the Brace to be used by attaching it to shooters forearm to assist in shooting one handed. That's how is was designed and intended. So if you don't use it that way in practice - as you are saying, then okay so what?

I just don't think arguing/capitulating for the regulation of these Pistols is consistent with a 2nd Amendment supporter that believes that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Even if "registration" is free.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Show me a case where the phrase "shall not be infringed" is defined.

Chas.

If you are going to quote my question, then why didn't you answer it? The issue is not whether "braced pistols" are involved in a majority of crimes. The question is whether or not the weapon is in fact a SBR.


Chas.

I did answer your question in post #33.

"I would tell the senator hell yes I'm using the brace loophole created by an agency that violates the 2nd Amendment by its very existence. And by the way senator, what does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? And don't tell me that the Supremes settled that back in US v Miller, we all know why that was decided that way. NFA is unconstitutional in many people's minds as are all gun control laws (shall not be infringed is pretty clear)."

[Charles L. Cotton]

The credibility I'm talking about is mine, yours, the gun-owning community, not the BATFE. I've condemned it for its abused and I don't expect credibility from its leadership.

Chas.

I agree with everything you wrote. My problem is two-fold. First, as I noted in response to another Member's post, once in federal court, the BATFE's opinions, rulings and definitions do not matter one bit. People can rely upon them and land in prison. Secondly, even if the BATFE's "opinions" were authoritative and could be relied upon, one-handed shooting of braced pistols is practiced by a tiny fraction of people owning such weapons. This fact makes it difficult to defend braces while maintaining even a modicum of credibility. If you lose that credibility, you may as well withdraw from the fight to save the Second Amendment.

Chas.

So for credibilities sake, how do you square with the following in court:

- Multiple reputable manufacturers produced and sold AR15 "Pistols" with SBA braces (SOB, SBA3, SBPDW, SBA4) with the full knowledge and approval of the ATF. This is not just about Q manufacturing any more.
- Buyers (including myself) dropped $1200+ on these legally purchased "Pistols" as classified by the ATF.
- Examples: Daniel Defense MK18 Pistol, Springfield Armory SAINT Pistols, S&W just introduced their M&P 15 Pistol (.223 and .22LR), Geissele, Wilson Combat, Palmetto State Armory (shipped I would guess thousands of complete pistols and kits(less lower)), Sig Sauer, PWS, etc.

Now, what do you do with those? Why does one have to defend braces when these firearms were legally sold as configured? It's a legally built and purchased product. It would seem to me a 2nd Amendment supporter would be able to take the position that "this was a legally purchased product under the definition that was in effect and it shouldn't matter if I don't shoot it one handed". Those were the rules, I obeyed the rules, you can't go and changing the rules now. I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f ... ted_States

Now for those that build their own guns. If one builds a gun that is an identical configuration to a configuration produced by a manufacturer and presumed to be legal since you are building something that is sold legally - well what do you do with those?

What is the law?
From ATF:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-f ... -under-nfa
[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
# 3 and 4 apply:
3. A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
4. A weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;

This law does not apply to a PISTOL, as these defined by ATF itself. They are not rifles, they are pistols.

Rifle is defined in 18 USC 921 as:
(7)The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

So what does "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" mean in relation to Pistol "Braces".

I guess that is what would have to be argued in court. Certainly SB Tactical designed the Brace to be used by attaching it to shooters forearm to assist in shooting one handed. That's how is was designed and intended. So if you don't use it that way in practice - as you are saying, then okay so what?

I just don't think arguing/capitulating for the regulation of these Pistols is consistent with a 2nd Amendment supporter that believes that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Even if "registration" is free.

[SQLGeek]

Well this thread took an even darker turn. Looks like braces are going to get sacrificed next. We’re running out of room.

I think I’m about out of hope anything will ever get better. NFA won’t be repealed in any form or fashion. Its scope will be expanded.

I might as well get ahead of the curve and dump all of my semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well this thread took an even darker turn. Looks like braces are going to get sacrificed next. We’re running out of room.

I think I’m about out of hope anything will ever get better. NFA won’t be repealed in any form or fashion. Its scope will be expanded.

I might as well get ahead of the curve and dump all of my semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines.

What do you mean by "sacrificed?"

Chas.

[SQLGeek]

I feel like braces will be fought for, for a while. But I also feel it’s ultimately going to come down to “Well they were an end around SBRs” so we give ground and let then go in an effort to preserve the rest of the what we have left in terms of rights.

Bump stocks were an example of this. An end around to have a legal quasi machine gun. But in an effort to save semi-auto rifles, they were offered up.

This feels similar. I fear this will keep happening bit by bit.

I’ve always been overly pessimistic about the future of our gun rights. I acknowledge that. But I don’t see any reason to believe otherwise right now.

[Scott B.]

The NFA Division barely runs now with the Silencer (their term), SBR, SBS, AOW, Machine Gun, Form 5, Form 3, Form 2, Form 1 load they currently have. Delays of anywhere from 4 to 12 months.
The only crime stat that will be altered will be an increase in formerly law abiding citizens getting jammed up in the confusing world of barrel length and overall length.