ATF resurrecting proposed regulation of SBR's and braces

[Czechvar]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

The arm brace is clearly a work-around. If anyone ever actually used them as arm braces then maybe there would be an argument.

Maybe...But look at the larger picture and not the babbling legal fine print. If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

People are so absorbed with arguing the legal terms and definitions, they forget to consider whether or not these things should be regulated in this manner at all. In my humble opinion, only rule that might stand up to reason is full auto machine guns, Bazookas, Mortars, Tanks, etc...Other than that they should have no regulatory authority.

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by Czechvar

Maybe...But look at the larger picture and not the babbling legal fine print. If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

People are so absorbed with arguing the legal terms and definitions, they forget to consider whether or not these things should be regulated in this manner at all. In my humble opinion, only rule that might stand up to reason is full auto machine guns, Bazookas, Mortars, Tanks, etc...Other than that they should have no regulatory authority.

That’s a whole different question. If you want to get rid of the NFA have at it.

Until then, people will try to get around it by calling a shoulder stock an arm brace. This one lasted longer than I thought it would.

Next up: Shockwaves.

[terry_tr6]

the big issue I would have with having to register as a SBR, even if with an amnesty so there is no cost, is you now have an NFA weapon and all the baggage that goes with owning one. And I think THAT is the slippery slope they want to push us down. Make more and more guns NFA weapon but allow us to register them for free during a limited amnesty. now we are open to a whole lot more regulations. then like machine guns say "no more new civilian sales" and cap the number in circulation. Will you pay $200 transfer fee plus the paperwork and wait to buy someones used brace?

[CH4]

In common use...

[Dieseltech56]

The fact is the brace is a horrible stock, no one takes a rifle buttstock, removes it and replaces it with a brace.

Also the ATF seems to think anything under 26 inches is easily concealable, you don’t have to ask what I think about trying to conceal a 26” firearm. If anything adding a brace makes it LESS concealable

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

The arm brace is clearly a work-around. If anyone ever actually used them as arm braces then maybe there would be an argument. Every one I’ve seen at the range was fired from the shoulder. Hell, my kid built one and he shoots it from the shoulder.

My brother owns one of those CAA Micro Conversion Kits for his Glock 17 which he uses for Home Defense and he uses the arm brace exactly as it was designed to be used, strapped to his forearm.

Many of the stabilization braces that I have seen are too short to be effectively used as a shoulder stock and are most likely detrimental towards accuracy when utilized as such. People merely misuse them as a poor-man's shoulder stock out of ignorance, believing that it will improve their accuracy out of the misapprehension that the reason why SBRs are restricted is because they're extremely effective weapons which are inexplicably superior to a proper rifle.
Meanwhile, there's a reason why military forces across the globe have long since abandoned the concept of a pistol with a detachable shoulder stock. Because in practice they're only marginally more stable than a handgun shot from a proper grip/stance, and the minor increase that you get from a stock isn't worth the additional weight of the stock.

Truthfully, the attraction towards AR Pistols with braces is the novelty of being able to own an SBR minus the tax stamp, paperwork, and long wait for authorization/approval involved. However, if the NFA were to be repealed, then it's most likely that sales volume of SBRs wouldn't be particularly high in the long run, as it would no longer have the allure of forbidden fruit nor the novelty of owning something uncommon/rare.

In a practical sense, the only tangible benefits of a shorter barrel is concealability and the ability to maneuver more freely in cramped quarters, thus rendering the only practical civilian application of an SBR, SBS, or braced firearm is in the role of Home Defense.

[shocker]

Originally Posted by Czechvar

If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

Since you mentioned it, the NFA originally had handguns in it, but that was a step too far in 1934 so they were removed in the final legislation.

[deadin]

My brother owns one of those CAA Micro Conversion Kits for his Glock 17 which he uses for Home Defense and he uses the arm brace exactly as it was designed to be used, strapped to his forearm.

Just out of curiosity, does he wear it around the house strapped to his arm in case someone decides to kick his door in?


I don't think I would take the time to mount it in a case like that.

[RCL-09]

Over the years I have learned that I need not fear sociopathic and violent criminals, or homicidal and suicidal miscreants... no these are the things I must fear...

Legally owned and registered machineguns

Legally owned and registered SBRs, SBS, and AOW.

Legally owned and registered Destructive Devices (the horrifying Street Sweeper)

Big, large capacity handguns.

Small concealable handguns.

The horrifying "pocket rockets".

Powerful handguns.

Plastic/invisible handguns (you know, the Glock that was made specifically for terrorists).

Handguns that may have a forward grip.

Sniper rifles.

Fifty caliber rifles (.49 caliber are ok).

Assault rifles.

Semi automatic rifles.

Rifles with specific names (Galil, UZI, AR15,...)

Guns with bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc.

Bump stocks.

Pistol braces.

Things that take lots of bullets (10 rounds, 7 rounds,...)

Hollow point bullets.

Armor piercing bullets.

Unsafe bullets.

Cop killer bullets.


Lets stop this piecemeal provision of safety and just ban them all at once! I'll feel so much safer then.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

Your opinion matters little. The ATF has actually given its blessing in the past to braces with the issuance of letters to manufacturers stating such. As well as the prior guidance regarding usage.

As I have stated previously, this newest proposed reg does nothing to clarify, and everything to confuse. That is not the way that something that could have such a draconian impact should work.

I do not give a hoot one way or the other about pistol braces or bumpstocks for that matter. I don’t want either and I don’t want to know and don’t care if someone else has them. I have more important things to think about, like where does belly button lint come from.

What concerns me as a responsible gun owner and attorney is that the gun statutes passed by Congress can be interpreted by ATF one way one day and the opposite way the next day, with felony implications for otherwise law abiding citizens.

BTW IMHO laws passed by Congress regulating or even banning pistol braces and bumpstocks are just a variant on laws regulating and banning machine guns. Whether one thinks that such laws are valid under the Constitution is a matter about which reasonable people could differ, but given the fact that they are relatively uncommon, there is zero chance of getting such laws overturned by the the Supreme Court. On the other hand, because semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines are very common, if the Supreme Court were to take up such a case, which is very unlikely, there is a chance that today’s Supreme Court would find a ban of such firearms violated the Constitution. The reason is that such firearms are the most common rifle kept by people who believe that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[RCL-09]

BTW IMHO laws passed by Congress regulating or even banning pistol braces and bumpstocks are just a variant on laws regulating and banning machine guns. Whether one thinks that such laws are valid under the Constitution is a matter about which reasonable people could differ...

I disagree with that logic/argument and it goes beyond the Constitutional argument.

Just because a law is passed does not mean it is logical, reasonable, sensible or based on reality. It does not mean that there is a real purpose behind it or that the stated purpose is true.

In this case we are presented with the banning/control of an inanimate object in order to curb violent crime. That is a fools errand.

This type of law, malum prohibitum, comes out of fear, ignorance and dishonesty.

[Echo40]

Originally Posted by deadin

Just out of curiosity, does he wear it around the house strapped to his arm in case someone decides to kick his door in?

I don't think I would take the time to mount it in a case like that.

I believe that my brother has it rigged in such a way that he can just slip his arm in and fasten it down at a moments notice.
Besides, he has two dogs and his bedroom is on the second floor, so I imagine that he'd have ample time to grab it, strap it on, and point it at the bedroom door in the event of a break in, assuming the intruder(s) were determined enough to fight with two dogs to get to him in the first place.

[Sistema1927]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

... but given the fact that they are relatively uncommon...

Estimated that there are somewhere between 10 and 30 million pistol braces in circulation. And a whopping total of two instances where they were abused.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

Estimated that there are somewhere between 10 and 30 million pistol braces in circulation. And a whopping total of two instances where they were abused.

You may be right
What is your source
How many ar15 pistols out there
How many rifles
Wikipedia says 5 to 10 million ar15 rilfles

[Sistema1927]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

You may be right
What is your source
How many ar15 pistols out there
How many rifles
Wikipedia says 5 to 10 million ar15 rilfles

My understanding is that Wikipedia is way off track, and that there are many more AR rifles (Modern Sporting Rifles) in circulation. In 2018, NSSF believed there were 16 million. Last year the number was around 20 million. I still think that the numbers are probably much higher, with background checks continually setting new records and many people getting theirs before another ban.

The truth is, nobody really knows. The brace number that I quoted comes from estimations by those who have been selling them. Now, I know that they have a vested interest in inflating numbers, but I am personally in possession of four of them for three different pistols. I don't guess that I am alone in this regard.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

My understanding is that Wikipedia is way off track, and that there are many more AR rifles (Modern Sporting Rifles) in circulation. In 2018, NSSF believed there were 16 million. Last year the number was around 20 million. I still think that the numbers are probably much higher, with background checks continually setting new records and many people getting theirs before another ban.

The truth is, nobody really knows. The brace number that I quoted comes from estimations by those who have been selling them. Now, I know that they have a vested interest in inflating numbers, but I am personally in possession of four of them for three different pistols. I don't guess that I am alone in this regard.

I agree that Wikipedia is probably purposefully deflating the number. But even if 30 million AR rifles, I would expect far fewer AR pistols and even fewer pistol braces. Personally I have never seen an AR pistol on any trip to the outdoor range I frequent in Pennsylvania. IMHO I think a government lawyer could make a strong case that pistol braces are not common. YMMV.

[Muss Muggins]

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. They even let me have a password. What number do you want . . . ?

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

My understanding is that Wikipedia is way off track, and that there are many more AR rifles (Modern Sporting Rifles) in circulation. In 2018, NSSF believed there were 16 million. Last year the number was around 20 million. I still think that the numbers are probably much higher, with background checks continually setting new records and many people getting theirs before another ban.

The truth is, nobody really knows. The brace number that I quoted comes from estimations by those who have been selling them. Now, I know that they have a vested interest in inflating numbers, but I am personally in possession of four of them for three different pistols. I don't guess that I am alone in this regard.

[Sub sailor]

Has anyone heard any updates on pending “guidance” from the ATF on pistol braces? Somebody told me that in August ATF wanted to issue more rules but it was just second hand information.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Sub sailor

Has anyone heard any updates on pending “guidance” from the ATF on pistol braces? Somebody told me that in August ATF wanted to issue more rules but it was just second hand information.

I read in an e-mail blast from one of the pro-2A organizations maybe around June. Wish I remembered more.

If the Republicans hold as much "power" as everyone claims they do, why hasn't the ATF been reigned in with regard to their de facto law making?

[CH4]

I spoke to ATF’s Dan Hoffman at SHOT. Brace/SBR should be published in August, bump stocks in June.

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by Czechvar

.....

People are so absorbed with arguing the legal terms and definitions, they forget to consider whether or not these things should be regulated in this manner at all. In my humble opinion, only rule that might stand up to reason is full auto machine guns, Bazookas, Mortars, Tanks, etc...Other than that they should have no regulatory authority.

Remember, at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, there were privately owned cannons. IMO any restriction by "type" is unconstitutional. The NFA was a lame attempt to "do something".

[John_M52]

It's a work around... if a stabilized firearm is usable like an SBR it should be treated the same under the law...

Not trying to be rude but but we are under a full assault and every millimeter you give they will take 1,000 yards.

Next up... 8" or longer pistols held by a competent marksman are just as lethal as an SBR and should be teated as such. Pistols with barrel lengths less than 8" are Saturday night specials and need to be banned. Any semiautomatic pistol is a weapon of war and need to be banned.

We need to stick together in pushing back on ANY restriction/redefinition. My father was a purest bullseye competitor. He hated "black" rifles. He couldn't see why any mag should hold more than 5 rounds. After all, they weren't coming for his guns.

There is no reasoning with the anti-gun left. They are fanatics and will never be satisfied.

[John_M52]

Originally Posted by RCL-09

Over the years I have learned that I need not fear sociopathic and violent criminals, or homicidal and suicidal miscreants... no these are the things I must fear...

Legally owned and registered machineguns

Legally owned and registered SBRs, SBS, and AOW.

Legally owned and registered Destructive Devices (the horrifying Street Sweeper)

Big, large capacity handguns.

Small concealable handguns.

The horrifying "pocket rockets".

Powerful handguns.

Plastic/invisible handguns (you know, the Glock that was made specifically for terrorists).

Handguns that may have a forward grip.

Sniper rifles.

Fifty caliber rifles (.49 caliber are ok).

Assault rifles.

Semi automatic rifles.

Rifles with specific names (Galil, UZI, AR15,...)

Guns with bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc.

Bump stocks.

Pistol braces.

Things that take lots of bullets (10 rounds, 7 rounds,...)

Hollow point bullets.

Armor piercing bullets.

Unsafe bullets.

Cop killer bullets.


Lets stop this piecemeal provision of safety and just ban them all at once! I'll feel so much safer then.

you forgot grenade/flare launchers

[scoobysnacker]

Originally Posted by CH4

I spoke to ATF’s Dan Hoffman at SHOT. Brace/SBR should be published in August, bump stocks in June.

I've seen mention of this timeline, really hard to find anything on it.

Most places that discuss this, the thread quickly devolves into anti-ATF venting, and questions about what would be acceptable are ignored or lost in the chafe.

I'm curious, because the fin-with-strap configuration seems fine, if you can find a fin of the acceptable length.

[CH4]

I forgot to mention that arm braces won’t be outlawed, it’ll be the overall configuration of the gun that they’ll look at. There’s a draft matrix that walks you through the determination process. I have it in PDF, but I am not able to copy and paste it here.

Edit: here are pictures of the PDF:

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by CH4

I forgot to mention that arm braces won’t be outlawed, it’ll be the overall configuration of the gun that they’ll look at. There’s a draft matrix that walks you through the determination process. I have it in PDF, but I am not able to copy and paste it here.

Have you read the PDF? Which braces would remain viable options?

[TX-Dennis]

From my reading of the proposed rule, the only "acceptable" brace will be the fin type, but only if the base doesn't "look" like a shoulder stock. I'm guessing any flat surface bigger than necessary to encompass the diameter of the gas tube itself will be considered to "look" like a shoulder stock. Oh, and it evidently can't be adjustable in length, either. Now, again, this is from my reading of their point system (which contains imprecise and confusing language IMO), and my interpretation of it could be off somewhat.

[CH4]

Originally Posted by reddog81

Have you read the PDF? Which braces would remain viable options?

Here's the worksheet:

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by CH4

Here's the worksheet:

Which braces would remain viable options?

Hint - It's not many...

[Old_Cop]

Is the work sheet for agents or end users?

[Inusuit]

Originally Posted by VictorLouis

I am afraid to open the link, LOL. What if they have a bot-sensor in there that tracks your I/P, and therefore the likelyhood YOU have such an item???

Stranger things.....

I'm insulted if I am not already on their list for possessing such items. Track away!

[Baltimoreed11754]

If this point silliness makes most braces illegal next summer the only way to use a brace that doesn’t pass it will be with a 16 inch barrel upper or the brace mounted on a sbr’ed lower is what I’m understanding here. I have a SBPDW brace that works and looks great on my 8 and 16 inch CMMG .45s and like it a lot. I’m sure it won’t pass. I already have 2 sbr’s but would hate to sbr a brace. It’s just a bunch of feel good political pre election bs gun law junk. Doesn’t address real crime but looks good to your constituents. The bump stock legislation did address a horrible crime but as we know honest people don’t commit gun crimes, criminals do.

[Racer X]

That one crime with a bump stock could just as easily have been committed with one of those trigger cranks.

[walnutred]

You don't have to go to the trouble of changing the regulations if you can get away with changing the interpretations of the regulations.