Can someone explain pistol braces

[ACORN]

I'm an old fart so forgive my asking. What's the attraction of these. I've shot only one gun so equipped and to me at least it was a non-event.

 

[PPS1980]

I'm with you on this one. They're not pistols, not really. You can't carry them in any real way as one. I have no problem with folks buying the firearms that light their fire but I don't see the attraction or utility.

 

[kreuzlover]

I think maybe because a lot of folks that have them, use them as a short barrel rifle. At first ATF said it was an offense to do this, then later, they dropped that provision. I have seen folks at the range shooting them from the shoulder. And really, what damn difference does it really make? Most gun laws are really stupid anyway.

 

[LostintheOzone]

They'll be restricted by the ATF shortly so it really doesn't matter what the attraction is. If you have one it will become contraband. If you want one, forgetaboutit.

 

[Marshal Tom]

In short, it was a way to get around the stupid law without having to pay for that tax stamp! I think they are ugly in most cases and impractical but to each his own.

 

[Sgt911]

I think maybe because a lot of folks that have them, use them as a short barrel rifle. At first ATF said it was an offense to do this, then later, they dropped that provision. I have seen folks at the range shooting them from the shoulder. And really, what damn difference does it really make? Most gun laws are really stupid anyway.

Ya, I think ATF finally took the position of "we approved the configuration, we don't care how you hold it". This latest was "OH **** we shouldn't have approved them how can we change this" and they dropped that for now. If you want to hold a pistol against your forehead, so be it.

 

[CalmerThanYou]

So if one were to purchase a nice HK SP5
The options are to shoot it as is with a one point sling.
Expose your self to the .Gov, finger prints, register, and Form 1 the Pistol, adding a stock and officially making it a reg. SBR
Or go the brace option, which keeps the classification as a "pistol" This allows all the travel and carry rights any other pistol has.
The brace allowed for a cheek weld in prior opinions, which of course migrates to the shoulder, which I think was deemed ok depending on later opinions. Confusion seemed to be the result.
Not everyone is down with the form 1 requirements.
Many feel the brace does not make the gun any more or less of a danger to the general public. You know that opens up the whole form 1 vs brace argument which seems only to divide gun owners.

 

[gen3guy]

The intent (?) is to give you extra support when shooting the weapon as a pistol (?). The result is a wannabe SBR. High scores for "cool factor", but otherwise totally impractical. It will go the way of the bump stock with little fanfare.

 

[CalmerThanYou]

^^Comments like That also bring out the Fudd factor.
The I don't have one, or like them so taking them away is fine concept is garbage.
Taking away can cascade to all sorts of things you do care about, real fast.

 

[LostintheOzone]

^^Comments like That also bring out the Fudd factor.
The I don't have one, or like them so taking them away is fine concept is garbage.
Taking away can cascade to all sorts of things you do care about, real fast.

I care about concealed carry and constitutional carry. Those are on the rise in many states. I wouldn't carry a pistol (SBR) even if I had one and I don't think many people do. I've seen a few at my range but never seen anyone shoot them like a pistol, they always use the brace as a stock. Like bump stocks, the popularity of pistols, using rifle cartridges, with braces will probably decide their fate.

Hardly anyone likes to see people driving 100 mph on the freeway, hence speed limits.

 

[Model5]

I was amazed when I built a pistol from gun show parts and a psa lower parts kit for $300. The amazing part was the pistol brace is more comfortable than the standard AR stock, and it keeps me legal to own nothing but a fun gun to take to the range that to SBR would cost almost as much as the gun itself. It’s no different than owning every variety of smith pistol you can find and having a box with tools. It really doesn’t serve any purpose other than to please the owners desire to have something they enjoy to handle and look at.

 

[kreuzlover]

Which is what it's all about! I don't hunt deer anymore, so should I take the position that YOU shouldn't hunt deer either? That's pretty hypocritical of me. I think that if you want an AR pistol with a brace, then by golly you should be able to own one! We better stick together on this, or we will find ourselves hanging separately, to paraphrase Ben Franklin. The administration-to-be doesn't care a tinkers damn about the Second amendment, and will take our guns in a heart beat, and put your butt in prison.

 

[PPS1980]

I care about concealed carry and constitutional carry. Those are on the rise in many states. I wouldn't carry a pistol (SBR) even if I had one and I don't think many people do. I've seen a few at my range but never seen anyone shoot them like a pistol, they always use the brace as a stock. Like bump stocks, the popularity of pistols, using rifle cartridges, with braces will probably decide their fate.

Hardly anyone likes to see people driving 100 mph on the freeway, hence speed limits.

Difference is, driving fast isn't a natural right protected by the Constitution.

 

[kreuzlover]

Driving, PERIOD, is not protected by the Constitution! Driving is a privilege, not a right. Apples & oranges.

 

[Rodan]

As long as people aren't committing crimes, I really don't care what kind of gun they own. All of the NFA restrictions are basically arbitrary.

There's a lot of folks out there who think that 50 year old guns that only hold 6 shots are stupid. Who am I to judge what guns they like?

It's time for all of us to stand together against any infringement of the 2nd Amendment. It's probably going to get bad over the next few years, and have you ever seen the 'antis' satisfied with any 'gun control' they've ever enacted?

Divided we fall.

 

[Pisgah]

Let's get real --- the only real reason the braces exist is as a way around the SBR laws. Now those laws are stupid, granted, but they are the law at this time. Anyone who thought they'd let this loophole stay open forever has no conception of the nature of bureaucracy -- which is never-ending expansion of its power and, most importantly, its budget. If you own an AR15 "pistol" and want to keep it, best you fire off a message to your representative and pray a whole bunch of others do the same.

 

[CB3]

I have one, and I can tell you all, it is practical within its niche. I know a lot of these “pistols” have been sold. If one thinks it’s a range toy, fine. If another folds the brace and drops it in a day pack with some get home supplies and secures it in his truck, so be it.

This weapon is concealable, handles wonderfully with great balance, is easier to hit with accurately than a regular handgun, has high capacity, hits hard, not as inconvenient as a full size carbine/rifle, etc. I’ll take it any day over my 9mm M&P, which I love and carry. But a rifle caliber pistol has many advantages. I can’t think of a personal defense role inside 100 yards it could not solve.

Don’t be judgmental on what you don’t know. Shoot one that’s not a range toy and you may change your mind. However, don’t deny me my right to own and shoot a gun configured like this.

 

[Rodan]

Don’t be judgmental on what you don’t know. Shoot one that’s not a range toy and you may change your mind. However, don’t deny me my right to own and shoot a gun configured like this.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Difference is, driving fast isn't a natural right protected by the Constitution.

How could it be? When the constitution was written there were no automobiles. Nor were there any aircraft, but we have the FAA regulating those.

Braces, as you will soon find out, aren't protected by the constitution either. Sorry if that rains on your parade but it's just a few senate votes away from becoming federal law. Actually, it may not even take that. If ATF rules it, they're gone, just like bump stocks.

The constitution says you can keep and bear arms for your defense. It doesn't say which arms. That ship sailed in 1934 with the Nat'l Firearms Act. We are now coming up on 100 years of federal firearms regulation.

None of this matters what I think about it. What matters is what the new congress and administration thinks about it.

 

[CB3]

What matters is what the new congress and administration thinks about it.

Actually what matters is what the Supreme Court thinks of an intrusive regulation. If the ATF pursues this independent of congress, they must show a compelling reason for infringing a Constitutional right, and one that the ATF previously allowed. That will be a tough row to hoe.

If congressional action tries to override a Constitutional right, the fight will also end up in the SC. The same factors will be in play: compelling reasons for anti-Constitutional laws.

Thank you, Pres. Trump, for giving us a fighting chance in the SC.