Millions of gun owners now felons due to ATF ruling?

[Trey Veston]

I can never figure out any rhyme or reason to why threads get locked around here, but since I haven't seen a thread regarding the groundbreaking ruling by the ATF in regards to pistol braces, I figured it would be OK.

Basically, it seems that the ATF has come out and said that other than a couple of specific models of pistol braces, all are now illegal and NFA items, basically turning any gun owner who has purchased one of these, into a felon.

I am one of those felons since I bought a firearm advertised as a pistol that was outfitted with one of the SB Tactical SOB braces installed.

To me, this is one of the most egregious and anti-constitutional moves that the ATF could have made.

If the subject of outlawing pistol braces by the ATF and turning millions of gun owners into criminals is not somehow appropriate to the Legal forum of a firearms site, then I give up.

 

[jmorris]

A .gov link will be requested shortly vs someones YouTube channel.

Guess they figured if bumpstocks went away quietly, why not. I imagine, few will care about your situation as well.

The rumored all semiauto rifles and mags over 10 rounds costing $200 each to put into the NFA registry might open some eyes though...

 

[Alex Clayton]

I can never figure out any rhyme or reason to why threads get locked around here, but since I haven't seen a thread regarding the groundbreaking ruling by the ATF in regards to pistol braces, I figured it would be OK.

Basically, it seems that the ATF has come out and said that other than a couple of specific models of pistol braces, all are now illegal and NFA items, basically turning any gun owner who has purchased one of these, into a felon.

I am one of those felons since I bought a firearm advertised as a pistol that was outfitted with one of the SB Tactical SOB braces installed.

To me, this is one of the most egregious and anti-constitutional moves that the ATF could have made.

If the subject of outlawing pistol braces by the ATF and turning millions of gun owners into criminals is not somehow appropriate to the Legal forum of a firearms site, then I give up.

You have to be careful taking anything you see on Youtube without a LOT of grains of salt

 

[Rule3]

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#ixzz6eoXq0U1F
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Editors Note: This story has been edited to clarify previous comments and includes additional facts that have come to light since we first posted. The ATF's confusing and contradictory approval process is an evolving story and we will continue to update and inform our readers as we get better information. Despite rumors, there is no known official change to ATF policy as it relates to the legality of pistol braces.

Search this forum there are several threads on the beginning of all this nonsense.

 

[SharpDog]

I can never figure out any rhyme or reason to why threads get locked around here, but since I haven't seen a thread regarding the groundbreaking ruling by the ATF in regards to pistol braces, I figured it would be OK.

Basically, it seems that the ATF has come out and said that other than a couple of specific models of pistol braces, all are now illegal and NFA items, basically turning any gun owner who has purchased one of these, into a felon.

I am one of those felons since I bought a firearm advertised as a pistol that was outfitted with one of the SB Tactical SOB braces installed.

To me, this is one of the most egregious and anti-constitutional moves that the ATF could have made.

If the subject of outlawing pistol braces by the ATF and turning millions of gun owners into criminals is not somehow appropriate to the Legal forum of a firearms site, then I give up.

We have had a couple of recent threads on this topic:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...he-honey-badger-pistol-brace-by-q-llc.876437/

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-makes-braced-pistols-aows-sbrs.877055/

 

[wiscoaster]

I think all they have to do at the moment is to remove the brace from the pistol, no? Then it's a pistol again and not an SBR?

 

[M1key]

Will mere ownership of the brace be illegal and go the way of the bumpstock and have to be turned in or destroyed? All good questions.

M

 

[jdh]

I think all they have to do at the moment is to remove the brace from the pistol, no? Then it's a pistol again and not an SBR?

AND replace the buffer tube with one that cannot take a stock or brace.

 

[pdsmith505]

Aside from this consternation being the result of a half-baked article published in the wee hours of the morning and subsequently updated with a note that there is no there there...

AND replace the buffer tube with one that cannot take a stock or brace.

The ATF has provided written guidance dating back to 2004 that any buffer tube / extension may be used on AR-15 pistols.
https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/

 

[wiscoaster]

However, possessing a rifle buttstock that could readily be installed on your pistol could constitute possession of a short-barreled rifle

My interpretation: It's OK to have any buffer tube on your pistol, and since a brace is not a rifle buttstock, it should be OK to have an uninstalled pistol brace laying around in your closet ... but apparently if you happen to have an uninstalled rifle buttstock that could be installed on your pistol's buffer tube also laying around in your closet, you could be seen by the BATFE as possessing a short-barreled rifle.

 

[jdh]

Aside from this consternation being the result of a half-baked article published in the wee hours of the morning and subsequently updated with a note that there is no there there...



The ATF has provided written guidance dating back to 2004 that any buffer tube / extension may be used on AR-15 pistols.
https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/
View attachment 958025

Okay, two things:
1) It is a letter of opinion from an individual in a position of responsibility, not a codified regulation or law. It can be modified or rescinded at any time as was the letter that said bump stocks were not machineguns.

2) Pay close attention to the sentence beginning "However" after the sentence that says either buffer tube. If you use a pistol buffer tube it cannot be claimed you had intent to attach a stock to make an unregistered SBR.

You may beat the rap. You will consume a great deal of time and your accumulated wealth to do so. You alone have to decide if the risk it worth it.

 

[Alex Clayton]

Sigh, since this just keeps coming up over and over and over there seems a very simple answer. To all those running around hair on fire, saying the sky is falling if you have an AR pistol with a brace. If you really think the sky is falling do not buy an AR pistol or brace. There, fire is out, sky is still in place, life goes on.

 

[wiscoaster]

It would seem that our government tries its very best to make its citizens into criminals.

 

[AlexanderA]

I figure that "pistol braces," as well as AR "pistols" themselves, are on borrowed time. These are all workarounds to make SBRs that aren't technically SBRs. Everyone should know ahead of time that they are treading on thin ice. (I could have said the same thing about bump stocks.)

 

[SharpDog]

I figure that "pistol braces," as well as AR "pistols" themselves, are on borrowed time. These are all workarounds to make SBRs that aren't technically SBRs. Everyone should know ahead of time that they are treading on thin ice. (I could have said the same thing about bump stocks.)

A semi-auto firearm can be changed to full-auto by changing a simple-to-manufacture part. It can also be 'bump fired' without modification.

I guess they will also be made illegal someday ...

 

[BreechFace]

So the incorrect use of ADA firearm furniture is illegal...let’s just cut to the chase and push the real agenda. Hint: it’s not about accessories, evil features and “the children.” The endgame is and always was clear, disarmament of the people.

Bumpstocks are not work around, their design followed the criteria on the books for legality. So go ahead and lump binaries, short reset triggers, light triggers, and quick twitch muscles in with them as being verboten.

Pistol Braces are not work arounds they have a purpose of allowing handicapped people, the first of which was a veteran who gave of himself for this country to better handle a firearm. People misuse the purpose of items all the time without issue. If we are going to give the power to the government to decide HOW we can shoot and handle our inanimate objects (I.e. guns), then we are over the cliff.

 

[psyopspec]

So far the language is only telling SBT to stop advertising they are BATFE approved. This is different from ATF declaring that millions of gun owners are now felons.

I'm taking no action personally, because a) there is none to take based on what's come out; and b) there are enough extant firearm laws to follow as it is that I don't need to go following made-up ones.

 

[CapnMac]

I think all they have to do at the moment is to remove the brace from the pistol, no?

That's what the ATF language stated when I read it.

AND replace the buffer tube with one that cannot take a stock or brace.

Nothing in the letter on that at all--so that's speculation at best.

From my reading, it was really simple--if a specific brace does not have a Letter, it's not 'legal." Just because it's mostly identical to a Lettered brace is immaterial.

Basically, they are just house cleaning the regs. ATF moves very slowly--the speed of the DMV, only slower. They are still coping with a recent (18 months) cease & desist on the bump stock thing, which ins near to three years old now.

People are very quick to leap on nefarious "reasons" for everything, and make all manner of dire prognostications.
Far too many on "our" side will jump to all sorts of conclusions--like there are ninja AFT boogiemen waiting to leap out of the bushes and drag all the felons off to durance vile in the gaol without bothering with trial or the like.

 

[Telekinesis]

This is why people (Guns & Gadgets) shouldn’t create inflammatory YouTube videos when it’s late and they’re tired. The ATF letter they’re citing is more than two years old.

From the Ammoland article, but also mentioned in Guns & Gadget’s second video on this (from last night):

A Freedom of Information Act response selectively released by the ATF FOIA office shows that, on July 18, 2018, the ATF sent a letter to SB Tactical declaring that only two of their model braces had been approved for use as a pistol stabilizing brace.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#ixzz6epVGkoIf
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

At the rate that the ATF changes its mind, these letters mean nothing. Especially with much more recent information from the honey badger and other cases we have seen. This is an interesting data point, but it is not the ATF suddenly deciding that all pistol braces are illegal.

 

[WestKentucky]

I’m all for eliminating devices clearly and specifically made for the sole purpose of skirting any sensible law, or well established law. The bump stock was exactly that. Braces started off as legit aids to folks with disability. I can’t get behind them taking that away, especially by regulation or interpretation rather than legislation.

 

[wiscoaster]

This is why people (Guns & Gadgets) shouldn’t create inflammatory YouTube videos when it’s late and they’re tired. .

Yes, the quality of Jared's videos is somewhat uneven, but there's a valid backstory behind that, so don't be too critical if you're not aware of it. IMO he's doing yeoman service to the cause of 2A rights preservation, and the gun community at large.

 

[bdickens]

I’m all for eliminating devices clearly and specifically made for the sole purpose of skirting any sensible law, or well established law. The bump stock was exactly that. Braces started off as legit aids to folks with disability. I can’t get behind them taking that away, especially by regulation or interpretation rather than legislation.

There's nothing sensible about the laws on fully automatic firearms.

 

[WestKentucky]

There's nothing sensible about the laws on fully automatic firearms.

I didn’t say there was, but it IS a well established law.

 

[Spats McGee]

We really don't rely on YouTube for our information here in Legal. Unless someone points to a statute, regulation, ruling, or something along those lines in fairly short order, this thread will be closed.

 

[Telekinesis]

Yes, the quality of Jared's videos is somewhat uneven, but there's a valid backstory behind that, so don't be too critical if you're not aware of it. IMO he's doing yeoman service to the cause of 2A rights preservation, and the gun community at large.

I haven’t seen many of his videos, but from what I have seen (outside of this specific topic) he has done a good job and I like his content. I’m not trying to be critical of him in general, but I think he could have handled this topic better.

Given how much recent news we’ve had on this, I think he should have framed this as “this is additional background information” (which is valid) instead of a midnight video upload of “we have breaking information that the ATF is making these illegal”.

My comment about him being tired was based on the comments he made in one of his 3(?) videos he made on this subject. Not trying to make fun of him or anything.