Future of Pistol BRACES?

[Huntolive]

I am considering getting a Zion or other AR type pistol with SB brace possibly the SBA3 brace or something like that whatever comes on the Zion I WI pistol

many people have suggested that these braces may become illegal at any time so I am wondering what evidence or information or insights you all have about whether you think it makes any sense to invest in one?

I definitely don’t need one but would like to have one and for $700 the Zion pistol or rifle looks like a good deal but not so much on the pistol if the braces are going to be illegal soon

also how hard are these type of firearms to fire with any reasonable accuracy if I have to remove the brace?

What is the proper shooting grip or hold recommended for fire in pistol versions of rifles such as a pap85 or 95 or an AR style pistol with a 12 inch barrel without a brace?

Also how much velocity Accuracy at Cetera is giving up by using a 12 1/2 inch barrel versus a 16 inch rifle barrel

 

[giggitygiggity]

I’ll answer a few of your questions.

Making braces themselves illegal is not on the table. The ATF is expected to release a final rule by the end of summer which would make firearms equipped with braces subject to the NFA if the configuration of the braced firearm has certain characteristics (length of pull with brace, adjustability of brace, sights, etc, etc). That said, once the rule is released and provided it mirrors its draft version, braces will remain legal to own, but if installed on a pistol, could render that firearm an SBR is the ATF’s mind.

It will likely be more difficult to achieve the same level of accuracy as compared to when the brace was installed. Personally, I think an AR pistol with buffer tube exposed or even a foam-enclosed buffer tube looks goofy and I’d just pony up and Form 1 it so I can slap a stock on it.

Without a brace, people tend to hold the AR buffer tube to their cheek. With an AK-type pistol, it seems that folks often use a one-point sling and apply stability by holding the pistol forward and creating tension using the sling.

 

[bnolsen]

I'll be sad about this. I put a brace on my ruger charger since it makes it easier and more fun to use. I personally don't need it as I initially used an elastic type over the shoulder sling which worked great, but it really helped the kids with shooting. A lot of the NFA is just infuriating, rules for the sake of making rules.

 

[jmorris]

rules for the sake of making rules.

Repeat this as often as you can and when your kids ask “why”, never say, “because I said so.” Or they will soak it up too.

If your argument doesn’t stand up to reason, it’s unreasonable.

 

[Rexster]

also how hard are these type of firearms to fire with any reasonable accuracy if I have to remove the brace?

What is the proper shooting grip or hold recommended for fire in pistol versions of rifles such as a pap85 or 95 or an AR style pistol with a 12 inch barrel without a brace?

I have yet to try this shooting method, so, am just posting these links for information purposes:



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3ZSvyxYpdQOnRUseGV7lmw



I have yet to decide whether to keep my LAW-folder-ed Daniel Defense DDM4 V7P as a handgun, or re-configure it as a rifle, if the expected rules are enacted.

 

[vintovka]

Try that with a C96 Broomhandle.

 

[stanley_white]

"Back in my day we shot the MP5 with the stock collapsed and punched the sling our for stability!"



-Stan

 

[JohnKSa]

Pistol braces aren't going to be made illegal. On the other hand shoulder stocks for pistols have been NFA controlled items for many decades and that's not going to change.

If you want a pistol brace go ahead and get one. If you want a shoulder stock on your pistol, then go the NFA route rather than try to buy a shoulder stock that may or may not qualify as a pistol brace under the BATF rules.

I agree that the NFA is stupid and problematic, but it is the law.

 

[SharpDog]

Pistol braces aren't going to be made illegal. On the other hand shoulder stocks for pistols have been NFA controlled items for many decades and that's not going to change.

If you want a pistol brace go ahead and get one. If you want a shoulder stock on your pistol, then go the NFA route rather than try to buy a shoulder stock that may or may not qualify as a pistol brace under the BATF rules.

I agree that the NFA is stupid and problematic, but it is the law.

What about firearms that are now currently pistols, will they be turned into SBRs with the stroke of a pen ?

Asking for my friend: H. Badger.

 

[LiveLife]

What about firearms that are now currently pistols, will they be turned into SBRs with the stroke of a pen?

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...s-expected-by-atf.895364/page-2#post-12273280

Anthony Miranda, an attorney in California, break down a new bill introduced into congress which seeks to prevent the ATF's new rule banning pistol braces.​

https://rumble.com/v111dce-atfs-new...es-coming-soon-congress-moves-to-stop-it.html​

 

[mcb]

Someone wake me up when they actually do something. Until then I will keep using my brace...

 

[JohnKSa]

What about firearms that are now currently pistols, will they be turned into SBRs with the stroke of a pen ?

That's exactly why I gave the advice I gave.

 

[StrykerByte.45]

Come and get it!

 

[vintovka]

Laws require enforcement to be effective. Right now national LEO shortages are really apparent with many agencies offering huge bonuses like sign up, retention and enormous benefits trying to recruit and retain. . I understand CA's PERS system is not doing well as the 3% Safety Retirement for LEO's is draining the entire system and bad investments are coming to light. Even had a local sheriff tell me to arm myself as they were down to 50% staffing and response times was now in days not hours or minutes.

 

[Rexster]

Some remarks that I see compel me to add this short cautionary tale: I know of a case in which a person was involved in a traffic collision, which disabled her motor vehicle, and required that she be transported to a hospital, by ambulance. LE personnel had to inventory the contents of her vehicle, which is NOT a search, as defined by the 4th Amendment, but something that is required, when a public agency has to take custody of a vehicle, for the purposes of clearing a roadway. Let’s keep in mind that this inventory and documentation is required, to ensure that the vehicle owner is not deprived of their property, by the towing company, or the storage facility. Well, a handgun, which the motorist was not licensed to carry, was located in a place, inside the vehicle, which was “on or about the person” of anyone operating the vehicle. At the time if the incident, there was no handgun licensing system in effect, in this jurisdiction, anyway, and “vehicular carry” was not yet legal, either, which effectively meant that the handgun should have been inside the trunk of the vehicle, or inside a suitably-locked container at the rear of the vehicle, in order to be legally transported.

Well, yeah, Molon Labe, Come and Take It, and all of that, but when one moves about, in public places, with contraband, circumstances can arise that cause said contraband to come to the attention of LE personnel, in a way that compels them to document said contraband. The subject of the cautionary tale was charged with unlawful carry of a handgun. Fortunately, for her, it was a state misdemeanor, rather than a federal felony. She had a “clean” record, before this incident, and was later able to get a government job, which would not have been possible, had she been a felon. (In today’s political climate, that misdemeanor might have excluded her from getting the job.)

To be clear, I am not advising anyone to maintain possession of contraband, or, how to go about doing so, nor am I “shaking my finger” at anyone, for hinting that they might flout any future law/rule.

This scenario is not idle speculation. In my 33+ years of LEO-ing, I had to inventory plenty of wrecked vehicles, that needed to be towed from crash scenes. In my above cautionary tale, I was not the LEO who handled that scene, nor did I file the charge. (I probably would have found “better things to be doing.”) I became aware of her above-described case, at a later time, when she got into REAL trouble.

 

[SharpDog]

Repeat this as often as you can and when your kids ask “why”, never say, “because I said so.” Or they will soak it up too.

If your argument doesn’t stand up to reason, it’s unreasonable.

Plenty of unreasonable arguments are made nowadays. Earlier this morning I was listening to a talking head lament how easy it is to acquire a gun. She was specifically advocating for a universal background check and against constitutional carry. She specifically brought up the subway shooting and the SC mall shooting. I was thinking at the time that the subway shooter did already pass a background check when he purchased the firearm at the pawnshop. The SC mall shooter was apparently part of a gang and would not have cared that he did not have a carry permit.

IMHO: They want more laws because they want more control, not because it will actually help the situation.

 

[vintovka]

The times have been forcibly changed, as has respect for law and order. This change as started at the highest office and now reflected to the man on the street. It has placed doubt in all we do and act. Prolly why i now know more ex LEOs than ever.