FL Congressman says ATF planning to ban pistol braces

[GEM]

Let's nol go off on other groups who succeed in defending their rights. Not relevant to this discussion.

 

[12Bravo20]

Let's nol go off on other groups who succeed in defending their rights. Not relevant to this discussion.

Like I said before: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Just because you don't like or agree with what type of firearm someone else owns doesn't mean you throw them under the bus just to save your favorite class of firearms. Some of the comments in this thread are proof that we ARE our own worst enemy at times.

 

[Demi-human]

I like braces. I like how things are right now. There are options. I like options, they are more inclusive than just one thing that may or may not fit. We need to have something for everyone. Each with benefits and restrictions.

How do we keep braces? Or this specific model? Why this model? (Though the vague article didn’t specify or I missed it with my guess.)

The unenthusiastic reality is, it’s not “We have braces or we get rid of SBRs”, it’s “QUIT TAKING AWAY OUR OPTIONS!”.

How do we get them to stop taking our options away?
How do we push back?
Do we all trash braces and “Pay The King” for registrations and short rifles and “respectfully requesting the privilege of hunting in the neighboring state” on a whim and invitation of a friend.

Or do we have options?

Or do we lose one?

I know what I want, but logic isn’t in style these days.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, too many here are log-jammed on brace=(short) stock.

When the braces were submitted to ATF it's premise was quite clear, a way to help people with disabilities shoot.
That makes it an ADA matter, and the federal government is as bound by ADA as anyone else.
So, when ATF ruled that the braces were legitimate for use by disabled people, that precedent became set in stone.

ADA does not require a person to be disabled (visibly or otherwise) to use ADA-mandated features, equipment, or devices. An able person can walk up a ramp instead of steps. An able person can use anything intended to help the less-able. That precedent is well set in stone at this point. An able person can use a cane, or a walker. any number of things. There's no penalty for taking the elevator instead of the stairs.

So, let's say some politico pressures ATF to change policy for political ends. Well, it would not take $14 million, it'd probably take less than 14¢ to find an ADA attorney (and that's a growing field in the law) to haul ATF into court for denying the less-able their rights.

The fact that some able people use the same product will not enter into the equation.

See, some less-able people can/do shoulder braces, too. You cannot deny a group a thing allowed under law to another group--refer Amendment 14.

Is it "cheating" on the NFA, maybe, if you want to narrowly frame the argument that way. But, that's not what this is about, this is an additive feature that allows more people to use the device. Which is the same as installing a water fountain 8" lower on the wall.

Is it "cheating" the NFA when we weld extensions onto shorter barrels to bring a 14.5" to legal 16"?

 

[Walkalong]

I like braces.

I think it is great as well, I just don't care to own an AR pistol, I'll take mine full size, although I do think it is stupid we can't go under 16' on the barrel without a tax stamp and registration.

 

[LiveLife]

I do think it is stupid we can't go under 16' on the barrel without a tax stamp and registration.

Perhaps it's time for our government to review whether the tax stamp is needed along with review of other items like sound suppressors to prevent hearing damage.

I think it is great as well, I just don't care to own an AR pistol

Like you, I too didn't care much about AR pistols until I started shooting Pistol Caliber Carbines and now appreciate AR based "pistols" for defensive use as advantages are 30+ round capacity (over 15-17 rounds from magazine grip pistols) and higher muzzle velocities, etc.

And I no longer own any bolt action rifles but fully respect the rights of those who own them to enjoy them

 

[Walkalong]

Perhaps it's time for our government to review whether the tax stamp is needed along with review of other items like sound suppressors to prevent hearing damage.

That would be awesome, England hands them out like candy. Just walk in and buy them.

 

[HB]

Like I said before: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Just because you don't like or agree with what type of firearm someone else owns doesn't mean you throw them under the bus just to save your favorite class of firearms. Some of the comments in this thread are proof that we ARE our own worst enemy at times.

Nobody in this thread is saying they think braces should be illegal.

And with that, I’m out! Going to shoot my braced AR pistol from my shoulder and maybe plink a bit with a .22 pistol.

 

[Buzznrose]

I think its cheaper to pay the tax stamp.

May be cheaper, definitely more complicated.

As long as all the stupid rules and expenses are attached to SBR’s, I prefer the pistol option.

 

[12Bravo20]

Nobody in this thread is saying they think braces should be illegal.

And with that, I’m out! Going to shoot my braced AR pistol from my shoulder and maybe plink a bit with a .22 pistol.

Maybe not directly but there a a few posts that question how an AR pistol is a pistol. I stand by my statement that we ARE our own worst enemy at times. Enjoy your braced pistol, I know I enjoy both of mine.

 

[.38 Special]

Oh good grief. Some of you are incredibly determined to see something on this thread which does not exist.

 

[Buzznrose]

Maybe not directly but there a a few posts that question how an AR pistol is a pistol. I stand by my statement that we ARE our own worst enemy at times. Enjoy your braced pistol, I know I enjoy both of mine.

I’ve seen lots of people on other internet sites who almost seem resentful that pistol braces are a thing. Personally, I think some of them are angry they had to pay the tax and play by some stupid rules Big Bro sets.

Same clowns who were against the movement to delist suppressors.

Again, not saying it’s happening here, but it is a real phenomenon.

 

[GEM]

The ADA angle has been explored for other firearm issues by the NRA research group, and according to them, it got them nowhere. If that is true, I don't know. I don't have access to any real documentation. One of their guys told me so

As far as putting the gun to your shoulder, is that legal? Interesting question. We see it all the time. I've seen gun friendly law watch this and not get excited. However, you never know.

 

[Buzznrose]

I think AlexanderA has a point. Anyone who knows about guns and gun laws knows that a pistol brace is a workaround. I always have been surprised that they ever were legal.

Now, there is no reason in the world for them not to be legal, but the feds have not yet asked my opinion on the matter.

If one would consider pistol braces as “workarounds”, they should also consider that the NAF they are getting around to be a law that should never have been codified.

I agree...no reason for a pistol brace to be outlawed...I also feel like a completely operational 10” barrel firearm with a stock, suppressor, verticals grip, and high capacity magazines (Or any individual components) should be a “cash and carry” purchase by any free citizen.

 

[AlexanderA]

Why is the notion an AR can be a pistol a fiction?

Because it's not designed to be fired with one hand. As to the argument that there are ARs in, for example, 9 mm, these are properly classified as "pistol caliber carbines" and not "pistols."

 

[rbernie]

Because it's not designed to be fired with one hand.

Well, virtually every modern example of an "AR" isn't faithful to the design as penned. The basic premise has been altered and modified in many ways (e.g. shorter barrels, railed receivers, adjustable buttstocks) over the years, so finding that the platform has been adapted to function as a pistol should not shock nor offend anyone.

The fact that it does shock some, is, well, shocking in its own right.

 

[AlexanderA]

There have been pistols with similar magazine arrangements e.g. the broomhandle Mauser. There have been large heavy pistols e.g. the Walker Colt.

The difference is that those designs, while ungainly, were originally designed as pistols (i.e., intended to be fired with one hand). The AR-15 was originally designed as a rifle. Even the Vietnam-era short-barrel, telescoping stock carbine (the XM-177) was a bit of a forced kludge job.

The law (quoted above by LiveLife) says "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand."

 

[GEM]

All these things (that go up!!) should be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Go tell it to the Supreme Court = oh, wait, that doesn't work. Sorry for this irrelevant post.

 

[LiveLife]

When the braces were submitted to ATF it's premise was quite clear, a way to help people with disabilities shoot. That makes it an ADA matter, and the federal government is as bound by ADA as anyone else.
So, when ATF ruled that the braces were legitimate for use by disabled people, that precedent became set in stone.

ADA does not require a person to be disabled (visibly or otherwise) to use ADA-mandated features, equipment, or devices. An able person can walk up a ramp instead of steps. An able person can use anything intended to help the less-able. That precedent is well set in stone at this point. An able person can use a cane, or a walker. any number of things. There's no penalty for taking the elevator instead of the stairs.

Very good point. And many gun owners can become temporarily or permanently become injured/disabled simply by breaking a bone or sustaining physical/neurological injury.

As a right handed person, I mostly shoot with right hand but train to shoot with my left hand. If gun manufacturers make pistols with ambi-controls for left handed shooters, I see the additional shooting option as a plus. To me, "pistol stabilizing brace" is an additional shooting option I may or may not need but glad we have that additional shooting option.

As to the argument that there are ARs in, for example, 9 mm, these are properly classified as "pistol caliber carbines" and not "pistols."

GCA/CFR do not mention caliber. So as long as a firearm meets the criteria for "pistol", it is a legal pistol.

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

• a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

• and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

 

[old lady new shooter]

No one is suggesting any manufacturer owns 23% of the market. It was just a "what if" remark for the sake of discussion.

The letter says the ATF wants to ban ONE PARTICULAR MODEL which is on 700,000 firearms in use, and that in total 3 million are in use.

 

[MistWolf]

The difference is that those designs, while ungainly, were originally designed as pistols (i.e., intended to be fired with one hand). The AR-15 was originally designed as a rifle. Even the Vietnam-era short-barrel, telescoping stock carbine (the XM-177) was a bit of a forced kludge job.

The law (quoted above by LiveLife) says "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand."

Does that mean the rifle caliber bolt action pistols that were so popular years ago a notional fiction as well?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Wait a minute everyone ...

Why are members of gun forum pointing out ways a gun accessory should be banned? We should be focusing on reasons why a gun accessory should remain as it benefits all gun owners regardless whether they have one arm or two arms, injury/weakness of arms, medical condition/arthritis, etc.

I believe the "stabilizing brace" was originally meant for gun owners who may have temporary/permanent conditions that would be helped by reasons I listed above including many of us who presently have or will have in the future. And perhaps this was why after ATF ruled in 2015 that shouldering of "stabilizing brace" was not permitted, maybe some pointed out gun owners with physical limitations should have the option to use the "stabilizing brace" one hand, two hand, or even shouldered to have ATF change their ruling in 2017.


How many of us broken bones that needed to be casted?

Let's say you injured your shooting hand/arm. Well, that doesn't mean the criminals will give you a pass and not rob you until you are healed and can shoot with your strong hand/arm. While you recover, I bet the "stabilizing brace" will certainly come in handy when shooting with your weak hand, particularly for home/self defense. And what if the injury becomes permanent?

Many gun owners have visual issues that require the aid of glasses/bifocals/progressives which may be temporary/permanent and use red dot/scopes to help us enjoy our hobby of shooting. I see "stabilizing brace" in the same light. And for those who will be negatively affected by loud indoor gunshot (Which is everyone according to OSHA) and/or cannot actuate the trigger quickly against violent/multiple home intruders/robbers/murderers/rapists, use of sound suppressors and binary triggers should be considered in same light to benefit the home owners/defenders.

So, let's shift our focus of discussion to why the "stabilizing brace" is beneficial to gun owners and why ATF should maintain current ruling.

And if a particular manufacturer was found to have not met the "spirit" of the "stabilizing brace", to me the worst case scenario is a product recall with product revision/update with replacement offered to the customers ... not talk of ban of gun accessory beneficial to gun owners.

As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller case and voiced by many judges and justices in subsequent newer cases that modern gun accessories as product of technological advancement should be protected under the Second Amendment just like First Amendment protecting modern means of free speech like email, text, online forum posts, etc.

Let's all get on the same page to protect our Second Amendment instead of helping the antis take away our modern "arms". And yes, increasing number of judges and justices have called one modern class of gun accessory, the ammunition storage device AKA magazines, "arms" protected under the Second Amendment - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/page-4#post-11275211

"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."​

This wins my vote for outstanding post of 2020. I wish I could put 1,000 likes.

Go LiveLife!

 

[LiveLife]

The law (quoted above by LiveLife) says "The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand."

And yes, if I am building an AR based "pistol" say chambered for 9mm with a 10" length barrel with a "pistol stabilizing brace", the intent of the firearm design would be to fire with one hand.

I take the meaning of "original" applicable to the firearm being built, not some 60 year old firearm design it resembles. My Glocks were "originally" designed with internal safeties but it does resemble a 1911 with external safties. Just because my Glocks "resemble" a 1911, it does not mean it is not safe without external safeties.

Does that mean the rifle caliber bolt action pistols that were so popular years ago a notional fiction as well?

Excellent point.

Ruger 10/22 Charge was "originally" designed to be shot with one hand but resembles 10/22 carbine designed to be shot with two hands. But nonetheless, 10/22 Charge is a pistol and advertised by manufacturers and vendors as such.

 

[buck460XVR]

Like I said before: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Just because you don't like or agree with what type of firearm someone else owns doesn't mean you throw them under the bus just to save your favorite class of firearms. Some of the comments in this thread are proof that we ARE our own worst enemy at times.

I didn't see anyone getting thrown under the bus. I have yet to read where anyone is really anti-brace. Only folks that tend to understand why there could be a reversal on the legality of shoulder braces. The "own worst enemies" you may be referring to are those folks that intentionally have misused braces and intentionally circumvented the NFA. Defending those folks under the guise that at some point we all will need one? C'mon. As I have said several times, the SBR restrictions are archaic and not practical. This is what we should be arguing against. This is the change we need to see happen. Then folks looking for loopholes won't be taking away options from folks that really do need a brace on their handgun and are not trying to make their handgun into a SBR. My guess would be that there are many times more folks trying to make their handgun a SBR, than there are folks that legitimately need a brace, in order to shoot their handguns. We scream like little girls when the antis talk about gun show loopholes. We swear up and down there aren't any, yet we want to validate those folks that use the "arm brace" loophole? Again, I don't endorse the banning of arm braces, but I would understand why the definition could again change. Like many things in life, the acts of a few can affect all of us. Push the envelope larger and larger and soon enough there will be more postage due.

Nobody in this thread is saying they think braces should be illegal.

That is correct. I understand why some folks don't like loud motorcycles. But I don't want them banned. Same goes for arm braces. I can see why folks consider them a stock.......because, for the most part, in the majority of instances where I've seen them used, I do too. Don't mean I want them gone. It also don't mean I don't understand why some folks want to have them. Just that much easier to be consistently accurate with them. I use handguns for my primary weapons for hunting deer. I use shooting sticks, tripods and benches for resting the firearm when shooting. Kinda the reason I use handguns is because rifles just seem to damn easy. Handguns accuracy takes practice and focus. It's a skill that quickly deteriorates the instant you quit practicing. Being a challenge makes for the thrill of it for me. Put a brace/stock on my hunting revolvers and I may as well use one of my handgun caliber carbines. That don't mean that I think others need to feel the same way.

As for the disabled that need them, and they become illegal....... I don't see it any different or more difficult, than getting a disabled hunting permit to shoot from a vehicle or off a paved road. I hope it don't come to that.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand

That's pretty interesting right there. I and probably many others here can shoot one-handed, and with either hand, but I prefer to use both hands, and all handgun instruction teaches two hands with one-handed only as an additional, "good to have" skill. So are all the people shooting their handguns with a two-handed grip also criminals?