Legal status of a unattached shoulder "brace" for pistol

[vincyr]

Just a hypothetical that came up when discussing "bug out guns" with a coworker. They proposed a "brace" for something like a Ruger MK type pistol to allow it to be shouldered like a rifle. The thing that made me wonder if it would be legal is it isn't actually attached to the pistol, but held against the grip by the hand. Let go of the grip, and it falls off. Again, not planning on doing this, I just dont know enough about how a "stock" is defined by the ATF to know if this would pass muster, and my curiosity was peaked. Figured you guys might know.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let’s have no guessing and no “it, seems to me” type responses. Responses must be supported with reference to legal authority.

 

[Ed Ames]

Short form: at least some ATF folks consider it a stock even if not attached.

E.g. about the aforementioned 1shot:

“...having shown FATD a picture of the product, I was immediately informed that it was a shoulder stock and ATF had previously ruled on “friction stocks” in other determinations.”
https://blog.princelaw.com/2015/08/05/a-round-table-discussion-with-atf/

 

[Ed Ames]

Where can I find this "friction stock" ruling? Not trying to be smart, but I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything.

No idea. You may want to reach out to whoever wrote that princelaw.com blog post.

A big problem with all of this is that letters/rulings are hardly set in stone.

 

[bearcreek]

Let’s have no guessing and no “it, seems to me” type responses. Responses must be supported with reference to legal authority.

With that in mind, could you point us to the legal definition of "stock"? I've searched and searched and can't seem to locate it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

With that in mind, could you point us to the legal definition of "stock"? I've searched and searched and can't seem to locate it.

I have no idea. I haven't done any research into the question, and probably won't. And I'm not aware of any case law or regulatory guidance that definitive resolves the OP's question one way or the other.

But here's the problem:

• If someone says, "Don't worry. Using the device is not an NFA issue." and if the ATF/court disagrees, the guy using the device risks ten years in federal prison and/ or a hefty fine, as well as a lifetime loss of gun rights.
  
  
• So it would be irresponsible to suggest that the use of the device will not be an NFA issue unless it can be show by reference to applicable legal authority that there's a very strong likelihood that ATF/a court would agree.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Short form: at least some ATF folks consider it a stock even if not attached.

E.g. about the aforementioned 1shot:

“...having shown FATD a picture of the product, I was immediately informed that it was a shoulder stock and ATF had previously ruled on “friction stocks” in other determinations.”
https://blog.princelaw.com/2015/08/05/a-round-table-discussion-with-atf/

As stated in the blog you linked to:

... The company had stated in a Recoil Web article:

“We asked the ATF their opinion and they had none, as it is not a permanent part of the weapon…”​

Furthermore, having shown FATD a picture of the product, I was immediately informed that it was a shoulder stock and ATF had previously ruled on “friction stocks” in other determinations. It would behoove APS to submit a sample to ATF in order to have a formal determination on the product, so that individuals can know whether possession of the product with a handgun would potentially subject them to criminal prosecution or not.....

So the manufacturer, as of the time of the blog, has not submitted a sample of the device to ATF Technical Division for a formal determination. Accordingly, there has been no formal determination by ATF.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A bunch of non-responsive, irrelevant posts have been deleted. If you don't have any useful, evidence based information to bring to the discussion, don't bother to post.

 

[Texas10mm]

https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/

Constructive possession.

 

[bearcreek]

https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/

Constructive possession.

What does that have to do with the OP? The stock that is referenced in that article was designed to be attached to the firearm, not just held between the gun and the shoulder. Can something that isn't attached to a firearm in any way and isn't designed to be still be part of that firearm?

 

[jmorris]

Are you asking about something like this?

https://www.recoilweb.com/usa-1shot-non-nfa-butt-stock-for-your-handgun-69131.html

If so, you can buy them here.

https://rsrstore.com/collections/an-accurate-shot-is-a-safe-shot/products/1shot-cla10-series

“Attached” seems to be the key word.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-...shoulder-stock-does-constitute-possession-nfa

“Attached” is also repeated here a lot too.

https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Pistol-brace-ATF-letter-March-21-2017.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

...“Attached” seems to be the key word.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-...shoulder-stock-does-constitute-possession-nfa

Why do you believe that "attached" is key. The question is only about an attachable stock. That doesn't mean that the answer would be different for a non-attachable stock.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I've closed this thread and deleted some posts that really weren't helpful from any sort of legal perspective.

One reason one takes certain types of problems to a lawyer, instead of a bunch of guys in cyberspace, is that lawyers have the education and training to properly analyze legal issues and do proper legal research. And even then, when there's no clear answer, which is the case here, the best one can expect is an explanation that there is no clear answer together with some rough assessment of the risks.