ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
Capybara said:
I agree, who would have a pistol brace if they could just register an SBR with a shoulder stock?
Click to expand...

I would. Even if the ATF allows a free SBR registration of braced AR pistols, I would rather keep it as a pistol. Or some other legal method outside the NFA. Plenty of others too I imagine. The whole point of the pistol brace was to avoid going through SBR paperwork. The ATF suddenly deciding after millions of braces sold to include them as regulated items violates several legal principles. Ex post facto being just one of them.
 
herrwalther said:
I would. Even if the ATF allows a free SBR registration of braced AR pistols, I would rather keep it as a pistol. Or some other legal method outside the NFA. Plenty of others too I imagine. The whole point of the pistol brace was to avoid going through SBR paperwork. The ATF suddenly deciding after millions of braces sold to include them as regulated items violates several legal principles. Ex post facto being just one of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that is why I have no silencers and I am sorry I lost my braced firearms in that tragic boating accident. It's not the money, heck, they could make the fee $2K and if they would let me have my 2A freedoms with no strings attached I would pay it. Not gladly mind you because we should not have to pay to exercise our rights, but to not have our privacy cancelled and our items registered in a database.
 
Pudge said:
I think the SC ruling in the EPA case which limits authority of agencies like the EPA and BATFE, especially in regards to enforcing rules not made by Congress, is what he's referencing.
Click to expand...
That actually has me more excited than bruen! If they want to put me in jail then they will have to pass a law first and wait for me to break it. EPA has been almost as bad as BATFE about just making it up as they go, so it’s time to put the walls up to keep the alphabet soup in the can.
 
SharpDog said:
It won't matter. It goes by model not whether it actually contained a brace when it ships. If you look carefully, manufacturers have a different model number for those that ship without braces. CMMG is actually introducing a new line, the 'Dissent', that is completely without braces when they ship. This is essentially their 'Banshee' but without a brace.

CMMG Banshee:

View attachment 1090650

CMMG Dissent:

View attachment 1090651

https://cmmg.com
Click to expand...

So, assuming I bought a braced AR pistol in a private sale, how am I supposed to know if it came with the brace or the guy installed an aftermarket one?
 
There seems to be a massive misunderstanding concerning the brace rule. Specifically, braces are not being banned outright. Pistols with braces might be considered SBRs and subject to the NFA provided the configuration fails a ridiculous point-based test. Nearly all braced pistols, especially those with the popular SBA3 brace, will likely fail the test and be subject to the NFA.

This situation does not impose restrictions on the sale/possession of braces themselves nor does it restrict the sale/possession/use of pistols. You can own a brace and affix it to a rifle with a 16”+ barrel. You can own a pistol and keep it braceless. You can own a braced pistol so long as it is registered as an SBR.

I agree that the nonsensical rule will likely drastically curtail the open use of braced pistols, but calling it a “ban” is a misnomer and confuses the issue.

Personally, I think the whole situation is ridiculous and can’t fathom the wasted hours and tax dollars that went into the drafting of the rule. The only acceptable solution is the deregulation of all firearms, parts, and accessories.
 
Pudge said:
Why would that matter? If I had an 8" AR pistol in .556 that shipped from the manufacturer with a brace, then I sold the 8" upper, and I swapped on a .300 Blackout upper, with a 16" barrel, would it be in violation of the new rule? How is a brace different from a stock, grip, muzzle device, bump stock, or magazine? It is an accessory, not the gun, so why can't it be removed, or swapped out for a "legal" brace?
Click to expand...

Here is what is going on. Now don't expect it to make any sense, since it is the ATF we are dealing with.

If you purchased a braced "pistol", and it won't pass the new scoring sheet, then the ATF will consider that it shipped from the factory as a rifle, specifically an SBR. A lower/receiver that began life as a rifle cannot become a pistol. However, if you purchased it without the brace, or built it without the brace, then it began life as a pistol. You added a brace to it later, and if that configuration doesn't pass the new scoring sheet, then you made an SBR. However, in this case, since it started life as a pistol, you can remove the brace and it magically becomes a pistol again.

So, a pistol can become a rifle and back to a pistol (and back and forth ad infinitem) with the ATF's blessing.
Your original pistol, if it shipped without a brace, will be just fine if you ditch the brace. If it meets the scoring sheet with your brace, then you will also be good to go.

A rifle can never become a pistol, it can only become an SBR with a barrel shorter than 16". If the braced "pistol" that you purchased is actually considered now by the ATF to be a rifle (even if unknown to you at the time of purchase), then you have four options:

1) Put a rifle length barrel on it, with or without the brace or a stock.
2) Pay the $200 tax for your new SBR, with or without a brace or a stock.
3) Destroy the firearm portion (for an AR the lower rkeceiver).
4) Risk going to prison for a long time for possession of an untaxed SBR.

Now, in the case that you described, you met option #1 by installing a legal rifle barrel. You do not, HOWEVER, need to destroy or get rid of your short upper. You can get a pistol lower and install it without a brace, or in a braced configuration that meets the new scoring sheet criteria.

Like I said, don't expect any of this to make any sense, just like the rest of the NFA.
 
The above post is pretty good.

However, in the case of AR-15s that were shipped with a brace, no one needs to destroy their lowers under the new rules. The lower by itself is not illegal but will have been "redefined" (by the ATF) as a rifle lower (just like most of the AR-15 lowers out there). It is only when it has a less than 16" upper on it that the combination becomes an unregistered SBR.

I have lots of AR-15 guns, parts and pieces. I keep track of the lowers that started life as rifles. As long as I keep my short (under 16" barrel) uppers off of these lowers, I am good to go for now.

If the new ATF rule get issued, I will also need to make sure any short uppers on a pistol lower with a brace meets some kind of score card (I have assemble one score card compliant braced pistol and did not like it at all).
 
P Flados said:
The above post is pretty good.

However, in the case of AR-15s that were shipped with a brace, no one needs to destroy their lowers under the new rules...
Click to expand...

That is actually one of the options given under the proposed regulations, thus my inclusion. Yes, anyone who ends up destroying their "former pistol, now SBR" lower is as foolish as those who trade their ARs for a $100 gift card at a guvmint sponsored "buy back". It is too easy to get legal without destruction.
 
Sistema1927 said:
Here is what is going on. Now don't expect it to make any sense, since it is the ATF we are dealing with.

If you purchased a braced "pistol", and it won't pass the new scoring sheet, then the ATF will consider that it shipped from the factory as a rifle, specifically an SBR. A lower/receiver that began life as a rifle cannot become a pistol. However, if you purchased it without the brace, or built it without the brace, then it began life as a pistol. You added a brace to it later, and if that configuration doesn't pass the new scoring sheet, then you made an SBR. However, in this case, since it started life as a pistol, you can remove the brace and it magically becomes a pistol again.

So, a pistol can become a rifle and back to a pistol (and back and forth ad infinitem) with the ATF's blessing.
Your original pistol, if it shipped without a brace, will be just fine if you ditch the brace. If it meets the scoring sheet with your brace, then you will also be good to go.

A rifle can never become a pistol, it can only become an SBR with a barrel shorter than 16". If the braced "pistol" that you purchased is actually considered now by the ATF to be a rifle (even if unknown to you at the time of purchase), then you have four options:

1) Put a rifle length barrel on it, with or without the brace or a stock.
2) Pay the $200 tax for your new SBR, with or without a brace or a stock.
3) Destroy the firearm portion (for an AR the lower rkeceiver).
4) Risk going to prison for a long time for possession of an untaxed SBR.

Now, in the case that you described, you met option #1 by installing a legal rifle barrel. You do not, HOWEVER, need to destroy or get rid of your short upper. You can get a pistol lower and install it without a brace, or in a braced configuration that meets the new scoring sheet criteria.

Like I said, don't expect any of this to make any sense, just like the rest of the NFA.
Click to expand...

I think you could also just take the brace off an AR pistol and be legal.
 
Balrog said:
I think you could also just take the brace off an AR pistol and be legal.
Click to expand...
If it was a pistol, yes.

But here is the rub.

Under the proposed regulations, if it started out braced, and it doesn't pass muster with the new scoring sheet, then it never was a pistol in the eyes of the ATF. It was a short barreled rifle (SBR), and can never become a pistol.

They will "graciously" allow you to pay the tax and register it as the SBR that they deem it to be. Or, if you don't want to do that, you can destroy it or put a 16" barrel on it.

Face it folks, what is at work here is an attempt to eliminate braced pistols by reclassifying them as SBRs , and the ATF is going to make it as painful as possible.
 
P Flados said:
The above post is pretty good.

However, in the case of AR-15s that were shipped with a brace, no one needs to destroy their lowers under the new rules. The lower by itself is not illegal but will have been "redefined" (by the ATF) as a rifle lower (just like most of the AR-15 lowers out there). It is only when it has a less than 16" upper on it that the combination becomes an unregistered SBR.

I have lots of AR-15 guns, parts and pieces. I keep track of the lowers that started life as rifles. As long as I keep my short (under 16" barrel) uppers off of these lowers, I am good to go for now.

If the new ATF rule get issued, I will also need to make sure any short uppers on a pistol lower with a brace meets some kind of score card (I have assemble one score card compliant braced pistol and did not like it at all).
Click to expand...
I wish I could see what one of these compliant versions looks like.
 
Sistema1927 said:
If it was a pistol, yes.

But here is the rub.

Under the proposed regulations, if it started out braced, and it doesn't pass muster with the new scoring sheet, then it never was a pistol in the eyes of the ATF. It was a short barreled rifle (SBR), and can never become a pistol.

They will "graciously" allow you to pay the tax and register it as the SBR that they deem it to be. Or, if you don't want to do that, you can destroy it or put a 16" barrel on it.

Face it folks, what is at work here is an attempt to eliminate braced pistols by reclassifying them as SBRs , and the ATF is going to make it as painful as possible.
Click to expand...

I've obviously never purchased a braced pistol AR, hence my ignorance on the subject, but how is the BATFE informed as to how an AR is shipped? I thought the lower was the firearm, and on the 4473 you indicate rifle or pistol. And if, it is listed as a pistol on the 4473, why isn't that definitive as opposed to accessories the lower shipped with?

Now, the real question is, in Pennsylvania, private sales: handgun must go through an FFL for the background check, but rifles are ok face to face. If you bought a pistol AR, if you sell the lower, it must go through an FFL, but if it shipped with a brace that doesn't meet the BATFE's criteria, now it is a rifle and is good for a face to face transaction, correct? So, there is no way for the BATFE to know who possesses these lowers that shipped with a brace. How on Earth do they intend to enforce this rule?
 
Pudge said:
I've obviously never purchased a braced pistol AR, hence my ignorance on the subject, but how is the BATFE informed as to how an AR is shipped? I thought the lower was the firearm, and on the 4473 you indicate rifle or pistol. And if, it is listed as a pistol on the 4473, why isn't that definitive as opposed to accessories the lower shipped with?

Now, the real question is, in Pennsylvania, private sales: handgun must go through an FFL for the background check, but rifles are ok face to face. If you bought a pistol AR, if you sell the lower, it must go through an FFL, but if it shipped with a brace that doesn't meet the BATFE's criteria, now it is a rifle and is good for a face to face transaction, correct? So, there is no way for the BATFE to know who possesses these lowers that shipped with a brace. How on Earth do they intend to enforce this rule?
Click to expand...

Again, it doesn't go by 4473. BATFE will contact the manufacturers.

upload_2022-7-20_8-13-46.png
 
Pudge said:
So, the lower is either a rifle or a pistol, and that will determine how it must be transferred. What is the determining entity, and how is the determination made?
Click to expand...

As of right now all three lowers that are in the photo Shaprdog posted transfer as "other" on the 4473. Same goes for a lower with a stock on it. If it has never had an upper attached then it transfers as "other". That is why the ATF would have to go back to the manufacturer to see how it shipped from the factory.

The kicker is how things will change if/when the ruling change on what is a receiver/frame is released.

Now here is something else. It is currently just fine to buy a complete lower with or without a brace or stock and still use it for a pistol build. You must remove any stock first before attaching an upper with a barrel shorter than 16". And if the lower has ever had a rifle upper attached first, then it must always stay as a rifle.
 
Pudge said:
I've obviously never purchased a braced pistol AR, hence my ignorance on the subject, but how is the BATFE informed as to how an AR is shipped?
Click to expand...

Here is how. I purchased this exact AR9 "pistol", and this is in PSA's records. All of my other AR pistols were ones that I built first as pistols, and all of them have now had their braces removed. In the case of this AR9, I put a 16" barrel and stock on it, and installed the upper on an AR lower with a 9mm insert and bare buffer.
https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-8-9mm-1-10-7-lightweight-m-lok-moe-sba3-pistol-5165450029.html
 
SharpDog said:
https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download
Click to expand...
I haven't looked at the scoring sheet before, but I find this part disconcerting: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA." IOW, even if you do everything right, BATFE can say you've done it wrong and pop you for it.
 
Spats McGee said:
I haven't looked at the scoring sheet before, but I find this part disconcerting: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA." IOW, even if you do everything right, BATFE can say you've done it wrong and pop you for it.
Click to expand...
Yep. Arbitrary to the max. This was the basis for one of my comments made to the ATF, but I doubt that they are listening. The end goal is the elimination of all braces.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall, I have ditched all of my braces, and find that I can shoot them just as well with a bare buffer or a buffer with a foam cover.
 
Spats McGee said:
I haven't looked at the scoring sheet before, but I find this part disconcerting: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA." IOW, even if you do everything right, BATFE can say you've done it wrong and pop you for it.
Click to expand...

And even laymen can see that can be entrapment as written. My 10.5" 9mm AR pistol with brace doesn't meet the requirements as is since it is 1.5 ounces too heavy and it has iron sights. I haven't decided if I want to remove the brace or just pin and weld a fake XM177 type muzzle device to make it 16"
 
Sistema1927 said:
Here is how. I purchased this exact AR9 "pistol", and this is in PSA's records. All of my other AR pistols were ones that I built first as pistols, and all of them have now had their braces removed. In the case of this AR9, I put a 16" barrel and stock on it, and installed the upper on an AR lower with a 9mm insert and bare buffer.
https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-8-9mm-1-10-7-lightweight-m-lok-moe-sba3-pistol-5165450029.html
Click to expand...

So, if you purchased an AR as a pistol shipped with a non-qualified brace, and you pulled the brace and sold just the lower, would you be selling a pistol or a rifle?
 
12Bravo20 said:
And even laymen can see that can be entrapment as written.....
Click to expand...
This being General Discussion, I don't want to derail the thread with a bunch of legal jargon. That said, "entrapment" has a fairly specific legal meaning, and I don't think that qualifies.
 
Spats McGee said:
This being General Discussion, I don't want to derail the thread with a bunch of legal jargon. That said, "entrapment" has a fairly specific legal meaning, and I don't think that qualifies.
Click to expand...

It looks like I used the wrong word to describe how things are written on the points sheet then. My apologies. That said, how the worksheet is written is horrible and there is no way anyone can have a legal pistol with a brace attached since it is up to the ATF to decide even if the firearm in question does pass on points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
J
WI vets sue atf over brace rule
Replies
8
Views
597
Jeff H
Jeff H
KansasTrapper77
Op-Ed on ATF Pistol Brace ruling.
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
3K
citizenconn
citizenconn
LiveLife
  • Locked
Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
5K
Odd Job
Odd Job
LiveLife
17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
10K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Back
Top