FL Congressman says ATF planning to ban pistol braces

[mjsdwash]

Following the law is not a loophole. We don't fine people for using the crosswalk, because its a workaround for jaywalking.

 

[bearcreek]

Following the law is not a loophole. We don't fine people for using the crosswalk, because its a workaround for jaywalking.

That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.

 

[cougar1717]

I like the pistol brace, and it is not a loophole, but it is a gray area and has been since it debuted. It garnered enough attention when it was simply an AR pistol add-on. While it didn't help that many asked the ATF to define the product, a ruling was inevitable. Even the ATF's rulings have waffled on the subject. That's how gray it is. Remember the time period when it was legal to own, but not to fire from the shoulder? At least that was remedied.

If I were in their shoes, the thing I would see is that this product has evolved. Firearm manufacturers made a whole firearm segment of "PDW's" now, like the Ruger AR-556 pistol, PC Charger, the CZ Scorpion EVO, the Sig MPX K, Copperhead, Saint Edge PDW, etc. The vast majority of those purchasing braced pistols (or pistols that are able to be easily braced) are not those who require a brace and would not be able to use the firearm without it. The vast majority of people are not using the functionality of the brace and putting their arm through it to use the firearm one handed. The vast majority of purchasers are simply shouldering the braced pistol and using it as a stock.

I'm not arguing for or against, here. I'm just trying to explain why they may feel that something needs to change.

It all goes back to the same problem that was mentioned earlier. The pistol brace is a workaround to create a firearm that is functionally very similar to a firearm regulated by the NFA. We can self- identify it however we want. People are functionally using them the same way one would use a SBR. Additionally, the ATF sees that manufacturers are making money on this PDW segment of firearms and if the classification were changed to NFA SBR instead of braced pistol, that would net them revenue.

In spite of all the character assassination comments, I can understand why they would review the ruling. They will go back to the original claims of the product and yes, it is a mess of spaghetti. I don't have the answer. Do you have to be an amputee or have a doctor's note? - IDK. But if the IRS can go back years and review your returns, the ATF can surely go back and review their rulings.

 

[Texas10mm]

1. Braces were never illegal.
2. They aren't a "work around" or a "loophole" or a "gray area". They are fully within the law.
3. Braces aren't used on rifles. They are used on pistols.
4. Do you REALLY want the ATF in the business of telling you how you can hold your firearm? If you do then you're going to be in for a HUGE shock.
5. As has been stated, we all hang together or we hang separately. I get it, a braced pistol isn't your cup of tea. but if it's braced pistols today then it's coming to your lever action sooner rather than later.
6. ALL gun laws are infringement. The sooner y'all realize that the better.
7. Nothing makes me sicker than hearing a gun owner say "I support the Second Amendment....but".
8. Allowing the ATF to change horses in midstream is going to do NOTHING BUT HURT US.
9, You can be damn sure the next Leftist President is going to try and "bump stock" all semi-auto firearms. Hell, they've already said so and have taken the first steps in some states.
10. Calling a brace a stock doesn't make it one, no more than calling a pile of dog crap a cake makes it taste better.

 

[Texas10mm]

That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.

Handguns were to be included in the NFA, short barreled rifles and shotguns were put in to prevent people from turning them into handguns. Due to lobbying by Smith and Wesson and Colt handguns were removed but the short barreled stuff wasn't.

 

[bearcreek]

Handguns were to be included in the NFA, short barreled rifles and shotguns were put in to prevent people from turning them into handguns. Due to lobbying by Smith and Wesson and Colt handguns were removed but the short barreled stuff wasn't.

I'm aware of that, hence the "among other things" in parentheses in my statement.

 

[12Bravo20]

We need to stand together and fight any and all laws/regulations that infringe on our rights. It shouldn't matter if you don't own or don't like a certain type of firearm.

The way that rifles with collapsible stocks are measured vs how pistols with braces are measured is very confusing and makes little sense. Collapsible stocks are measured fully extended while braces do NOT count towards OAL since they are considered an accessory.

Example is my Kel-Tec CMR 30. It is a rifle because the barrel is at least 16" and OAL is over 26" when extended. With the stock collapsed, the CMR is only 22.75" OAL. My AR pistols with 10.5" barrels are 26.5" OAL from end of buffer tube to end of barrel but cannot have a stock because of the barrel being less than 16" OAL. The brace does not count for OAL at all, the only thing that matters with braces is if the length of pull from the end of the brace to trigger is greater than 13.5". If length of pull is over 13.5" then it is considered a stock.

We have had many discussions here about braces and OAL of pistols along with VFG vs AFG and how each effects the other as far as being legal. Yes the laws are very confusing.

What I am getting at with all my rambling is that we need to all stick together and fight any regulation that infringes on our rights. I never owned a bump stock but still wrote plenty of emails fighting the ban on them. Both of my AR pistols have braces and I will keep sending emails as needed to fight any bad regulations/bans. It boils down to the "Domino Effect", they will start with one type of firearm first and then keep going until all firearms are banned. We cannot let that happen.

 

[LiveLife]

Think they are going to go after pistol braces now?

So what will disabled persons and those with physical weakness use to stabilize their shooting arm?

What is a home owner, perhaps a veteran, with one arm to do for home defense or recreation? I could see ADA being a factor on this one.

My bet is ATF banning stabilizing brace is DOA, but it sure will fire up the AR-style "pistol" owners.

From Sig Sauer - https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace.html

"The SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace is a shooter's aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.

... This veteran-designed and U.S.-manufactured accessory enhances accuracy and reduces felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

... The Pistol Stabilizing Brace uses the operator's forearm to provide stable support, thereby minimizing accuracy-robbing spin and shift. A flexible cuff with two adjustable nylon straps allows the SB15 to be custom fit to any user.

* ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching the SB15 to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control."​

 

[AlexanderA]

OK, let's cut to the chase. The whole NFA needs to be repealed, or drastically curtailed. How do we go about doing this? It seems to me that things like bump stocks and pistol braces are "half-fixes" that satisfy some people, but by the same token legitimize and cement the underlying scheme of the NFA, thereby making its repeal less likely. This is what "safety valves" do -- they make what's at root a bad law more acceptable. For many years, people could own a new machine gun by jumping through a few hoops, paying the tax, and registering it. And prices of MGs remained low. This was a "safety valve" that tended to squelch complaints against the NFA. The chorus of outrage only started when the Hughes Amendment closed that "loophole."

 

[badkarmamib]

The flat taking of our rights away should be exploited, worked around, parried, countered and looked upon with disgust.

Rather than pushing hard for changing the rules for SBRs, people were lazy and half-assed a workaround. Now that the lazy loophole is potentially going away, people are suddenly realizing that their half-assed solution wasn't so great.

Imagine if 700,000 x $200 braces = $140000000 was used to overturn stupid gun laws.

This sums up my point. 16.1" barrel? Fine. 15.9" barrel? Welcome to Club Fed, Terrorist. Bump stocks were seen as a useless novelty by too many (myself included), and thrown under the bus to protect the rest (though I fought {weakly, admittedly} to keep them legal). Now, they are back for the next bite. It is tiring trying to fight the stupidity of the laws, it is easier to find workarounds, but eventually, they will come after them, as well. There needs to be a different strategy. I just want to eat my damn cake in peace.

 

[MedWheeler]

badkarmamib writes:

Also, I can leave the state with my pistol without having to inform the ATF first.

I'm missing something here. In the context you were typing, it implies that you cannot leave the state with a rifle without informing the ATF first. Is that a regulation regarding SBR firearms?

 

[old lady new shooter]

^^^I have to agree. Most common usage of the so called "brace" is as a stock. So if a SBR needs a stamp, and a SBR is basically a handgun with a stock, why does just calling a stock on a handgun, a brace, make it legal to own without a stamp?

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the restrictions on SBRs, I'm just sayin' that a handgun with a brace, IMHO, is just a SBR.

Some people use the brace as an arm brace to shoot their pistol one-handed.

 

[Ed Ames]

badkarmamib writes:



I'm missing something here. In the context you were typing, it implies that you cannot leave the state with a rifle without informing the ATF first. Is that a regulation regarding SBR firearms?

Yeah. “
Interstate Movement: If the firearm identified in item 4 is a machinegun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or destructive device, the registrant may be required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) to obtain permission from ATF prior to any transportation in interstate or foreign commerce. ATF E-Form 5320.20 can be used to request this permission."

 

[12Bravo20]

badkarmamib writes:



I'm missing something here. In the context you were typing, it implies that you cannot leave the state with a rifle without informing the ATF first. Is that a regulation regarding SBR firearms?

The requirement is for SBR's. And it is more than just a notice. You must fill out the proper paperwork and submit it to the ATF NFA branch. They must then approve the form before you can legally take your SBR out of the state that it is registered/made in.


Ed types faster than me. LOL

 

[MedWheeler]

Ed Ames writes:

..the registrant may be required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) to obtain permission from ATF prior to any transportation in interstate or foreign commerce.

Would simple, recreational travel to another state be considered "interstate commerce"?

 

[mjsdwash]

That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.

The intention of the NFA was to eliminate the military liquidation of WWI arms stockpiles, as well as the growing pile of modern, functional arms as the arms race of the 1930's was ramping up, without having to give them peacetime funding to keep going, in an effort to undermine the depression era threat of revolution, they type of which had been taking hold all over the earth at that point. The logic of a brace is a way to make an SBR, is the same logic that would say a two handed pistol hold is circumventing the law to create an unregistered AOW, or shooting a shotgun slug is a way to circumvent the law to create an unregistered destructive device. These people have, in writing, declared a shoelace can be a machinegun.

 

[Ed Ames]

Ed Ames writes:

Would simple, recreational travel to another state be considered "interstate commerce"?

It is. I can’t judge whether it should be, but that’s how it’s treated. That’s one of the reasons my NFA activity has been limited to silencers (which aren’t in that list).

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ Okay, thanks. I won't hijack the thread any further.

 

[Demi-human]

Would simple, recreational travel to another state be considered "interstate commerce"?

You mean like hunting?
Yes.

 

[Walkalong]

Shameful to see gun owners calling a pistol brace a sham.

Well, it is a work around, and they know it, confirmed with all the videos mentioned of people using them as a stock. I was shocked it was ever approved.

Laws about 16" uppers with a stock, 10" uppers, and a stock, etc, are silly as crap, but we have to live with them.

 

[Elkins45]

If you read the whole thing it’s clear that ATF is looking at ONE MODEL of arm brace, not the entire category. I just skimmed the thread but I didn’t see where this distinction was discussed. Nothing in the letter implies ATF is showing any interest in arm braces as a whole, just one (curiously unnamed) model that caught their eye somehow.

Maybe the sky isn’t falling after all.

 

[Sistema1927]

A good start would be the abolition of NFA'34, GCA'68, and the rest of the 22k gun control laws.

But, since that isn't going to happen, we take advantage of the flaws in these infringing laws, and continue to exercise our greatly limited freedoms.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

The problem we should all have is the BATF issued a letter stating they were acceptable. 10,000's sold and taxes collected on the sale of them and now they want to change their minds. If any one besides the Feds where to do this no way would it be legal.

 

[old lady new shooter]

the only thing that matters with braces is if the length of pull from the end of the brace to trigger is greater than 13.5". If length of pull is over 13.5" then it is considered a stock.

What would be the legal effect if a person had an adjustable brace that they pinned so that the distance from the end of it to the trigger does not exceed 13.5"?

 

[old lady new shooter]

If you read the whole thing it’s clear that ATF is looking at ONE MODEL of arm brace, not the entire category. I just skimmed the thread but I didn’t see where this distinction was discussed. Nothing in the letter implies ATF is showing any interest in arm braces as a whole, just one (curiously unnamed) model that caught their eye somehow.
Maybe the sky isn’t falling after all.

If one million braces have been sold, and this particular model represents 700,000 of them?