PSA no longer selling ARs with pistol braces

Status
Not open for further replies.
jpricewood said:
And just like that, their available inventory is completely different.
https://palmettostatearmory.com/pistol-brace-rule.html
Click to expand...

I kinda saw this coming eventually anyways, which is why I never bought into the brace hype. All my stuff is 16"+ barrels.

Granted, I don't agree with the law in the first place and if a court challenge on this brace issue can get the SBR portion of the GCA tossed out entirely (or even the whole thing entirely) then all the better.

I don't blame PSA though - they have to comply with the law until/unless it changes.
 
A lot of ads on Gunbroker are now listing them as SBRs..

There are still some listed as braced pistols though.
Screen Shot 2023-01-21 at 10.54.36 AM.png
 
mgmorden said:
if a court challenge on this brace issue can get the SBR portion of the GCA tossed out entirely (or even the whole thing entirely) then all the better
Click to expand...
The 1/6/23 5th Circuit 13-3 En Banc ruling for Cargill v. Garland that blocked ATF ruling on bump stocks may also apply to SBR/Pistol brace/80% ruling because only Congress can change the definition of what is firearm under GCA and ATF does not have the power to change the definition on their own - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...rcement-schedules.908788/page-5#post-12527064
 
The “comment” in the ATF rule on economic impact was more than a bit disingenuous. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of retailers across the country that are now stuck with “worthless” stock. A large firm like PSA may be able to absorb it, but doubtless there are smaller companies that could suffer significant financial harm by having to “eat” the braces they have in inventory. Hopefully they can ride it out for however l9ng it takes for this illegal “rule” to get suspended by the courts.
 
Bingo, you nailed it. Hurt as many small businesses as they can. Game plan for almost every industry today, when dealing with regulations and our govt. Law suits will be too late for most small businesses and mess up any future planning, to make any money.
 
Navy87Guy said:
The “comment” in the ATF rule on economic impact was more than a bit disingenuous. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of retailers across the country that are now stuck with “worthless” stock. A large firm like PSA may be able to absorb it, but doubtless there are smaller companies that could suffer significant financial harm by having to “eat” the braces they have in inventory. Hopefully they can ride it out for however l9ng it takes for this illegal “rule” to get suspended by the courts.
Click to expand...

But technically "braces" are not illegal, they still can be sold and owned. Just pretty much useless in a few months.:scrutiny:
 
LiveLife said:
The 1/6/23 5th Circuit 13-3 En Banc ruling for Cargill v. Garland that blocked ATF ruling on bump stocks may also apply to SBR/Pistol brace/80% ruling because only Congress can change the definition of what is firearm under GCA and ATF does not have the power to change the definition on their own - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...rcement-schedules.908788/page-5#post-12527064
Click to expand...
ATF isn't changing the definition of anything with Rule 2021R-08F. It's a reversal of a determination letter from several years ago.
Bump stocks were an entirely different matter. The Trump Administration ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of "machine gun" to include bumpstocks.
 
dogtown tom said:
Trump Administration ordered ATF to rewrite the definition of "machine gun" to include bumpstocks.
Click to expand...
What executive branch decides, if it comes in conflict with legislative and/or judicial branches doesn't mean it will be permanent.

Cargill v. Garland ruling post Bruen reaffirmed ATF does not have the power to define what is a firearm and what is not. The ruling was for bump stocks initially but I anticipate that ruling expanding to apply to other firearms/paper weights cases.

Point is, post Bruen application of "text and history" will apply moving forward and I believe it is factual that only Congress can define what is a firearm and what is not ... And not ATF.
 
LiveLife said:
What executive branch decides, if it comes in conflict with legislative and/or judicial branches doesn't mean it will be permanent.

Cargill v. Garland ruling post Bruen reaffirmed ATF does not have the power to define what is a firearm and what is not. The ruling was for bump stocks initially but I anticipate that ruling expanding to apply to other firearms/paper weights cases.

Point is, post Bruen application of "text and history" will apply moving forward and I believe it is factual that only Congress can define what is a firearm and what is not ... And not ATF.
Click to expand...
We know that.
What I was responding to was your comment "The 1/6/23 5th Circuit 13-3 En Banc ruling for Cargill v. Garland that blocked ATF ruling on bump stocks may also apply to SBR/Pistol brace/80% ruling because only Congress can change the definition..."
Again, ATF is not changing any definition in Rule 2021R-08F.
 
dogtown tom said:
Again, ATF is not changing any definition in Rule 2021R-08F.
Click to expand...
I know.

And I did post "may". :)

Hopefully we will see some legal challenge activity soon as looks like it's "all hands on deck" situation forming for 2023 as it's "open season" on anti-2A laws nationwide post Bruen and antis are definitely going all-in.

Godspeed for 2A.
 
mgmorden said:
I kinda saw this coming eventually anyways, which is why I never bought into the brace hype. All my stuff is 16"+ barrels.

Granted, I don't agree with the law in the first place and if a court challenge on this brace issue can get the SBR portion of the GCA tossed out entirely (or even the whole thing entirely) then all the better.

I don't blame PSA though - they have to comply with the law until/unless it changes.
Click to expand...
I knew Brace was going to be an issue when everyone and their grandma was making a brace Glock chassis thing.

Regardless, EPA case should stop ATF from being weaponized or changing their minds
 
dogtown tom said:
Again, ATF is not changing any definition in Rule 2021R-08F.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain this wording from the rule:

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
Click to expand...

By the ATF’s own words, they are amending (i.e., changing) the definition of a rifle.
 
Navy87Guy said:
Then how do you explain this wording from the rule:
By the ATF’s own words, they are amending (i.e., changing) the definition of a rifle.
Click to expand...

Its a clarification, not a change. The clarification addresses that arm braces are included if certain criteria indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

"A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." has always been the definition of rifle....it remains the same. This rule adds a clarification.

That's the point. Arm braces that aren't really arm braces are now considered shoulder stocks.
 
Stocking FFL are in a real bind. On the day of publication in the Federal Register (when ever that day is) The Rule makes all "braced pistols" into unregistered SBRs.

On that day, all transfers, sales, trades, etc., without SBR registration, will become illegal NFA transactions. So, a dealer with inventory will need to apply for Form 3 (?) for all of them, or remove all the braces and dispose of those.
 
CapnMac said:
Stocking FFL are in a real bind. On the day of publication in the Federal Register (when ever that day is) The Rule makes all "braced pistols" into unregistered SBRs.

On that day, all transfers, sales, trades, etc., without SBR registration, will become illegal NFA transactions. So, a dealer with inventory will need to apply for Form 3 (?) for all of them, or remove all the braces and dispose of those.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief just stop. You are either repeating nonsense from one of the Youtube vidiots or you just didn't bother with reading the rule, maybe both.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.
Click to expand...

120 days has a purpose and you don't understand it.
 
dogtown tom said:
Oh good grief just stop. You are either repeating nonsense from one of the Youtube vidiots or you just didn't bother with reading the rule, maybe both.
Click to expand...

Well, let's hope you're right and that no FFLs have any braced CZ Scorpions, braced Drakos, or any other imported pistols with braces attached in their inventory. If they do, then simply removing the brace is not an option according to the ATF, and they must be either destroyed or turned in.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-effect-12-28-22.912842/page-8#post-12528155
 
F-111 John said:
Well, let's hope you're right
Click to expand...
120 days.....its not difficult.



and that no FFLs have any braced CZ Scorpions, braced Drakos, or any other imported pistols with braces attached in their inventory. If they do, then simply removing the brace is not an option according to the ATF, and they must be either destroyed or turned in.
Click to expand...
Yet it is just that easy.
Ya'll are confusing what a licensed dealer can possess vs what a nonlicensee can possess.





https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...o-effect-12-28-22.912842/page-8#post-12528155
Click to expand...
"Massive hole!".
Yes, Youtube is.
 
dogtown tom said:
Yet it is just that easy.
Ya'll are confusing what a licensed dealer can possess vs what a nonlicensee can possess.
Click to expand...
You clearly did not read what the ATF wrote in their final rule that was submitted to the Federal Register, even after I excerpted it for you.

I'll repeat it for you here:

The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r) generally makes it unlawful “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.
​
Is it your assertion that 922(r) does not apply to FFLs?
 
Last edited:
F-111 John said:
You clearly did not read what the ATF wrote in their final rule that was submitted to the Federal Register, even after I excerpted it for you.
Click to expand...
I did.

​
Is it your assertion that 922(r) does not apply to FFLs?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Again, you are confusing what a licensed dealer can possess vs what a nonlicensee can possess.
What may be considered constructive possession by a nonlicensee, may not be considered constructive possession by someone licensed as an FFL.
 
dogtown tom said:
Again, you are confusing what a licensed dealer can possess vs what a nonlicensee can possess.
Click to expand...
Am I?

https://regulations.atf.gov/478-39/2019-24570

§ 478.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

a. No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

1. The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

2. The assembly of such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Director under the provisions of § 478.151; or

3. The repair of any rifle or shotgun which had been imported into or assembled in the United States prior to November 30, 1990, or the replacement of any part of such firearm.
​
Unless the dealer is selling to the United States Government or other governmental agency, they cannot possess a rifle that was illegally constructed under 922(r).​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

blackd24
  • Locked
Pistol braces
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
crestoncowboy
C
H
Another Brace question
Replies
10
Views
665
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
citizenconn
  • Locked
ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
20K
Capybara
Capybara
HPJeep
  • Locked
ATF makes braced pistols AOWs & SBRs
Replies
16
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
miamivicedade
  • Locked
AR Rifles and Pistols
Replies
8
Views
575
wesmonster
W
Back
Top