So now pistol braces are evil or so says ATF. I've been seeing things on Youtube about amnesties but it is still a lot of hand waving.

Anyone have any good information?

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.

__________________
213th FBINA

Stop worrying about all the communist shell games.

I'm worried about going to jail because I missed some poorly advertised deadline and the DA wants to make an example.

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.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

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.

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.

Attached Images

Charger_220827_1.jpg (56.0 KB, 117 views)

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

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.

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?

__________________
Come and take it!!

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

__________________
Miss Buddies crsides & fat tom

See this thread: ATF Worksheet 4999

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.

__________________
"I also cook."

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.

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.

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.

Twenty six hundred mass shooting in the past nine years? Is that a typo or have there been 288 mass shootings a year? That's almost every day.

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 . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

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.

The first murder I worked in Montana had a BFR (large rock) for the weapon. The next was a piece of firewood, then a Chevy pickup, then a pair of cowboy boots, then gravity, and finally a gun - the omnipresent Marlin Model 60.

The investigation usually went something like this:

Me, standing with Tribal Cop, both looking down:

Damn. I bet that hurt. Who did it?

Cop: Crying guy on the porch.

Me to crying guy: You did that in there?

CG: No. I blacked out.

Me: You didn’t black out. Also there are brains on your hat.

CG: You got me, G-Man.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

That sums up very nicely most of the testimony I heard in my courtroom about murder investigations over the years. LMAO!

__________________
Everybody could shoot

Your way would make sense but it's $200 each. The good news is that when you die, your heirs don't have to pay again.

NY has set it sights on “OTHERS” . Depending on who u ask a Shockwave is now illegal to posses in NY. Even if u owned it prior there is no grandfathering. I say depending on who u ask because as usual NY doesn’t give details. You have to figure it out. Just like needing a permit to buy a semiauto now. There is no permitting process.

The day I wrote comments for submission I pulled the numbers based on the definition of “4 or more people shot” during the incident.

The term mass shooting is used by the press to evoke images of a Las Vegas, or Uvalde type shooting, but the anti gun alarmists use the broadest definition possible.

If you eliminate the gang on gang member shoots and the people killing their own family murder suicide type shoots, the numbers go way down to 20-30 per year.

True or not.


Alleged document uncovered by ammoland.

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/...-Amnesty-2.pdf



Our ATF inside sources have told AmmoLand News that the ATF was planning for an amnesty period where gun owners would be able to register their braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBR) and that it is expected they will receive a free tax stamp. The ATF charges $200 per SBR. Currently, there are at least four million braced pistols in the United States


ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

About 2/3rd of gun deaths are suicides.

The anti gun argument is that a gun suicide is irreversible and someone who shoots themself will be dead, even if just doing it as a suicidal gesture. Thus their logic is that fewer of those people would successfully commit suicide if they didn’t have access to guns.

As a mental health counselor my opinion is that’s complete bull hockey. Folks shooting themselves in the head or chest with a gun are not making a suicidal gesture - they intend to kill themselves and quite frankly I’d prefer they do it that way than do it in a head on collision with an oncoming car.

I’ll also argue that guns are not the leading cause of suicidal gestures gone wrong. For example a distraught teenager ODs on Tylenol and then wakes up in the ICU with her loving family around and declares she just wanted attention. Unfortunately, she also caused complete liver failure and now needs a transplant or she’s going to die - and she isn’t going to get that transplant in time.

I’ll argue that one of the reasons she didn’t use a gun was she wasn’t serious. Women also choose drugs as a means of suicide at a ratio of about 2-1 over males. Men care a lot less about how they’ll look at the funeral.

Acetaminophen is the drug of choice for teen suicide and rates of suicide are up about 34% since 2020. But there isn’t much talk about that and no talk at all about banning it, or putting more restrictions on it.

But when gun suicides go up people blame the guns and pretend that if we just ban guns suicides will go down.

The problem is suicides go up when rates of despair go up. Instead of putting effort into gun bans it makes more sense to address why people kill themselves rather than how. When the economy goes south, you have more debt, more stress, less educational and employment opportunity, etc, and all those factors lead people to believe things are not going to get better. That’s was triggers plans and them actions to take their own lives.


Unfortunately mass shootings of the Las Vegas, Uvalde, Orlando, etc type are also deaths of despair as the shooter chooses suicide but in a way that uses a gun to give himself (almost always male, usually young) power over others and make a statement and achieve some attention and infamy as he checks out.

But it’s the availability of guns that blame for the rise in mass killings, not the failed social policy that causes a sharp rise in all forms of suicides.

But that kind of explanation is complicated and the solutions are also complicated.

Americans unfortunately like things kept simple, so they reject the complex, embrace the simple and then call anything that doesn’t fit their preferred narrative “fake news”.

It’s pretty much what I predicted based on my experiences with NPRMs over 12 years working inside the belt way.

The ATF won’t back down under the current administration even in the face of 250,000 negative comments.

They’ll respond to comments, including those with solid data and solid legal reasons why it’s inappropriate with “We disagree” and will continue to pursue the requirement to register them. There is no obligation to change a rule based on negative public comment.

However, at the same time they’ve apparently also accepted that not waiving the tax stamp fee would not fare well in court.

If it comes to pass, it is loss in terms of the SBR aspect, but a win in terms of public comment at least dulling the financial impact on owners.

In addition, with a Republican majority in the house and senate at some point in the future, a bill de-listing SBRs (and suppressors) would render it moot anyway. In that regard this rule change just motivates millions of people to push for de-listing SBRs.

How many million is the question. The ATF said 3 million when it published the NPRM, while they are now saying “at least 4 million”. Gun industry estimates are closer to 20 million.

Like I didn't see this coming from the beginning
People make ridiculous stuff just to see how far they can push the boundary and then act surprised when they get spanked (kinda like me on the forum ).
How many people do you suspect have mated an AR pistol upper with a rifle configured lower just to see how cool it is/shoots and then quickly changed it back. Or for that matter made up home made suppressors with duct tape and two liter coke bottles or oil filters. We know it is probably illegal but we go ahead and do it anyway. Face it-we're guys for cryin' out loud-we still watch the stooges.
As far as automatic weapons....that ship has sailed; none of us can afford to shoot them as intended anyway with the price of ammo

__________________
Forum consigliere

"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."


Interestingly, it is my understanding that if you are carrying a cane or using a wheelchair or any other aid to mobility, it is specifically forbidden by the ADA for law enforcement to ask why you need it; thus, even if you have no "need" for one, it's nobody's business if you want to use one.

They made up this whole mess with their own stupid rules, now they want to use more stupid rules to fix the first screw-up. Typical ...

I defy any of them to define what is wrong about a rifle shorter than "X-number" inches, anyway. Idiocy.

__________________
Pisgah

The NFA of 1934 came about as a result of depression era gangs, often robbing national guard armories to obtain full auto weapons and hand grenades and or cutting down long guns to make the, easier to conceal under a coat.

It played on public sentiment but then or now, those laws were rarely used to actually convict gangsters and did absolutely nothing to deter them from using SBRs. I don’t know how suppressors got thrown in as they were not used in any great degree in crimes then either.

Today SBRs and suppressors are still almost never used in crimes, even though both are easy to make.

Criminals today are not inclined to use an AR pistol as it’s still quite large and heavy, making it impractical for carry and concealment. With the ATF acknowledgement of at least 4 million braced pistols out there, yet citing only two shootings using them, they clearly are not a major threat to public safety. But they are not going to back down because they need to appear to be doing something to address gun violence and it’s low risk for them.

If they de listed SBRs etc and spent the staff time running down internet leads to preempt mass shootings it would be much more effective. But they’d then be on the hook for any leads they missed.

In federal government it’s preferable for a risk averse administrator to just ignore a potential solution and keep doing things the same old way as they can always claim they followed policy. If they touch a new initiative, no matter how promising, they own it and will be held accountable if it doesn’t work, or work as well as expected.

——


In this case, the ATF is clearly moving toward the “amnesty” approach to potentially avoid scrutiny under the rule of lenity, which if applied would blow the whole proposed rule out of the water.

Which is why we need to keep pushing back on the NPRM.

That is only true if your NFA devices are "owned" by a trust or other entity. Title doesn't change if the ownership is in an entity; the trustees and beneficiaries just rearrange. But ownership individually WILL require another tax stamp for each inherited device.

Clearly, that was NEVER the case, not ever.

__________________
Come and take it!!

I thought I reiterate some answers:

Item:

A tax stamp is required for each and every NFA device that you own. Any concept that one $200 tax stamp covers all of your devices would be incorrect. $200.00 per suppressor and most firearms, $5.00 for items that fall under the “AOW”/any other weapon section of the rules.

Item:

Your heirs cannot inherit your individually owned NFA items without obtaining a new tax stamp. That is only true if your NFA devices are "owned" by a trust or other entity. Title doesn't change if the ownership is in an entity; the trustees and beneficiaries just rearrange. But ownership individually WILL require another tax stamp for each inherited device.

I hope that clears that up.

__________________
Come and take it!!

I was bumming after I got my first 3 stamps about not setting up a trust. Told my daughter to put long barrels on the AR's and destroy the 22 suppressor, but make sure the serial number could still be read and then turn it in.

Then I found out about the tax free form 5. She's the beneficiary of my estate, and all 8 of my class 3 weapons can stay in her possession till the ATF gets the paper work straightened out and put in her name.

So if the braced pistols gets re-classified as a sbr under the new rule/stamp why not just put a real stock on it?

One more reason I prefer to shoot the sbr items my friends have rather than go through the hassle/expense of getting my own lol. I wouldn't mind getting a suppressor however for a long gun.

At present the ATF is requesting funds to allow them to do an amnesty while also waiving the tax stamp fee for roughly 4 million braced pistols owners (and I suspect the numbers are a lot higher than that). ATF will require a *lot* of staff to process all those applications.

Part of the requested funding is to process photos of the firearms to be registered to “prove” they are braced pistols that are eligible for the amnesty with the waiver of the tax stamp fee.

So the short answer is that you want to register it as an SBR with the brace attached to be able to waive the $200 fee.

However, once it has been registered as an SBR, knock yourself out and put a stock on it.

At their current rates for NFA approvals, that's ~2 years of workload, in addition to regular applications. Assuming the 4 million number is accurate. The industry estimate is about 5 times that number. Completely unrealistic unless they overhaul the entire approval process.

They could easily implement a system where once you've received approval for a previous NFA item through the normal process, subsequent items could be approved via an 'instant' check like the one currently in use for most firearms. You've already been vetted, so no reason for the deep dive. Stamps are digital now anyway, so they don't even need to mail you a physical stamp.

Of course this would relinquish some control, and make the process less arduous, neither of which are desired by the current admin. The NFA is an unconstitutional house of cards, and hopefully litigation will be coming soon to tear it down. Taxing the 2nd Amendment is no more legal than a Poll tax, and we finally have the SCOTUS decision to tear it apart.

A NRA 2a spokesman gives his view on this issue,,,

terry

I agree the ATF numbers are low, that it would take years to process even half of the 3 million ATF claimed were out there when the NPRM was published, and that the industry estimate of braces sold was in the 20 million neighborhood. And I commented to that affect during the public comment period.

The ATF proposed was that the paperwork would have to be submitted by a certain cut off date date, and at the point the paperwork was filed they could be legally possessed. Along with that the ATF also indicated it was not practical to waive the $200 tax stamp fee.

Under that original scheme, the ATF was clearly attempting to use the $200 fee as an incentive for most owner to remove and destroy the braces, or put longer barrels on them. Given supply chain issues it’s impractical to acquire millions of new barrels for AR pistols and for AK pistols it is a much more involved and expensive process. Any way you slice it, it would be an expensive process for anything other than brace removal. The ATF was clearly counting on that.

However, given the apparent push back on not waiving the fee, and the shear volume of applications that would have to be processed, its likely the ATF is probably planning to just collect the photos and paperwork and register the firearms to their owners without vetting anyone. The owners already have them in their possession.

However I suggest we all write our congress critters and make it clear we do not support the use of taxpayer funds to register these weapons at all, but rather grandfather them in without registration. If the ATF persists in implementing this, the ATF could apply the SBR requirement to pistol braces going forward and require new build braces to be serial numbered and registered.

That’s much the same as was done with Model 92 and Model 94 trapper carbines with 14” barrels in 1934.

Whether the number is 4 million or 20 million, braces are clearly in “common use” and should not fall under the NFA anyway.

Like I said -- self-invented idiocy.

__________________
Pisgah

He hasn't been an "NRA Spokesman" since that whole flap about the advertising agency bilking NRA. However, he's now a social media celebrity even though I never heard of him before he started working for NRA. He doesn't even use his real name, don't trust people who don't use their real names.

I like Colion Noir, real name or not.

And I THINK, MAYBE, the ATF might have a significant legal problem here. Call me crazy but this silly, little law is still on the books:

Call me crazy but any law that makes an act criminal that was legal when the act was first accomplished is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of Article 1 of the Constitution.

This could get very interesting and, as I always say, full employment for lawyers!

__________________
Come and take it!!

Another response to this question is this, if it's a pistol it has a short barrel in all most all cases, so putting a stock on it still makes it an SBR, still requiring a stamp, or am I missing something with your question?

__________________
.............SmithNut

That is what I was thinking, hence my above question earlier.

I mean I guess you could put a longer barrel on the brace, but putting the pistol upper on a regular lower would be "no Bueno" I would think.
Larry

__________________
Miss Buddies crsides & fat tom

Two issues here to clarify:

1) The ATF has stated in the past that provided a firearm started out as a pistol it can be reassembled as a rifle, and then returned to pistol configuration.

Can I lawfully make a pistol into a rifle without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

So it’s only “once a rifle always a rifle” in terms of buying a receiver listed as a rifle and then making it into a pistol. That’s always been a non starter due to purchase and ownership of handguns being more restrictive in most jurisdictions.

Consequently, if an owner chooses not to register it as an SBR, and chooses to put a 16” or longer barrel on it, he or she is free to do so. They can also put a stock on it, or leave the brace on it as a “stock”.

Alternatively, the owner of a braced pistol can also just take the brace of and leave it as a pistol.



2) In regard to the stated purpose of the proposed regulation change banning braced pistols, it will make absolutely no difference in their lethality in mass shootings, which almost always occur at close range.

My 9mm 8.3” braced pistol has a ballistic advantage barrel and a Burris 332 prism sight. It will shoot 2” groups at 200 yards with handloaded Hornady 115 gr XTPs or HAPs when shooting off a rest and shoulder in the brace.

If I take the brace off, I will lose that long range capability but at CQB mass shooting distances a firearm like it will be just as effective as ever with proper use of a sling.

My braced MP5 with a reflex sight isn’t quite as accurate at 200 yards (although it will still hold a 10” plate) so it will lose less at long range with the brace removed, but it is very well suited to shooting with a sling in pistol form.

The guy in the you tube video is demonstrating with an MP5K, rather than an MP5, but it works exactly the same way. With a little practice, at 50 yards or less it’s still consistently minute of man at a high rate of fire. Slow down a bit and it’s still minute of man at 100 yards.


——-


If number 2 were all we considered, it would just be ineffective knee jerk public policy. But it’s worse than that.

Let’s say an 8.3” AR pistol similar to mine was chambered in .223 Remington instead of 9mm. M193 /55 gr FMJ muzzle velocity in an 8” barrel is about 2300 fps. That’s well below the tumbling and fragmentation velocities for the bullet. The 62 gr M855 FMJ bullet is even slower. That means that someone shot with an 8” .223 pistol using commonly available M193 or M855 ammunition will not have the much more serious wound caused by the bullet tumbling or fragmenting.

However, that will not be the case if a future mass shooter ends up with that same AR-15 after a longer barrel is installed on it to convert it to a rifle. Even with just a 16” barrel the muzzle velocity will be around 2950 fps for M193, 300 ft per second about its fragmentation velocity. A victim hit with that bullet will have a much more serious wound.

In other words, this reinterpretation of the regulation will make rifle caliber pistols significantly more deadly by increasing barrel length when owners opt to convert them to rifles rather than register them as SBRs.

Even in the case of a 9mm pistol, converting it to a carbine improves the terminal ballistics. For example my 8.3” AR-15 has an average muzzle velocity of 1350 fps and my 8.9” MP5 has an average muzzle velocity of 1437 fps with 115 gr XTPs. However in my Colt 6450 (16” 9mm) the average muzzle velocity is 1525 fps.

In short, a regulation change that encourages people to modify their firearms to a more lethal configuration is not just ineffective knee jerk public policy, it’s counterproductive knee jerk public policy that makes the situation they seek to solve far worse.

The game has changed since 1934 and we’d be far better served from a weapon lethality context by de-listing SBRs from the NFA of 1934. But science, solid data, and logic don’t fit the anti gun narrative.

It doesn’t apply in this case.

An ex post facto law is one that makes something you did before illegal, or makes extends the sentence for a prior conviction longer because a sentencing law changed, or changes the rules of evidence so that you are more likely to be committed for a crime you committed in the past.

However in case like this, owning a braced pistol is not illegal and the proposed rule change won’t change the status of legal ownership now. However once the a,neatly period ends, the rule change will make a braced pistol an SBR and the law that makes owning an unregistered SBR illegal will then apply.

In other words, you won’t be guilty for what you did in the past, you’ll be guilty of violating the new rule going forward.

The ex post facto version of this would be an owner selling his braced pistol now, before the rule takes affect, but then still being charged with having owned an unregistered braced pistol prior to the law taking effect.

——

What does however come into play is whether the Rule of Lenity should be applied instead of, or at least prior to Chevron Deference.

Under Chevron Deference, the ATF (or any federal agency) can make whatever rule changes it wants, provided the issue is not specifically addressed in statute, and provided their construction of their interpretation of statute is reasonable.

In other words in 2013 when the ATF first approved placed pistols, under Chevron deference, they had the latitude to determine braced pistols were legal and not SBRs. That was the case as the NFA of 1934 did not specifically address pistol braces (they were not a thing then) and did not specifically define what makes a stock a stock. As such the ATF was free to decide under a narrow read of the law that a pistol brace was not a stock as long as certain conditions were met.

Similarly, given that pistol braces were not part of NFA of 1934 and that the definition of a stock was vague, the ATF could have taken a more common sense approach and determined that if it looks like a stock and functions like a stock then it’s a stock and a braced pistol must be registered as an SBR. (I’ll argue that action would have been smarter.)

They also had other options.

Given the pretense of a brace making it possible for disabled persons to fire a AR-15 pistol, the ATF could have done something like waiving the tax stamp fee for persons with documented disabilities resulting in hand or arm limitations.

But federal agencies are extremely hesitant to waive any legal requirement and in the case of the tax stamp fee, it’s prescribed in the NFA of 1934. Most federal OGCs will claim their agency has no authority to grant a waiver. Until of course it’s in their interest to do so.

The ATF could have also “educated” congress on:
- the facts and data surrounding the use of SBRs in crimes;
-pointed out short barrel rifle and pistol caliber pistols are less lethal than 16” or longer barrel rifles;
- that AR and AK type pistols are still too large and heavy to be readily concealed and thus are not used my criminals; and
- that SBRs are more accessible to a person with a disability than an AR-15 pistol.

They could have then further “educated” congress on the cost and lack of any real value in continuing to do background checks beyond a NICS check on Form 1 applicants for SBRs. A federal agency cannot suggest or author actual proposed legislation as that would be lobbying, but it can “educate” congress and staffers to the point they fully understand the issue and can write legislation to fix a problem or modernize an antiquated law.

Congress could have then put forward a bill to amend the NFA to de-list SBRs.

But that didn’t happen. Instead ATF used a narrow read of the law, lacking any common sense, to adopt a sub regulatory interpretation of the regulations to allow pistol braces that by any logical common sense interpretation clearly circumvented the SBR provisions of the NFA.

——

The Rule of Lenity is the concept you are thinking of.

Chevron Deference only applies to matters that result in fines or civil penalties. It isn’t supposed to be applied to matters that would result in criminal penalties and imprisonment.

The ATF is using Chevron Deference (again) to try to stuff the braced pistol genie back in the bottle by now changing its interpretation to say braced pistols are in fact SBRs. If it had done that in the first place in 2013 it would have been no harm, no foul.

However, they are doing it after somewhere between 4 million and 20 million of them have been sold and are now in common use. In addition, they are effectively threatening people who do not remove the brace, or modify the braced pistol to a rifle with a minimum 16” barrel, or register it as an SBR, with prosecution under the NFA of 1934 with a possible 10 year prison sentence.

That potential for a felony conviction and prison sentence takes this beyond the scope of Chevron deference. The Rule of Lenity must be applied to any proposed rule change that would result in someone becoming a criminal for doing or possessing something that is legal, that would be come illegal with the re-interpretation of a regulation.

In simple, terms it just means that when the change may result in criminal penalties, the interpretation of the regulation must be down with a strict construction that requires an agency and a court to apply any lack of clarity or ambiguity in the law in the manner that is MOST FAVORABLE to a defendant.

The ATF is working hard to avoid that, as if the Rule of Lenity is found by the court to be applicable to the bump stock or braced pistol matter, it would means any and all rule changes where the change results in someone in possession of a previously legal item now being at risk for a criminal conviction are null and void. That would undermine ATFs entire way or doing business by executive and or agency fiat.

And that’s really the point. Under Chevron deference, the courts have allows executive branch agencies the latitude interpret laws however they want as long as they don’t conflict with clear legislative branch intent - or infringe on the rights of citizens from unfair criminal prosecution.

Under the rule of Lenity, the ATF could not ban bump stocks, pistol braces, reset triggers, binary triggers, suppressor kits, etc,. It would instead have to “educate” congress on the problems it sees with existing laws and then leave it to congress to decide if a change in the law is warranted or not. That would ensure that legislative powers and responsibilities stay with the legislative branch of government, rather than allowing over reach and regulatory creep by executive branch agencies.

I have a braced pistol, bought it for the same reason everyone else did. I used it as my hunting gun in the thick woods of NC.

Then I saw the handwriting on the wall about two years ago and had a spare AR lower stamped and engraved, just in case.

The pistol just sits in my safe. I will either put the tube buffer back on or convert it to a rifle with 16+ upper and rifle stock. Or sell it as I have other AR rifles.

I only need one SBR.

Though being pro 2A, and believing you can have what you want, I’m not messing with the feds and spend my last days in jail.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

This. In spades.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Several years ago I built 2 braced AR pistols (.223 & 300 BO) on new virgin receivers, just because I could and they were a lot of fun. However when this last leak of BATFE rulings/deadline and was leaked, I decided I didn't want to potentially have to register them as SBR's and as the approaching deadline got closer it was going to get harder to get the parts to re-configure them into carbines, so I just bit the bullet and re-configure them now. Is there a possibility that the courts will overturn these new "rules"?Anything is possible, but I do not like trying to outguess our Federal Courts. Without an injunction to stop the new "rules" from going into effect, it could still take effect and then take years to possibly get a favorable ruling. Besides I have 2 other braced firearms that are not easily re-configurable into carbines, so I am just going to file my form 1's and SBR them and pay the taxes so I can put proper stocks on them and only 2 tax stamps is better than having to pay for 4.
I also believe that the BATFE is overreaching their authority but I can't afford to be the test case to find out. I'm too old and too pretty to do well in Club Fed.

With the brace that gun will blow a lung out. Remove the brace and it becomes a much safer pistol.