AR pistol braces? What's going on?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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 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...F-5320.1-8.31.2022-Pistol-Brace-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
 
Last edited:
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.

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”.
 
True or not.


Alleged document uncovered by ammoland.

https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content...F-5320.1-8.31.2022-Pistol-Brace-Amnesty-2.pdf

Read more: ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

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

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 :rolleyes:
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 :D).
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 :D
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
"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 a 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.

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.
 
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.

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 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.

Clearly, that was NEVER the case, not ever.
 
Some NFA clarifications

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.


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.
 
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 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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.


Like I said -- self-invented idiocy.
 
Back
Top