Can someone explain pistol braces

[Ματθιας]

Some are saying it is a "way around". As of now, it is legal. If it is a legal "way around", what is the problem?

 

[andy52]

This is one I built not long ago it's a .300 blackout. The reason for the build was my state has a alternative methods deer season for pistols, muzzleloaders Etc. and this setup will be nice for that. Tomorrow will be the first time trying it. The .300 blackout was designed to be shot in shorter barrels and still have good ballistics.

 

[lrrifleman]

My response will probably earn me a vacation, which I will accept with dignity, since I am walking into it with my eyes open!

Up until this thread, I have viewed my acquaintances here with respect, because they have viewed posts with a reasonably open mind. However, many of the responses here appear to be wrought with tunnel vision.

It is my understanding, the BATFE started to allow the pistol braces on a case by case basis in order to allow disabled individuals (read veterans) to shoot the AR platform. The allowance of the pistol brace was an accommodation for the physically challenged!

Last year (2019) I had the opportunity to fire a braced Sig prototype AR pistol in 9mm at the Adaptive Defensive Shooting Summit. There were a number of my fellow participants that had lost the use of an arm that thoroughly enjoyed shooting the braced pistol. While I have only limited use of an arm, I didn't enjoy the experience. Just because I didn't enjoy the experience wouldn't justify my supporting a call to deprive them of the opportunity to shoot an AR platform arm.

It does appear that pistol braces (as designed) have a place within the shooting community. It allows the disabled to either join, or continue to participate, in the shooting sports. The question that I would pose is, do those that abuse the availability of the pistol brace realize that they are placing in jeopardy the right of the disabled to enjoy the shooting sports or engage in armed self-defense?

 

[diyj98]

However, don't deny me my right to own and shoot a gun configured like this.

I'll go along with that. I've owned a few braces, but not currently. But it shouldn't be mine or anyone else's business if you use a brace, what barrel length your firearm has, what you have screwed on the end, etc.

 

[LPD256]

I have a Sig PM400 pistol with a brace in 300 BLK. I have a Sig MPX that I bought a $200 stamp for and converted to an SBR. I have a suppressor that will work on either gun and has its own $200 stamp. The reason I have them is I enjoy shooting them. They are FUN. If there were no laws and I had more money, I'd have an HK MP5 in full auto. Because they are FUN. I have a $200 tax stamp and suppressor for my S&W AR-15 .22LR. Then again, all my firearms stuff is a hobby. Which is FUN. For me. That's the point.

 

[.357magger]

I'm just not seeing the SC going against congress, or the ATF, here. They wouldn't hear a bump stock or magazine case. They won't even hear an AR restriction case. Several states have those. Why would a brace be different?

The difference is named Gorsich, Kavenaugh. and Comey.

 

[LostintheOzone]

The difference is named Gorsich, Kavenaugh. and Comey.

OK, I'll be watching for the next case that limits states rights or congress to regulate. I hope I'm not dead before it happens.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

On a par with putting a shoulder stock on a pistol. Looks neat, in practice,"turns a good pistol into a bad carbine." This is a good case of what happens when regulatory agencies are in effect allowed to legislate.

 

[BB57]

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.

Let's step back a bit and talk about how ATF lets this stuff get started.

ATF, like most federal agencies, are staffed by a large percent of staff who have legal training - lawyers for the most part, most who who have never practiced law and maybe never taken or passed a bar exam. They go into government because law schools pump out far more lawyers that we can gainfully employ as lawyers, and they *think* that government with its laws and it's rule making is a good use of their legal training. It's not.

The problem is that these legally trained staff almost always have little or no experience in or knowledge of the thing or program that they are regulating. Lacking actual knowledge, and the common sense that comes with that, they revert to a narrow read of the law to try to determine both congressional intent (when there is an absence of sufficient committee notes) when writing regulations and when issuing subregulatory guidance in the form of responses to questions posed to ATF.

In other words when the original question was posed to ATF in the form of "can we attach this pistol brace to an AR-15 pistol?" The story - and it was indeed just a story - was that the straps on the brace would allow someone with a disability to hold an AR-15 pistol with one hand.

ATF determined that handguns are designed to be shot with one hand, and that since the intent of a brace was to allow someone to shoot one with one hand, a brace was allowable on an AR-15 pistol. Even though it looked like a stock, could be used as a stock and in fact was obviously going to be used like a stock.

In short, since it fit with a "narrow read" of the statute and regulations, the legally trained staff at ATF said "sure, it's obviously legal".

Had an ATF staff person with a knowledge of firearms and how they were used been in the approval chain, the common sense logic of "if it looks like a stock, functions like a stock, and will be used like a stock, then it's a stock" would have been applied and the answer from ATF would have been "No. A brace that looks like, functions like, and can be used like a stock, is a stock and makes it an SBR".

Fast forward a bit, ATF realized it had royally screwed up granting approval for pistol braces. So they tried to stuff the genie back in the box by saying that "how a firearm is used can determine its classification". In that vein ATF said "if you shoulder a braced pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches, it becomes an SBR".

There's a problem with that. If the same AR-15 "Pistol" had a barrel over 16", it wasn't an SBR, but it also wasn't a "rifle" because ATF has also said "once a pistol, always a pistol". So saying "once a pistol, always a pistol, unless it's an SBR" is massively lacking in internal consistency across the larger body of regulation. That's one of the fundamental flaws with using a "narrow read of the law".

A second issue is that the "use determines classification" is incredibly hard to enforce. It plays out like this in court.

Prosecutor: So officer, on or about <insert date here> you stated in your report that you observed the defendant fire his braced AR-15 pistol from his shoulder. How far away were you from the defendant?

Officer: 100 yards

Prosecutor: Where were you positioned relative to the defendant?

Officer: At about is 8 o'clock.

Prosecutor: So there's no way you could have observed whether the butt was in contact with the defendant's shoulder or 1/4" in front of his shoulder.

Officer: Well...I guess not.


Consequently, ATF backed off on that very quickly and decided that you could in fact put a pistol brace on an AR-15, and shoot it off your shoulder.

On December 18, ATF published a request for public comments on objective factors surrounding pistol braces and the comments were for the most part not supportive of ATF sticking it's fingers back in that particular pie. Negative responses were also received from key members of congress, clearly signaling "if we want to make pistol braces illegal, it'll be our call, not yours." As a result, ATF pulled the announcement down.

In short, I doubt the braced pistols will be going the way of the bump stock anytime soon.

----

I do however agree with you that braced pistols are functionally the same as an SBR. I don't see that as a problem. The ATF has about 90 people wasting their time approving Form 1s and Form 4s for NFA items that are virtually never used in crimes. Those staff would be far better used tracing leads on people who are in the process of preparing to commit crimes.

SBRs and braced pistols are virtually never used in crimes as they are still too large to effectively conceal and too heavy to carry on an daily basis.

Same with suppressors. It's ironic that European countries that have much stricter gun control than we have in the US, have no issues with people using suppressors.

----

I disagree with you about practicality. AR-15 pistols *without* a brace are certainly impractical. However, with a brace, and a reasonable length barrel ("8 to 12") make great little "carbines". I have one in 9mm Luger and with 115 gr XTPs and a max load of a moderate burn rate powder, I get excellent accuracy (1 MOA) and it's effective out to 200 yards. It makes an excellent truck gun.

Unlike and SBR, it's still a pistol and as such I can carry my truck gun loaded in my truck under the privileges of my concealed pistol permit. I cannot do that with and SBR. I can also take my braced pistol into states that allow pistols and have reciprocity with NC for concealed carry permits, but do not allow SBRs. I also do not have to file paperwork annually to cover states I plan to travel to with an SBR.

That makes a properly configured braced pistol extremely practical - far more so than an SBR.

Below is my 9mm AR-15 carbine with an 8.3" barrel, and a Burris 332. The reticle in the 332 is extremely well suited to a 100 yard zero with convenient hold points out to 200 yards.

 

[Ματθιας]

The question that I would pose is, do those that abuse the availability of the pistol brace realize that they are placing in jeopardy the right of the disabled to enjoy the shooting sports or engage in armed self-defense?

Ok. What does "abuse the availability of the pistol brace" mean, exactly? Please, define "abuse" when:

A - It is currently legal to have a brace on AR and AK type pistols and 590/870 12ga pisitols.
B - It is appears to be legal to shoulder said braced pistols.

 

[Echo40]

The real attraction seems to be that they can be used as a cheap substitute for a proper shoulder stock, thus allowing folks to bypass NFA restrictions on short barreled weapons because a brace on an AR/AR "Pistol" isn't considered a Short Barreled Rifle.

Or at least such has been the impression that I get based on my observations of those who are most enthusiastic towards braces anyway.

Merry Christmas.

 

[CB3]

This is now deep into this thread, but here is a clearly written discussion of the evolution of braces, SBR's and the ATF. Current only to last July, but informative nonetheless less:

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/short-barreled-rifles-vs-pistol-brace/

 

[dbell54]

My petite wife had an opportunity to try one and loved it. She found it fit her much better than an M4, with the shorter "stock" and shorter barrel. She said, "I want one!" I've procrastinated on fulfilling that wish because I could see the handwriting on the wall (as since evidenced by the recent attempted re-ruling by ATF.) I fear that in the near future we will be seeing much more of this chicanery.

 

[rwsmith]

It's an additions....

...therefore it needs to be banned. Right up there with thumb hole stocks in the dangerous gun world.

 

[petepeterson]

...therefore it needs to be banned. Right up there with thumb hole stocks in the dangerous gun world.

It needs to be banned because of the outrageous number of crimes they're used in. I'm sure SBRs and pistol braces have been utilized in more violent crimes than handguns.

It's for the children, after all.

 

[jeffrefrig]

A Glock friend of mine bought one; he has about 19 or 20 Glocks. Anyway, he took it home and it didn't fit any of them, though it was made for Glock, but all his are about 20 years old. The guy at the store said it was for the later generation Glocks. (That's where all I could hear from him was wuh huh wuh !) So he bought a newer Glock so he could use that brace...>$900 later he had a Glock with the brace on it. I held it at his place of work in the parking lot, it seemed kinda weird-feeling. Oh, yeah, the guy sold him a 30-round "round" magazine, too. I could see the attraction only for shooting at a band of marauding crows in my back yard, or pigeons downtown!

 

[jeffrefrig]

Would like to see an ATF Agent fire the 460/500 revolvers one handed, in a useful manner, other than during a surprise Moose attack.
A brace for these handguns, that allows for a shoulder rest, makes perfect sense.

I think that's where one of those Rough Rider .22 revolver carbines would be great, only just adapt the stock a little for the .500 Rev.

 

[Sgt911]

I think that's where one of those Rough Rider .22 revolver carbines would be great, only just adapt the stock a little for the .500 Rev.

I ordered one of those. It showed up missing frame screws. four months later still waiting. They use 9422 patterned stocks

 

[BB57]

Semiautomatic AR with a 16" barrel, classified as a regular rifle.

Semiautomatic AR with a 14.5" barrel classified as a NFA weapon.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel with a welded on 4.5" flash hider classified as a regular rifle.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel and a stabilizer brace classified as a pistol.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5 barrel and a collapsible stock classified as a NFA weapon.

It's all arbitrary and makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense in terms of each and every decision made based on a narrow read of the law.

However, it's that process of using "a narrow read of the law" that creates this kind of massive inconsistency in the overall law as the intent is lost.

The original intent goes back to the National Firearms Act of 1934, when the big issue was gangsters carrying full auto weapons, sawed off rifles, and shot guns, etc.

Clyde Barrow for example was fond of carrying a sawed off M1918 BAR. He only carried to and from the car to the bank, and concealment wasn't an issue. Sawing it off made it slightly handier.

However if we fast forward to anytime in the last 40 years, we find that criminals are just not using weapons that fall under the NFA in crimes in anything other than decimal dust numbers. That's because they are generally too large to conceal well and too heavy to carry all day long.

In that regard, the intent of the law in 1934 and the reasons for it, are no longer valid or applicable.

-----

Let's look at your examples individually:

Semiautomatic AR with a 16" barrel, classified as a regular rifle.

That's based on the criteria established in 1934. That number was picked due to opinion at the time that 16" or longer made it suitably hard to conceal.

Semiautomatic AR with a 14.5" barrel classified as a NFA weapon.

This is based on the 1934 criteria, which was a judgement call at the time. Would 1.5" make a big difference? Probably not. Had the nation been awash in 14.5" Model 94s in 30-30 (i.e had Winchester chosen 14.5" as their standard trapper carbine barrel length rather than 16"), we'd probably have a 14.5" limit rather than 16".

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel with a welded on 4.5" flash hider classified as a regular rifle.

Again the idea is total barrel length of at least 16" and blind pinning or silver soldering a muzzle device on a barrel, (so that it cannot be readily removed with common hand tools) was a legal determination that a permanently attached muzzle device that brought the total length to 16" met the intent of the law (and it does).

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5" barrel and a stabilizer brace classified as a pistol.

As noted above this was based on the ATF deciding that what makes a pistol is designing it to be fired with one hand, and if a brace improves that function it is allowable. Also as noted above the logic used in that narrow read of the law was seriously flawed.

First these "braces" all look a lot like like stocks and can be used like stocks.

Second, the pretense used was that these braces would allow shooters with disabilities to shoot AR-15 pistols. However that ignores the reality that AR-15 pistols are so heavy already that they are not practical for non disabled people to shoot one handed. That was in fact the issue at hand. If you add a brace to an AR-15 pistol, it suddenly becomes massively more practical. The request for the use of a pistol brace had nothing at all to do with disability other than window dressing and using the ADA as a lever to get ATF approval.

But none the less ATF said "yes" using a narrow read of the law that violated the original overall intent of the NFA of 1934.

Semiautomatic AR with an 11.5 barrel and a collapsible stock classified as a NFA weapon.

This so also firmly based in the criteria established in the NFA of 1934, in this case a limit of not less than 26" for overall length of a rifle or shotgun.

That's not even the weird example.

The UZi carbine with a 16" barrel and a folding stock is legal under the NFA given how the ATF requires the measurements to be made. They'll allow a folding stock carbine like the Uzi carbine with the folding stock to be measured with the stock in the fully extended position. It's over 26" in that configuration, but well under 26" when it's folded.

However, if you have an UZI carbine, remove the folding stock and install the older style removable wooded stock, it's suddenly an NFA weapon as the ATF requires the measurement to be made with the stock removed. It's only about 1" shorter than the folding stock version, which is again well under 26" - but ATF rules it as an NFA weapon now, because of the fine print in how they require measurements to be made.

As a result, in order for your wood stocked Uzi carbine to avoid an NFA registration requirement, you need to modify the attachment so that it requires machine screws to be removed to detach the stock. Since you now have to use tools to remove the stock, it's suddenly not an NFA item again.

That's what happens when you use a narrow read of the law and lose sight of the larger intent of the law and/or the lose sight of other differences that have no real distinction.

----

The larger issue however isn't how each of these falls in or out of the NFA of 1934, but rather whether the NFA of 1934 really has any utility any more.

In the first place the NFA allowed for registered NFA items with a $200 tax stamp. $200 in 1934 had the same purchasing power in 1934 as $3884 has in $2020. As written, the $200 was meant to be a significant barrier to people registering NFA items. That was the intent. Over time not raising that dollar amount has undermined the intent.

However, more importantly the NFA of 1934 was designed to prevent NFA weapons from being used in crimes.

In 2020, the reality is that since 1934 there have been only two crimes committed with legally registered NFA weapons and one of those was committed by a police officer using a weapon registered to the police department.

That supports the concept that the size of the tax stamp fee has no bearing on whether they are used in crimes. "Affordability" and the related numbers in circulation have no bearing on the use of legally registered NFA items in crimes.

Even illegal items that are not registered under the NFA are rarely used in crimes. Long guns of any kind account for less than 3% of all homicides. Military style assault weapons are less than 1% of the total, and items covered by the NFA are below 0.1%.

In the rare cases where an NFA weapon is used in a crime, the offender is almost never convicted. That's because any weapons charges usually go away under a plea agreement to get a conviction for the primary offense.

That means that nearly all instances where someone is convicted of an NFA offense are status offenses where the offender came to the attention of law enforcement and/or ATF for other reasons. A DUI and an inventory search of the vehicle for example might turn up an unregistered suppressor. That misdemeanor first DUI is suddenly a major felony that won't go away in a plea bargain for a DUI conviction (that is already in the bag anyway). Most prosecutors are not going to let an NFA violation slide when it's far larger than the crime that got the person stopped by law enforcement.

At some point we need to consider whether it makes sense anymore to have items like suppressors included in the NFA of 1934 when they are not used in crimes, but do have great utility - such as suppressors that reduce noise, protect hearing, and are much more neighbor friendly in rural areas.

It clearly doesn't make sense to criminalize people for status offenses for possessing items that do not get used in crimes.

Let me add an example of how you can come to the attention of law enforcement. We had our home security system activate. It was due to a cat knocking a vase off a mantle and setting off the glass break alarm. My wife had also failed to lock the back door, with the result that the police entered and searched the house. They found a faux silencer sitting on a desk that I had removed from a Colt M4 .22 LR (which still has a 16" barrel length without the stupid looking thing). I arrived before the officers left and they questioned me about my "suppressor". I pointed out it was a faux suppressor drilled straight through with no baffles and effectively extended about 1" past the muzzle as it was a slip over design. Had they been less reasonable or understanding of the difference, or perhaps had I not looked so upstanding or not been vetted with a concealed carry permit, I could have been explaining it downtown while in custody.

 

[Drm50]

I don't pretend to know process of making stuff legal or illegal. Most of this of the wall stuff that has been oked are novelty stuff. Braces, bump stocks the shotgun pistols are toys and I can't see fretting over them. The laws were originally passed to do something for public to see, during the motor bandit era of 1930s. It is my theory that if I person don't shot you with a rifle he's not likely to shot you just because he sawed barrel off. Having said that it worries me that some of these will find favor with bangers and hood rats. That gives ammo to the anti gun crowd. Sometimes I think those rulings are done exactly in hopes of that.