-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
AR pistol braces? What's going on?
- Thread starter Yaworski
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Not sure now. They were full steam ahead until SCOTUS through a wrench into how the government, courts have to base rules and regulations on the text, history and tradition of the constitution as it relates to the 2A.
local_dirt
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2015
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 327
Stop worrying about all the communist shell games.
OP
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,206
I'm worried about going to jail because I missed some poorly advertised deadline and the DA wants to make an example.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodan
SWCA Member
The last I heard, the ATF had put off the pistol brace decision until December 2022.
I saw the handwriting on the wall the first time I saw one of these. Estimation I heard, and think is possibly correct, is that 90% of the "braced" pistols are not owned by anyone that has a "disability" and requires a brace.
Every one I have seen was being used as a shoulder stock for a short barreled rifle, and circumventing the regulations.
Don't have one, don't want one.
Every one I have seen was being used as a shoulder stock for a short barreled rifle, and circumventing the regulations.
Don't have one, don't want one.
The ATF, in keeping with the tradition of the federal government since it’s been infested with attorneys instead of subject matter experts, used a narrow read of the law to determine that braced pistols were legal - even though it was an obvious effort to circumvent the requirement to register short barrel rifles.
Eventually, they tried to stick the genie back in the bottle by saying it was only legal as long as you didn’t shoulder it, and if you shouldered it, it became an SBR.
That caused massive problems with the entire definition of “pistol”, and created a situation where “use” of a firearm defined its category.
They eventually figured out that was unenforceable and chaotic and said “never mind”.
Now the ATF under the current administration is trying to require them to either be destroyed, or registered as NFA items, with the ATF also claiming it’s not possible to grandfather them or even waive the $200 tax stamp fee.
Legally there are several issues.
1) anytime a federal government agency makes a substantial reinterpretation of a regulation they are required to a) publish a notice of proposed rule making for public comment, and then b) publish those comments and their response to those comments.
2) However, federal agencies are under no obligation to change their proposed rule based on adverse public comment. In the past (a couple administrations ago) the ATF generally took those comments seriously. For example, when it proposed to redefine M855 as armor piercing ammo and got about 100,000 negative comments it backed down.
With the pistol brace NPRM however, ATF received in the neighborhood of 250,000 comments, mostly negative, but all signs seem to indicate it intends to forge ahead anyway.
3) There are however some legal challenges that can come into play;
a) Since the 1970s federal agencies have been free to make changes in regulatory interpretation as long as the statute and congressional intent is silent or ambiguous on the issue. That’s called “Chevron deference” after a case involving Chevron and the interior department.
However, the ATF isn’t just making changes that would result in a civil fine, it’s making changes that would turn owners of legal to posses items under the old rules, into criminals in possession of illegal or unregistered firearms that could result in a 10 year prison sentence.
The legal argument is that the rule of lenity should apply prior to Chevron deference. The rule of lenity says that any ambiguity in the law must be interpreted in a manner that benefits the defendant. In this case it’s saying the ATF can rule that braced pistols are legal, but the ATF can’t sit back and let millions of them be sold, and the redetermine they are illegal and or have to be registered as NFA items and then prosecute people for owning previously legal items.
This blew up on the, big time in the last administration’s ban on bump stocks (which had a similar trajectory of the ATF saying they were not machine guns, before years later deciding they were).
I think the most they will be able to realistically impose in the braced pistol rule change would be to grandfather existing braces, and they would have to do that by serial numbering any new braces made after the law takes affect. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try to do more and force a legal challenge.
b) They are using the NFA of 1934 as the basis for this rule change as they are now redefining braced pistols as SBRs. However the NFA of 1934 was not intended to affect weapons in common use. By the ATF’s own estimate there were at least 3 million pistol braces sold since the ATF allowed them in 2013. That’s “in common use”. The NFA of 1934 was also intended to target weapons used by gangs (Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, etc). The ATF cited the use of braced pistols at 2 mass shootings (out of roughly 2600 since 2013 and the time they put it out for public comment. So 2 out of 2600 mass shootings and 2 braced pistols out of over 3 million. That’s not a problem in keeping with the intent of the NFA of 1934.
There is also the argument of whether the NFA is even relevant anymore as related to SBRs and suppressors. Neither are used in crimes to any significant degree, and suppressors in particular ware widely used in Europe and the US for hunting purposes. Vetting prospective owners through anything beyond an NCIS check is a waste of resources that has no crime reduction impact.
Unfortunately, last spring the ATF arbitrarily rejected all Form 1 applications for suppressors after declaring that all suppressor kits are in fact already NFA items even though they have not been completed.
That leaves these kits, already in the hands of owners as illegal items and leaves the owner with no path forward to make them legal.
Worst of all, the ATF did this major reinterpretation of the rule without going through the required NPRM process. That’s an egregious over reach and it’s expressly illegal for ATF to change the rule in that manner with no public input and no warning.
Eventually, they tried to stick the genie back in the bottle by saying it was only legal as long as you didn’t shoulder it, and if you shouldered it, it became an SBR.
That caused massive problems with the entire definition of “pistol”, and created a situation where “use” of a firearm defined its category.
They eventually figured out that was unenforceable and chaotic and said “never mind”.
Now the ATF under the current administration is trying to require them to either be destroyed, or registered as NFA items, with the ATF also claiming it’s not possible to grandfather them or even waive the $200 tax stamp fee.
Legally there are several issues.
1) anytime a federal government agency makes a substantial reinterpretation of a regulation they are required to a) publish a notice of proposed rule making for public comment, and then b) publish those comments and their response to those comments.
2) However, federal agencies are under no obligation to change their proposed rule based on adverse public comment. In the past (a couple administrations ago) the ATF generally took those comments seriously. For example, when it proposed to redefine M855 as armor piercing ammo and got about 100,000 negative comments it backed down.
With the pistol brace NPRM however, ATF received in the neighborhood of 250,000 comments, mostly negative, but all signs seem to indicate it intends to forge ahead anyway.
3) There are however some legal challenges that can come into play;
a) Since the 1970s federal agencies have been free to make changes in regulatory interpretation as long as the statute and congressional intent is silent or ambiguous on the issue. That’s called “Chevron deference” after a case involving Chevron and the interior department.
However, the ATF isn’t just making changes that would result in a civil fine, it’s making changes that would turn owners of legal to posses items under the old rules, into criminals in possession of illegal or unregistered firearms that could result in a 10 year prison sentence.
The legal argument is that the rule of lenity should apply prior to Chevron deference. The rule of lenity says that any ambiguity in the law must be interpreted in a manner that benefits the defendant. In this case it’s saying the ATF can rule that braced pistols are legal, but the ATF can’t sit back and let millions of them be sold, and the redetermine they are illegal and or have to be registered as NFA items and then prosecute people for owning previously legal items.
This blew up on the, big time in the last administration’s ban on bump stocks (which had a similar trajectory of the ATF saying they were not machine guns, before years later deciding they were).
I think the most they will be able to realistically impose in the braced pistol rule change would be to grandfather existing braces, and they would have to do that by serial numbering any new braces made after the law takes affect. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try to do more and force a legal challenge.
b) They are using the NFA of 1934 as the basis for this rule change as they are now redefining braced pistols as SBRs. However the NFA of 1934 was not intended to affect weapons in common use. By the ATF’s own estimate there were at least 3 million pistol braces sold since the ATF allowed them in 2013. That’s “in common use”. The NFA of 1934 was also intended to target weapons used by gangs (Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, etc). The ATF cited the use of braced pistols at 2 mass shootings (out of roughly 2600 since 2013 and the time they put it out for public comment. So 2 out of 2600 mass shootings and 2 braced pistols out of over 3 million. That’s not a problem in keeping with the intent of the NFA of 1934.
There is also the argument of whether the NFA is even relevant anymore as related to SBRs and suppressors. Neither are used in crimes to any significant degree, and suppressors in particular ware widely used in Europe and the US for hunting purposes. Vetting prospective owners through anything beyond an NCIS check is a waste of resources that has no crime reduction impact.
Unfortunately, last spring the ATF arbitrarily rejected all Form 1 applications for suppressors after declaring that all suppressor kits are in fact already NFA items even though they have not been completed.
That leaves these kits, already in the hands of owners as illegal items and leaves the owner with no path forward to make them legal.
Worst of all, the ATF did this major reinterpretation of the rule without going through the required NPRM process. That’s an egregious over reach and it’s expressly illegal for ATF to change the rule in that manner with no public input and no warning.
I own one "questionable" gun, a Ruger Charger, which, at the time of purchase had a bipod attached, and a threaded barrel. I put a flash hider on on it (no silencer), and have since added a brace with a folding mount. They cost nearly as much as the complete gun several years ago. A lot of fuss over a .22 plinker.
Attachments
Looks like a weapon of mass destruction to me!
It’s hard to believe they’d be that tore up over braces, but I guess any anti gun laws are a win in their minds.
I bought this pistol lower a couple years ago from PSA, and put a 7" upper on it. I listed it as a handgun on the 4473.
Put it together for multi state road trips. Just a semi auto handgun right now.
If they outlaw it, I'll just stamp it and put one of the extra AR stocks I have laying around on it.
I have 2 SBR AR's and 4 other SBR's.
Put it together for multi state road trips. Just a semi auto handgun right now.
If they outlaw it, I'll just stamp it and put one of the extra AR stocks I have laying around on it.
I have 2 SBR AR's and 4 other SBR's.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2aZ1HTaRE[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFYYtI3Vs4I&t=2s[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFYYtI3Vs4I&t=2s[/ame]
The craziest thing I saw a few years ago was the online seller Classic Firearms whose spokesman demonstrated the use of a brace on an AR pistol by shouldering the doggone thing. My jaw dropped when I saw that.
Clearly, that can be done but why show it off like that?
I am a little confused here. I thought that you bought a tax stamp and it was good for all SBR's and suppressor's that you owned. From reading your post, I guess you have to buy a $200 tax stamp for each one. Is that correct? Also, if the government somehow does make the brace illegal, what happens to all the AR pistol uppers?
Larry
See this thread: ATF Worksheet 4999
Yes, a $200 tax stamp is required for each class III item.
Yes, a $200 tax stamp is required for each class III item.
They can stay on your lower. If braces are reclassified, you could simply remove the brace and keep your otherwise legal pistol.
Last edited:
To the "just buy a $200 stamp" crowd, there are many states that don't allow SBR's so that's not an option. The closest people can get is an arm brace or an NFA "other" which is in many ways the same thing as a braced pistol.
Looks like a weapon of mass destruction to me!
It’s hard to believe they’d be that tore up over braces, but I guess any anti gun laws are a win in their minds.
They sell it based on emotion, not facts or logic. In any given years there are about 125 students killed in school bus accidents. In other words, 6-7 times more kids are killed in school bus accidents than school shootings. That’s a rate of 1 in 168,000 for the 21 million kids who ride school buses. Yet the odds of being shot in a school shooting (all of them, including gang related shootings on school property) are 1 in 2.15 million.
Clearly we see the rate of school bus deaths as an acceptable risk and don’t push for seat belts on school buses even though that would reduce the deaths.
The supposed issue with the pistol brace that caused ATF to change its mind is the similarity to a short barrel rifle, required to be registered under NFA of 1934.
The ATF should have thought of that in 2013 when the granted approval. The disability issue was just a pretense, and the ATF could have said “it makes a pistol an SBR. however we recognize the disability aspects of it, and if an individual has a qualifying disability we will waive the tax stamp fee”.
But they didn’t because they used a narrow read of the law that hinged on technicalities rather than common sense about how they would be used.
However, it can be also argued that it wasn’t a bad decision as the use of SBRs in crimes is virtually non existent, and there is consequently a strong argument to de-list them from the NFA.
In terms mass shootings, 84% don’t involve a semi auto rifles, they are primarily perpetrated with handguns. In terms of over all crime, long guns of any type are only used in about 1.5% of crimes and semi autos are a small fraction of that 1.5% and SBRs are an even smaller fraction of that 1.5%.
The SBR provisions are pointless from a crime prevention stands point, but de-listing them would be seen as a step backward in gun control and that’s always perceived as “bad”.
There is an even stronger argument to de-list suppressors as ven European countries with strong gun control often allow suppressors just because of the benefits of reduced noise.
In terms of pistol braces, the ATF worksheet is a joke as it’s so strongly biased against AR type pistols that if it has any normal handgun features, likes sights, it ends up in the “must register” category.
It’s actually counter productive as well from a gun violence perspective. In the very rare cases where an AR-15 is used in a gun violence crime, a .223 Rem fired out of a 7” or 10” barrel will usually be below the threshold velocity for fragmenting or tux bling and is consequently far less lethal than the same round fired from a 16” carbine. Making a rule change that encourages longer barrels in ARs in the interest of preventing gun violence deaths is farm animal stupid. At the close ranges involved in mass shootings it also won’t make a difference, if the shooter knows how to use a sling on an AR pistol.
I bought this pistol lower a couple years ago from PSA, and put a 7" upper on it. I listed it as a handgun on the 4473.
Put it together for multi state road trips. Just a semi auto handgun right now.
If they outlaw it, I'll just stamp it and put one of the extra AR stocks I have laying around on it.
I have 2 SBR AR's and 4 other SBR's.
It might not be obvious to everyone, but:
1) SBRs are banned in some states. In those states a braced pistol can still be possessed. If those stares object, they can adopt legislation to ban braced pistoLs as well, so there is no need for a new rule reclassifying them are SBRs.
2) In other states, SBRs do not qualify for the purposes of a concealed carry permit. That’s also a restriction that can be extended to braced pistols if a state so desires. The major benefit of a braced pistol in this context is the ability to carry it loaded in your vehicle under a concealed carry permit, while also ensuring greater accuracy in braced form compared to non braced form. That is a big advantage in terms of reducing the risk of innocent bystanders being hit with a missed round.
3) In all cases, to transport one across state lines you have to file a Form 5320.20 with the ATF. It can be done annually, listing the states who will be taking it to during the upcoming year. It’s takes an average of 1-4 weeks to get a response and it can take longer. The ATF also doesn’t have to grant approval. All it takes is an administrator with a “just say no” policy and none of them leave the states they are currently in.
The modern definition of "mass shooting" is something along the lines of "four or more (some definitions use three), not including the shooter, injured or killed in a single incident at the same general time and location. Various media outlets use variations of the above. Interestingly, I found reference to a family member killing the whole family not counting as a mass shooting, and I found some references that stated that the injuries or deaths do not necessarily need to be caused by gunfire, just by the occasion of gunfire.
So, when taken all together, should the various users of the above definitions ever collaborate, 2,600 is probably light . . .
OP
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,206
Emotion trumps logic. When I point out that a given number of deaths is statistically insignificant (guns, drownings, cars . . . doesn't matter) the emotional always say, "If it was your kid, you'd think that it was significant!" Apparently, they don't understand basic statistics.
It is like climate change. A week 100 degree days does not equal global warming, but, a week of minus 20 days does not prove there is no global warming. That is weather. The year I was born 1951 the average mean temp in Montana was 50.4, last year it was 56.3. A 10 year average from 1951 -60 was 51.8 with the lowest 1955 at 49.6 and the highest 55 at 53.6 From 2011 to 2020 the 10 year average was 55.1 with the lowest year being 2011 at 51.8 and the highest 15 at 56.3. That 3.3 degree of average is climate change and notice the coolest year in the 2011-2020 span was the average of the 1951-1960 span. But, even those numbers do no prove why it is. I could cherry pick and say 2011 was the same as the 1951-1960 average. LOL Or I could say 2015 was 6.7 degrees hotter than it was 60 years earlier in 1955.
But, then the globe has warmed up and cooled off for millions of years
We won't really know what is going on for another 1000 years or so.
Torture numbers long enough and they will confess to what every you want them too. Montana has an intentional homicide rate of around 3.5. Only about 1/2 of those are committed with firearms. We do however have a high gun suicide rate. So we are "classified" as having a high "gun violence" rate.
Last edited:
Similar threads
