Brace or stock?

[FlSwampRat]

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but my question is this:
At what point does an arm brace become a shoulder stock? Is it length? Is it the strap to wrap a forearm?

 

[AK103K]

Has that ever been put in writing by the ATF?

At this point, it seems to be moot, as, as of this moment anyway, you can shoulder a brace.

 

[rodinal220]

A brace is a brace and a stock is a stock, according to BATFE. Make the NFA silliness go away or gut most of it and we wont have these debates.

 

[Deus Machina]

Design.
Appropriate length and shape intended for your shoulder, and not to use for forearm? Stock.
Designed to slip an arm through or strap on? Brace.
Of course it's all silly and should have clear distinctions, and IMO is going to bite someone the next time the ATF gets a wild hair, but that's the distinction as I see it.

 

[labnoti]

It has to do with the "intent" of the device's design or modification. If it was designed or modified with the intent to be used on the shoulder, then it qualifies as a rifle stock. BATFE officially opined that merely using it on the shoulder does not in itself change the design such that it becomes a stock. Here it is in writing:

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/atf-letter-march-21-2017.pdf

Note that this is a reversal of an earlier "open letter" where they opined that merely shouldering a brace changed the design. You'll find that letter floating around and should know it's been superceded by the letter linked above. The above letter is written to SB Tactical (whom I believe to be the initial manufacturer of braces) but I've linked SIG's site because SB's requires an email signup to download it.

Also note that these are the official opinions of BATFE Acting Chief and Assistant Director. As such, they clearly establish the current BATFE's intentions with regard to prosecution. Because of they are publicized, following their guidelines would be safe practice to avoid prosecution and a reasonably good defense should one be prosecuted, but these opinions are not the same as a preceding ruling from a court (a precedent), and neither of those is the same as a more explicit statute making it clear what is and is not legal. It would be fairly easy for a future BATFE to simply change their opinion and then provided they publish a new one, this letter is worthless. A precedent would be more enduring, but someone would have to suffer through court to get it.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Has that ever been put in writing by the ATF?

The reason I'm asking is I have found no answer to this plowing through their writings, which, admittedly after a bit tends to sound in my head like the adults in the Peanut cartoons. "Mwah wah wah wah."

At this point, it seems to be moot, as, as of this moment anyway, you can shoulder a brace.

Oh, I know, I shoulder the brace on my Extar quite nicely. The issue comes in when you have a pistol and want to add a brace or rig a brace, like on a Draco, for example, so the sights are actually usable.
I want to be able to answer customers' questions logically and correctly so they don't accidentally create an SBR by going beyond whatever the heck they consider a brace to be.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Design.

Of course it's all silly and should have clear distinctions, and IMO is going to bite someone the next time the ATF gets a wild hair, but that's the distinction as I see it.

I agree about your distinctions but it is exactly the butt bite I'm trying to be able to guide a customer away from happening. The question hasn't come up.... yet....
And it's not so much the ATF getting the wild hair, it's the politicians pandering to an uneducated-about-guns public.

 

[AlexanderA]

The whole "arm brace" thing is a workaround, like bump stocks. It's just a matter of time before it's regulated / legislated out of existence. It might not be wise to spend much money on such things.

AR "pistols" are not really pistols. Another workaround.

If you want an SBR, apply for a stamp and get a real SBR. And do so before that door closes as well.

 

[Texas10mm]

The whole "arm brace" thing is a workaround, like bump stocks. It's just a matter of time before it's regulated / legislated out of existence. It might not be wise to spend much money on such things.

AR "pistols" are not really pistols. Another workaround.

If you want an SBR, apply for a stamp and get a real SBR. And do so before that door closes as well.

It's not a workaround. It's a brace. It's entirely within the law. No one is trying to skirt the law, they are complying with the law as written.

 

[FlSwampRat]

It's not a workaround. It's a brace. It's entirely within the law. No one is trying to skirt the law, they are complying with the law as written.

That's what I am trying to find out, exactly what is written in the law? What is the legal differentiation between a brace attached to a Draco (legal) and a stock (illegal) besides years in a federal pen?

 

[P5 Guy]

Guys at my gun club shoulder Mare's Leg rifle/pistol or whatever they are.

 

[SharpDog]

Well, having absolutely zero information on the subject except that I own them. My guess would be a brace is used to brace your arm and hence must have a strap or device to effect the arm as support of the weapon. On the contrary, a stock would be designed to butt against the shoulder and so have the proper length and a butt plate or pad.

 

[berettaprofessor]

I'm avoiding the question entirely by simply shooting my pistols with the buffer tube (covered by a little polyfoam) against my cheek. With 300BO or 223, you don't need either a stock or brace for decent shooting stability. On the downside, I suppose I could be in a little more danger if there is a catastrophic failure while my face is that close to the receiver, however....

 

[OrangeCat]

Standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer I am just a guy on the internet who's profile pic literally says 'Derp'.

From my understanding/perspective the problem seems to be that there is no real legal definition of a pistol stabilizing brace from Congress, merely a regulatory one from the ATF. So probably the most sound advice you can give is to make sure that you research and keep current with ATF letters and guidance to manufacturers of such devices.

The whole thing is rather unsatisfactory and the law really needs to be revisited by Washington but I wouldn't place any money on it.

Again just to reiterate 'Derp!'

 

[Sistema1927]

Well, having absolutely zero information on the subject except that I own them. My guess would be a brace is used to brace your arm and hence must have a strap or device to effect the arm as support of the weapon. On the contrary, a stock would be designed to butt against the shoulder and so have the proper length and a butt plate or pad.

Your guess would be wrong. The KAK Shockwave braces don't have a strap. They are designed to lay against the side of the arm. https://www.kakindustry.com/shockwave

 

[Sistema1927]

I'm avoiding the question entirely by simply shooting my pistols with the buffer tube (covered by a little polyfoam) against my cheek. With 300BO or 223, you don't need either a stock or brace for decent shooting stability. On the downside, I suppose I could be in a little more danger if there is a catastrophic failure while my face is that close to the receiver, however....

Your face should be close to the receiver, just as I was taught in Basic Training with my nose up against the charging handle of an M16A1.

 

[Texas10mm]

It's a brace if it has a letter from the ATF calling it a brace.

 

[Charlie Horse]

If I recall correctly, the language of fired from the shoulder was dusted off and recycled here, but I haven't seen it in awhile. FWIW, if anything else becomes banbait, I see these going away before silencers. Much easier and wouldn't take legislation...

Am I the only one who things shouldering them is VERY uncomfortable?

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Am I the only one who things shouldering them is VERY uncomfortable?

Nope. I've shot a couple and as a tall guy with long arms they are not practical for me as is. With a correct fitting stock they would probably be fine but then you're in SBR territory.

Heck with my build a standard length AR feels pretty small and plenty maneuverable.

 

[dogtown tom]

A brace is a brace and a stock is a stock, according to BATFE.....

ATF doesn't define either term in its regulations.

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but my question is this:
At what point does an arm brace become a shoulder stock? Is it length? Is it the strap to wrap a forearm?

At the point the NFA Branch issues a letter on what was submitted for a determination.
Currently there is no published criteria on what makes a brace a brace.

….. It would be fairly easy for a future BATFE to simply change their opinion and then provided they publish a new one, this letter is worthless...

Yup.

.....AR "pistols" are not really pistols...

Federal law disagrees. The definition of pistol hasn't changed since 1934.

It's a brace if it has a letter from the ATF calling it a brace.

Yup

 

[Charlie Horse]

I once considered an SBR, then I realized that $200 fir what I had in mind simply wasn't worth it.

 

[AlexanderA]

FWIW, if anything else becomes banbait, I see these going away before silencers. Much easier and wouldn't take legislation...

That's right. Suppressors are in the law. Arm braces are just the product of a convoluted series of ATF rulings. Those rulings can be superseded administratively to ban them entirely.

That's going to be low-hanging fruit for the first antigun administration to come to power. Or even for a not-so-antigun administration, like the current one (the first time there's a crime involving one).

 

[pdsmith505]

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but my question is this:
At what point does an arm brace become a shoulder stock? Is it length? Is it the strap to wrap a forearm?

The ATF has issued private letters to manufacturers indicating a magic number of 13.5" for LOP before they consider a "brace" to be a stock.

There was even a case brought by the ATF against a guy who added a cane tip to a "cheek rest" bringing it over the magic number (if you measure wrong). In a surprising turn of events, the Government lost.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

 

[jmorris]

I once considered an SBR, then I realized that $200 fir what I had in mind simply wasn't worth it.

That’s how I was, then time passed and I spent $200 taking the wife out for a fancy dinner. At that point I realized I could afford to buy things I wanted to enjoy at that price and not even think about it.

 

[MistWolf]

The following posts are typical of what I hate about gun forums-

The whole "arm brace" thing is a workaround, like bump stocks. It's just a matter of time before it's regulated / legislated out of existence. It might not be wise to spend much money on such things.

AR "pistols" are not really pistols. Another workaround.

If you want an SBR, apply for a stamp and get a real SBR. And do so before that door closes as well.

That's right. Suppressors are in the law. Arm braces are just the product of a convoluted series of ATF rulings. Those rulings can be superseded administratively to ban them entirely.

That's going to be low-hanging fruit for the first antigun administration to come to power. Or even for a not-so-antigun administration, like the current one (the first time there's a crime involving one).

...if anything else becomes banbait, I see these going away before silencers. Much easier and wouldn't take legislation...

Americans catch a break from the bureaucracy and are given room to exercise our liberties without having to worry about the heavy boot of oppression come crashing down on our necks and there are people who do nothing but pass off apocryphal doom and gloom as wisdom. They cry "Don't be free! Be safe instead!" Safe from what? No one is even close to being in danger of being arrested for using an arm brace. There was one case where an over zealous prosecutor tried to make a case, but other than that, braces aren't on the radar. Neither are SBRs or SBSs.

If braces ever become the center of attention, we will lose them for the same reason we lost "bump" stocks. No one would fight for them and the justifications for not doing so are weak- "nothing but a work around the law", "no self respecting American should have one", "makes us look bad", "not for me". We are so stupid, we invent justifications to ban our freedoms. We're doing the dirty work for the tyrants.

Go ahead and wring your hands instead of exercising liberty. Don't push back. When we are prisoners in a nation that has become prison, you can take pride in the fact your predictions of doom and gloom came to pass because you chose to be safe instead of free. As for me and mine, we choose liberty. We will exercise our rights as we see fit as a reasonable men and women of this great nation. The more Americans push back and exercise their freedoms and liberties, the stronger we become and the harder it is for the statists to subject us to their tyranny.

Wring your hands and shy away from your liberties, if you must. It's your choice. But know that it has long passed the point of reasonable caution and is now nothing but acquiescence to submission.