ATF brace rule is out

Status
Not open for further replies.
someguy2800 said:
It is quite common practice to use rifle scopes on specialty pistols.

Click to expand...


Now add a protrustion behind that xp100 (such as what would be the case with an AR pistol and pistol buffer tube) and see if we don't have another clarification down the road stating shouldering a pistol buffer tube turns our AR pistols in to SBR's.

Edit: I'm not saying add anything behind the xp100, I'm using it as an example that that won't be on the ATF radar because it has no needed protrusion towards the shooter.

It seems like it only takes a youtuber to misuse an item to create further regulation, so all it will take is for someone to utilized a pistol buffer tube against one's shoulder with a short eye relief scope and all the sudden they will be moving the goal posts again.
 
BreechFace said:
Now add a protrustion behind that xp100 (such as what would be the case with an AR pistol and pistol buffer tube) and see if we don't have another clarification down the road stating shouldering a pistol buffer tube turns our AR pistols in to SBR's.

Edit: I'm not saying add anything behind the xp100, I'm using it as an example that that won't be on the ATF radar because it has no needed protrusion towards the shooter.

It seems like it only takes a youtuber to misuse an item to create further regulation, so all it will take is for someone to utilized a pistol buffer tube against one's shoulder with a short eye relief scope and all the sudden they will be moving the goal posts again.
Click to expand...

This exact scenario is clearly spelled out in the document already. Adding a buffer tube to that xp100 would already make it into a rifle regardless of what optic is on it because they already made it clear in the rules that adding a buffer tube to a gun which does not need one to function will be considered a rearward attachment meant to extend the length in order to be shouldered.
 
To get down to brass tacks, what is being established with this ATF is they will be able to regulate how we can use our firearms now, not just if we are allowed to own them or not, but their use or intended use. We might as well watch "Minority Report" to see how all of this ends.
 
someguy2800 said:
This exact scenario is clearly spelled out in the document already. Adding a buffer tube to that xp100 would already make it into a rifle regardless of what optic is on it because they already made it clear in the rules that adding a buffer tube to a gun which does not need one to function will be considered a rearward attachment meant to extend the length in order to be shouldered.
Click to expand...

If you read my edit, I specifically said I'm not suggesting to do that, what I'm saying is that because of the looks of the XP100's they aren't deemed shoulder-able; but IF they had a buffer tube on the back, like an AR pistol will they will down the road change the rules as both you and me know there will be youtuber's shouldering AR pistols with pistol buffer tubes 121 days after this gets posted to the register.

My discussion is what will come of AR pistols with pistol buffer tubes. Once they start getting shouldered (foregone conclusion) the ATF will likely come back and ban AR pistols, or ban the shouldering of the "required equipment" aka pistol buffer tube, without regard that it is a necessary item for the function of the firearm. That is my point.
 
Well varminterror you too are "cherry picking" since what you highlighted only talks about the rule change in general. What I highlighted goes into more detail. and what I highlighted was also spelled out in the Worksheet 4999 (even though it is no longer being used).

Agree to disagree and move on instead of you wanting to nit pick my posts. If I didn't know any better I would say you have a personal problem with me. And if that is the case, these spit it out so we can move on.
 
someguy2800 said:
There has been many clear interpretations presented, but they are intertwined with the speculations of those that didn't bother to read or understand it.
Click to expand...

This edict is clear, as far as it is constitutional. There is no trust that the ATF will abide by anything that is presented, this is the problem with those who think we can just abide by what is written, it is all subject to interpretation.

If it's clear, please tell me what quantifies too much shoulder-able space on the back of an AR?

As it is so clearly written it is not understood whether a person can put a thin layer of duct tape on top of their pistol buffer tube without creating an illegal SBR.
 
BreechFace said:
If you read my edit, I specifically said I'm not suggesting to do that, what I'm saying is that because of the looks of the XP100's they aren't deemed shoulder-able; but IF they had a buffer tube on the back, like an AR pistol will they will down the road change the rules as both you and me know there will be youtuber's shouldering AR pistols with pistol buffer tubes 121 days after this gets posted to the register.

My discussion is what will come of AR pistols with pistol buffer tubes. Once they start getting shouldered the ATF will likely come back and ban AR pistols, or ban the shouldering of the "required equipment" aka pistol buffer tube, without regard that it is a necessary item for the function of the firearm. That is my point.
Click to expand...

I did see your edit but the answer doesn't change. This is well covered by the rule, you just need to read it.
 
BreechFace said:
This edict is clear, as far as it is constitutional. There is no trust that the ATF will abide by anything that is presented, this is the problem with those who think we can just abide by what is written, it is all subject to interpretation.

If it's clear, please tell me what quantifies too much shoulder-able space on the back of an AR?

As it is so clearly written it is not understood whether a person can put a thin layer of duct tape on top of their pistol buffer tube without creating an illegal SBR.
Click to expand...

A standard buffer tube and nothing more. Anything, and I mean anything that increases the rear surface area larger than that of a standard buffer tube, or extends the length of it in any way could be considered an attachment meant to make it shoulder able. That doesn't mean a little bit is okay, that means none.

I don't have any illusions that they will not change their mind in the future, but anything they want to convict you of, they need to do so in court, and the court is going to base their decisions on what is published. If they want to change their minds in the future they will need to publish their changes. Its not as if the ATF opperates outside of the legal system and they can just hand out go-directly-to-jail cards. They have to publish their rules and defend those rules in courts like every other agency. So it doesn't matter so much how they interpret their own text, but how the courts will interpret it. I'm really doubtful that this will even make it 120 days before some court somewhere punches a hole in it, but that is just speculation.
 
Last edited:
Even though the ATF is no longer using the Worksheet 4999, They have stated in ATF 2021R-08F - Factoring Criteria that they are using the point system in the 4999 for the new criteria. Here is what the 4999 says about peripheral accessories to include scopes. Note again where it states "scopes with eye relief incompatible with one hand fire" . This was incorporated into the new document on page 55

4999 B.png
 
someguy2800 said:
There is an old saying, you can explain it to someone, but you can't understand it for them.

I don't mean that as a dig on anyone, I mean that everyone should read it for themselves.
Click to expand...
There is also an old saying - you always find exactly what you are looking for.
All the comments here make a point about rules that are subject to interpretation.
 
kidneyboy said:
There is also an old saying - you always find exactly what you are looking for.
All the comments here make a point about rules that are subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...

As are practically every law and regulation in existence. It is extremely clear how to remain well clear of this rule. If one wants to try to push the boundaries of the rule to determine how theoretical attachments may be interpreted or how a theoretical weapon that may exist in the future to try to push the boundaries of the rule, that's where you start to get into the factors of consideration that will be decided on a case by case basis. Its really not that complicated to comply with this rule if you want to. Or just don't comply with it, doesn't matter to me..
 
12Bravo20 said:
Even though the ATF is no longer using the Worksheet 4999, They have stated in ATF 2021R-08F - Factoring Criteria that they are using the point system in the 4999 for the new criteria. Here is what the 4999 says about peripheral accessories to include scopes. Note again where it states "scopes with eye relief incompatible with one hand fire" . This was incorporated into the new document on page 55

View attachment 1129798
Click to expand...

Again… more cherry picking and voluntarily removing context from the preceding REQUIRED sections to attempt to prove your falsehood.

05D3D885-7008-4DE5-BED3-383C28896F4F.jpeg

Section III of the proposed - but rejected - “score sheet” ONLY applied if the stipulations of Section I and Section II were in affect, which Sections I and II ONLY applied - which is to say the worksheet in its entirety, by its own definition, ONLY applied - IF an attachment were present on the firearm.

So even in THAT sheet, which is not in affect, an attachment HAD to be present, followed by several other factoring criteria to get two additional layers down into review before short eye relief optics were considered. But by definition of itself by that form, if the attachment did not exist, the score sheet, including section 3, was not applicable.
 
BreechFace said:
One caveat is the ATF specified short eye relief optics are the optics they are essentially stating are only able to be utilized with a "pistol" that is being held in such a way that suggests it is a rifle needing to be held close (i.e. shouldered) to get one's eyes in correct alignment.
Click to expand...

I don’t see any ambiguity here.

The confusion ONLY comes from folks like @12Bravo20 who are convoluting the ATF’s use of short eye relief optics as a secondary factor (or tertiary in the case of the original score card) effectively confirm whether a firearm was designed to be a rifle or not. There has never been any ruling by ATF to suggest that - independently - short eye relief scopes manufacture a rifle, and there cannot be, as a pistol without a stock or any attachment which can serve as a stock (the entire material basis of this current issue in clarifying the definition of a rifle) is not a rifle.

Simplifying this: you see a “No Hunting without written permission” sign, and you see someone hunting behind it. Are they breaking the rules? Not if they have written permission. But if you insist on only reading “no hunting,” then you waste a lot of energy trying to pretend the law says something which it doesn’t.

In EVERY instance of any documentation from the ATF we’ve ever been presented, the short eye relief optic has ONLY been a corroborating secondary (or tertiary) factor in determining if a firearm WITH AN ATTACHMENT WHICH CAN BE SHOULDERED, and has NEVER been presented as an independently determinant criteria.

Why? Because the ATF has been exceptionally consistent that anything without any means of being fired from the shoulder is not and cannot be a rifle. This ruling itself is ONLY a redefinition of what it means for an attachment to be designed for shoulder firing - but without shoulder firing inherent in the design, the scope eye relief isn’t in question.
 
Varminterror said:
I don’t see any ambiguity here.

The confusion ONLY comes from folks like @12Bravo20 who are convoluting the ATF’s use of short eye relief optics as a secondary factor (or tertiary in the case of the original score card) effectively confirm whether a firearm was designed to be a rifle or not. There has never been any ruling by ATF to suggest that - independently - short eye relief scopes manufacture a rifle, and there cannot be, as a pistol without a stock or any attachment which can serve as a stock (the entire material basis of this current issue in clarifying the definition of a rifle) is not a rifle.

Simplifying this: you see a “No Hunting without written permission” sign, and you see someone hunting behind it. Are they breaking the rules? Not if they have written permission. But if you insist on only reading “no hunting,” then you waste a lot of energy trying to pretend the law says something which it doesn’t.

In EVERY instance of any documentation from the ATF we’ve ever been presented, the short eye relief optic has ONLY been a corroborating secondary (or tertiary) factor in determining if a firearm WITH AN ATTACHMENT WHICH CAN BE SHOULDERED, and has NEVER been presented as an independently determinant criteria.

Why? Because the ATF has been exceptionally consistent that anything without any means of being fired from the shoulder is not and cannot be a rifle. This ruling itself is ONLY a redefinition of what it means for an attachment to be designed for shoulder firing - but without shoulder firing inherent in the design, the scope eye relief isn’t in question.
Click to expand...

So everything regarding the above hangs on the statement in this brief that, a part of a pistol required for it's function cannot be considered a shoulderable item.

Got it. So I guess we'll just have people go back to shouldering pistol buffer tubes, no problem. I'll make sure I keep the dust particles off the pistol buffer tube so it doesn't constitute an illegal SBR by creating a shoulderable item.

So why should people go and get their pistol AR's registered as an SBR with all the oversight and restrictions it comes with again?
 
If and existing owner is ok with a bare buffer tube AR pistol, that is any easy option. This is an allowed choice specifically included in the rule with no warnings that it will only apply to certain buffer tube versions. At one point in the rule they specifically state that you do not need to replace your buffer tube.

However, it is pretty obvious that the popularity of most "braced pistols" was that people could comfortably use them "just like a SBR".

Many folks are now effectively admitting that they do not want to "toss the brace" because they will no longer be able to use their guns "just like a SBR".

Unless the courts get involved (I hope they do), it looks like you will have to choose.
  • If you want to use an existing braced pistol "just like a SBR", then put up with the pain and register it and get your stamp (unless your state says no). And those who do this for no tax are getting a "gift" they should be thankful for.
  • If you want to use your existing braced pistol without the stamp, you need to toss the brace.
  • If you want to use the gun without a stamp and with a brace, put a 16" barrel on it.
I would love for someone to make a case that the widespread use of "braced pistols" showed that they are specifically "no more threatening" than other readily available guns (high capacity handguns, bullpup 16" rifles). Given their "in common use" status, there is no real (i.e. based on facts) justification for the SBR rules in the NFA. The restrictions have always been "political" and we have seen that the "risk to the public" does not justify the degree of "infringement" to the 2A in the NFA.

Unless the NFA is changed, it requires registration of SBRs. With this law in place, freely using short barreled braced guns "just like a SBR" was kind of nice while it lasted, but not something I am surprised to see taken away.
 
Is this the final document that we will get from eh-Te-ef on pistol brace criteria?

I understand that pistol braces as we knew them attached to sub 16" bbls are poised to become subject to NFA paperwork, that's not hard to understand, but there are a number of things I would like clarification on that the document DEFINITELY doesn't address and make clear, at least not to me and I won't ask in this thread because there seems to be alot of emotion in this thread and this subject in general right now and I dont wan't 6 conflicting answers.

Just curious if the document "as it is" is what's going into the register and will be what we have to refer to
 
BreechFace said:
So everything regarding the above hangs on the statement in this brief that, a part of a pistol required for it's function cannot be considered a shoulderable item.

Got it. So I guess we'll just have people go back to shouldering pistol buffer tubes, no problem. I'll make sure I keep the dust particles off the pistol buffer tube so it doesn't constitute an illegal SBR by creating a shoulderable item.

So why should people go and get their pistol AR's registered as an SBR with all the oversight and restrictions it comes with again?
Click to expand...

A bare carbine or pistol buffer tube has a length of pull of just under 10 inches, which most adults will find very awkward to shoot from the shoulder. I read nothing in the document saying that you cannot shoulder your bare buffer tube though. The rule only covers what a weopon is designed or intended to be used for. You can put your glock against your shoulder and shoot it if you want too, that doesn’t redesign it into a rifle.

I do also want to point out that the functionality of the buffer tube is not an end all. The document specifically states that a functional standard length carbine or pistol buffer tube cannot be considered a stock, but it also explains that length of pull is a consideration to determine if something is intended to be shouldered. They then list as examples the length of pull of various rifles which are intended to be shouldered with lengths of pull ranging from 11 to 15 inches. So for example if you put an A1 or A2 style rifle buffer tube on your pistol, that would extend the length of pull to be comparable to other weopons that are designed to be shouldered, even though it’s a functional part of the weapon.
 
@someguy2800 right, that’s how I understand it.

it just won’t surprise me in the least that this won’t be the last flip-flop on pistol AR’s when shouldering pistol brace buffer tubes of the “legal ATF length” becomes the norm.
 
BreechFace said:
So why should people go and get their pistol AR's registered as an SBR with all the oversight and restrictions it comes with again?
Click to expand...

The answer is pretty simple - because it’s free for 120 days, and because most folks which have been using braced pistols have been doing so to emulate an SBR, and no longer can do so.

The “all the restrictions and oversight” included with NFA items is highly overstated. The “hassle of applying” is highly overstated. I generally have spent more time driving to the sheriff’s office to be printed than any time I have ever spent in actually doing the applications. Most people never leave their own state so they never actually have any restriction at all, and the 5320.20 isn’t terribly burdensome - I make a few hunting trips each year within the same couple of weeks, so I send my 5320.20’s for those trips at the beginning of the year. If I have a surprise trip without 30 days advance notice, I’ll still send it in, sometimes it comes back in time, sometimes I take a different rifle, or I stick on a 16” upper (and previously would swap the stock to a brace to configure as a pistol). Wanna sell it? Take the upper off and sell it as a title 1 “other” which depending upon its original configuration could either be completed as a pistol, or as a rifle, or take off the buttstock and sell it as a legal title 1 pistol, or swap to a $75 16” barrel and sell it as a rifle. Might die someday? Leave it to a beneficiary in your will, the same as you do all other firearms. Guess how often any of that is actually applicable for anyone which owns an NFA SBR…

I got my first NFA item in 2005, and have had absolutely zero “oversight” and no notable “restrictions” which have influenced owning or using them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

someguy2800
  • Locked
New ATF pistol brace ruling
Replies
8
Views
614
Robert
Robert
O
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Direct Link to Stabilizing Brace Ban
Replies
1
Views
512
hso
hso
kje54
  • Locked
ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
12K
kje54
kje54
F-111 John
  • Locked
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]
Replies
9
Views
770
GEM
G
SharpDog
  • Locked
Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
hso
hso
Back
Top