Who else is caught in the pistol arm brace fiasco?

[A10]

Follow the first line in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy...."Don't Panic". No one really knows what's happening here, while the ATF is clear on their intent (a petulant reaction to the bump stock ruling IMO) we do not know what the actual outcome will be.

 

[LVSteve]

So yes, what you wrote is correct, the date that matters it's the date of publication in the Federal Register. But things won't change from this "final rule", won't they?

Maybe the Federal Register won't be published any time soon as a savings measure given the debt ceiling crisis.

 

[ladder13]

Didn’t take long for Silencer Shop to raise their print card fee from $15 to $40.

 

[Duckford]

I'm probably already on a quite a few lists.

That picture was already posted on the internet, here and elsewhere, and until 120 days after the publication of those regs they are perfectly legal according to prior ATF directives. I am an NRA Endowment Life Member, and SAF Life Member. I have a suppressor in "NFA jail", and I buy ammo online using a credit card. I have, or have had, CCW permits in three states. I have filled out numerous 4473's. I belong to this, and several other firearms BBS's.

How many more lists can they put me on?

I know I'm probably well on the radar. Pretty sure they know who I am.

The general point is, when you are thinking over your options during this time, you can do so quietly and with good judgement and discretion.

I remember a guy on the M14 forum who just built rifles because he enjoyed it, posted pictures of dozens of rifles in his living room. I'm impressed, I rather like his craft and work. But, one can think about how good the photo is, posted online and available to anyone, if more gun control starts to come down.

Out there is some fellow who has 10 of these pistols with pistol braces and has posted videos and photos of them before. Fine. That is his right, and he is breaking no laws.

But, when this hits the register, one has to question if the wisest thing to do at this point is start making long winded internet posts of"What am I to do with my 10 pistol and pistol brace combinations, woo is me" with endless time stamped pictures and serial numbers being bandied about.

Perhaps he is wiser to not list that he has specific weapons and such quantities with such detail, and he can quietly think about how he will comply with the law. Perhaps that will be better for him.

There is being on the radar in general, and then there is making suspicious comments that might get them to come pay you a visit for a specific reason, which is completely different.

 

[Racer X]

The purpose of the pictures is to establish proof that you are in possession of an SBR (by the new definition).

and since they can't possibly complete all the background checks in 88 days, they automatically will fail you since they don't have an answer yet. HOWEVER, you just sent them your name/address, finger prints, and photographic evidence that you have an unregistered SBR. Instant felony.

It's A TRAP!

do some serious research before you decide. A GOA lawyer talked to ATF agents at ShotShow and was told this would automatically trigger law enforcement action by the ATF.

It might not be the bureaucrat's intent, but the enforcement side would have to respond as required.

 

[BC38]

Yup. I would suggest the wisest course is to choose to be the grey man and "un-brace" any braced pistols you own, give the braces to friends or family you trust who do NOT own any AR-15 style firearms. Then just sit back and wait and see how it all shakes out. Possession of the pistol OR the brace are both legal - as long as you aren't in possession of BOTH.
Since a buffer tube is an essential functional component of an AR pistol, I don't see how they can call it a "brace or other rearward protruding accessory that can be used as a stock".
So that seems to me like it would be the most prudent course of action for people who own a braced AR pistol.
At least until we get a better sense of how this is all going to pan out.

 

[ladder13]

…..,,

do some serious research before you decide. A GOA lawyer talked to ATF agents at ShotShow and was told this would automatically trigger law enforcement action by the ATF.
…….

Link? I see nothing on the GOA website. I am a member and received no email.

 

[Tom K]

Link? I see nothing on the GOA website. I am a member and received no email.

There's a post on the topic in the 2A Forum section:
IMPORTANT, MUST WATCH VIDEO on new ATF rules on pistol braces

 

[Grayfox]

The only gun I own with a brace is an Extar EP-9. 6.5" barrel in 9mm. Not exactly SBR stuff. I'm just gonna take the brace off of it when I have to.

This rule doesn't take effect until its listed in the National Registry. I don't believe that has happened yet. There are already multiple lawsuits filled. So who knows when it'll actually take effect? This could drag on for several more years.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act.

Possession of the pistol OR the brace are both legal - as long as you aren't in possession of BOTH.

Most people upgrade their AR15 rifle to a nicer stock & keep the old one.

So since they're saying you have to destroy the AR pistol brace, or remove it from the AR pistol's location, then logically wouldn't it would be just as illegal to have a spare/take-off AR15 rifle stock on the premise too?

And if you already have a AR15 rifle are they then going to say it's stock could potentially be removed & used on the AR pistol making it a SBR & is thus illegal to have them together at the same location?

.

 

[BC38]

Most people upgrade their AR15 rifle to a nicer stock & keep the old one.

So since they're saying you have to destroy the AR pistol brace, or remove it from the AR pistol's location, then logically wouldn't it would be just as illegal to have a spare/take-off AR15 rifle stock on the premise too?

And if you already have a AR15 rifle are they then going to say it's stock could potentially be removed & used on the AR pistol making it a SBR & is thus illegal to have them together at the same location?

Not if the pistol has a pistol buffer tube that isn't compatible with a stock.
The pistol tube is JUST a smooth tube. No lugs on the bottom to keep a stock from spinning around or sliding forward-backward.
When you remove the brace, unless it was mounted on the plain smooth tube, you'll need to remove and replace the tube with it.
If you have a pistol with a rifle buffer tube installed AND a spare stock lying around, then yes, they could potentially charge you under the guise "constructive intent" - just like if you have a pistol with a pistol tube AND a brace in your possession.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

If so then they'll need to define that as well as if you already have an AR15 rifle with a full stock attached that could be used on the AR pistol.

.

 

[marinevet]

I said this in a thread earlier today........no replies........

What the difference in a modern AR pistol, with a brace, and a S&W 320, which is a pistol with a removable stock........... would that now be considered a short barreled rifle.....or is the ATF only interested in the dangerous "black rifles"...........let me know.......

 

[BC38]

I said this in a thread earlier today........no replies........

What the difference in a modern AR pistol, with a brace, and a S&W 320, which is a pistol with a removable stock........... would that now be considered a short barreled rifle.....or is the ATF only interested in the dangerous "black rifles"...........let me know.......

Sorry, I never saw your question.
They have already dealt with these antiques with removable stocks. IIRC they are grandfathered.
Same for the WWII Lugers and HiPowers with the butt stock attachments.
Of course if they are allowed to reverse their previous ruling and definition on pistol braces, who's to say they can't reverse their earlier ruling and definition on these old ones too?
Hell, if this travesty is allowed to stand what would keep them from reversing any or all rulings, definitions, and guidance that they have issued in the past?

 

[Racer X]

If so then they'll need to define that as well as if you already have an AR15 rifle with a full stock attached that could be used on the AR pistol.

.

It is obvious that those who crafted the "rule" never thought of the myriad of what ifs that millions of owners can figure out.

 

[Racer X]

Sorry, I never saw your question.
They have already dealt with these antiques with removable stocks. IIRC they are grandfathered.
Same for the WWII Lugers and HiPowers with the butt stock attachments.
Of course if they are allowed to reverse their previous ruling and definition on pistol braces, who's to say they can't reverse their earlier ruling and definition on these old ones too?
Hell, if this travesty is allowed to stand what would keep them from reversing any or all rulings, definitions, and guidance that they have issued in the past?

My former next door neighbor had the full Luger kit in .30 with drum mag, shoulder stock, original receipt from the German sporting goods store that sold it in 1918. He also has the ATF letter, hand typed from 1973 stamped and signed with his ser# on it stating it is grandfathered. Like to see a 49 year old grandfathered pistol lawsuit, based on political whims.

 

[K Frame Keith]

Well, I really didn't think that the ATF would have the cojones to change their minds for the fourth time and ban the use of pistol arm braces...they're legal, they're not legal, they're legal, they're not legal. Anyway, now I've got to either remove the arm brace from my SIG MPX or register it with the ATF within 120 days or basically I become a felon. I like a stock on the MPX, so I've decided that I will register it, and I have gone online and set up an account with ATF eforms. At least the AG won't make me pay the $200 tax fee! Besides, once my MPX is registered as a SBR, I can legally put on a real collapsible/folding rifle stock. I know, I'm breaking the NRA's and 2A rules to fight back, but I don't care if ATF knows that I have this one firearm. With my ATF eforms account, I can also quickly register a suppressor (or suppressors) in the future. LOL, please no hate letters! Thoughts?

If I owned one, which I absolutely do not, I’d remove the brace and keep the pistol. I’d panic, and cut the brace into several pieces and drop it thru my food disposal. Just to stay in compliance with federal law.
Then, if the rule were reversed…again… I’d buy an exact replacement from an anonymous vendor at a garage sale to replace the one I lawfully disposed of. Just sayin.

 

[10mmauto]

If I owned one, which I absolutely do not, I’d remove the brace and keep the pistol. I’d panic, and cut the brace into several pieces and drop it thru my food disposal. Just to stay in compliance with federal law.
Then, if the rule were reversed…again… I’d buy an exact replacement from an anonymous vendor at a garage sale to replace the one I lawfully disposed of. Just sayin.

As Sheldon would say, "Is that sarcasm?" Hahahaha.

 

[BC38]

It is obvious that those who crafted the "rule" never thought of the myriad of what ifs that millions of owners can figure out.

Par for the course. Seems like that's how legislators and regulators operate - they make rules and laws without fully thinking it all through.
If the ATF had really thought the whole thing through 10 years ago when braces were first submitted to them for review they wouldn't have approved them and we wouldn't be in this mess now.

 

[BC38]

My former next door neighbor had the full Luger kit in .30 with drum mag, shoulder stock, original receipt from the German sporting goods store that sold it in 1918. He also has the ATF letter, hand typed from 1973 stamped and signed with his ser# on it stating it is grandfathered. Like to see a 49 year old grandfathered pistol lawsuit, based on political whims.

You would think that could never happen - BUT, with the exception of that letter being 50 years old versus all the HUNDREDS of letters the ATF gave manufacturers approving their braces being less than 10 years old, what's the difference? If they can reverse their position from 10 years ago that affects MILLIONS of people, what is to keep them from reversing a decision that is 50 years old that affects a few thousand people (or less)?
The answer is NOTHING - if the current reversal is allowed to stand. That is why this whole thing is so dangerous - because of the precedent that it sets.
5 years ago it was bump-stocks, now it's braces, what will it be tomorrow?