ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
Balrog said:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment

If you scroll way down and read under Section V, the ATF gives one option being to just remove the brace.
Click to expand...
You are missing something very important in the section to which you refer. Here is the language:

(1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.

Look at the words within the parenthesis. "As long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol." If it fails the scoring sheet, and if it came with that brace, it will be deemed to have come with a "stock" and as a rifle.

If not, then there would have been no reason for them to include: (3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.
 
Sistema1927 said:
You are missing something very important in the section to which you refer. Here is the language:

(1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.

Look at the words within the parenthesis. "As long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol." If it fails the scoring sheet, and if it came with that brace, it will be deemed to have come with a "stock" and as a rifle.

If not, then there would have been no reason for them to include: (3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.
Click to expand...

Does the ATF use the terms stock and stabilizing brace interchangeably, or do they mean different things?
 
Pudge said:
Does the ATF use the terms stock and stabilizing brace interchangeably, or do they mean different things?
Click to expand...

They mean different things. An AR pistol sold with a brace never had a stock. Sistema Is interpreting the rules different than I would. I see how he is concluding what he is concluding, but I don't think that is what they mean. Braced AR pistols are sold as pistols, and 4473 that was filled out identified them as a pistol, and the usual laws regarding handguns applied to them (ie, have to be >21).

In any case, its sort of a moot point because if you just take the brace off, an unbraced AR pistol is a pretty useless firearm. Your best option is to put a 16" upper on it, and be done. Then, you can also put whatever buttstock you want on it.
 
Balrog said:
They mean different things. An AR pistol sold with a brace never had a stock. Sistema Is interpreting the rules different than I would. I see how he is concluding what he is concluding, but I don't think that is what they mean. Braced AR pistols are sold as pistols, and 4473 that was filled out identified them as a pistol, and the usual laws regarding handguns applied to them (ie, have to be >21).

In any case, its sort of a moot point because if you just take the brace off, an unbraced AR pistol is a pretty useless firearm. Your best option is to put a 16" upper on it, and be done. Then, you can also put whatever buttstock you want on it.
Click to expand...

That is my take on it too as far as pistols that came from the manufacturer with a brace installed. It still is a pistol and transfers as a pistol on the 4473. I also agree that you can either remove the brace or install a 16" or longer barrel to keep the firearm legal.
 
Pudge said:
That's interesting. I thought that an AR rifle couldn't be built into a pistol. If a rifle lower (with the upper removed) is always transferred as other, that seems to indicate that a rifle lower can be built into a pistol.
Click to expand...

If a complete lower with a rifle stock has NEVER had upper installed, then yes legally you can remove the stock and then build a pistol with said lower. Again any lower no matter if it is stripped/bare, complete -with bare buffer tube, brace, or stock And does NOT have an upper installed is ALWAYS transferred as 'OTHER" on the 4473

What you are thinking about is the ruling that states if it is built FIRST ( by the manufacturer or an individual) as a rifle then it must stay a rifle. IF built as a pistol first then yo can go back and forth as long as it is always in a legal configuration at all times.
 
12Bravo20 said:
If a complete lower with a rifle stock has NEVER had upper installed, then yes legally you can remove the stock and then build a pistol with said lower. Again any lower no matter if it is stripped/bare, complete -with bare buffer tube, brace, or stock And does NOT have an upper installed is ALWAYS transferred as 'OTHER" on the 4473

What you are thinking about is the ruling that states if it is built FIRST ( by the manufacturer or an individual) as a rifle then it must stay a rifle. IF built as a pistol first then yo can go back and forth as long as it is always in a legal configuration at all times.
Click to expand...

I realize that I am being a pain as I ask these questions. I also have never owned, nor do I have any interest in owning an AR pistol. But I don't know much about this issue, and I have learned a great deal from this thread. I also know that at one time, I didn't own, nor did I have any interest in owning an AR, but sometimes things change, and when they do, it can be worthwhile to know enough to know what questions to ask.

Thank you and any others who have taken the time to answer questions in this thread.

My take is that this rule has enough ambiguities, that it might be a mistake for the BATFE. Especially in light of the recent SC ruling on the EPA case.
 
Last edited:
Pudge said:
Thank you and any others who have taken the time to answer questions in this thread.
Click to expand...

You are welcome and I am glad that we can help. One doesn't learn much if they don't ask questions.

Pudge said:
My take is that this rule has enough ambiguities, that it might be a mistake for the BATFE. Especially in light of the recent SC ruling on the EPA case.
Click to expand...

Yes the new rule is very full of ambiguities plus it still leaves the final decision up to ATF agents no matter if the braced pistol passed the point test. We will have to wait and see how the latest SC ruling affect this rule change and other ATF rule changes. I know that there are lawsuits ready and waiting to be filed once the brace rule and receiver/frame definition rule goes into effect.
 
As mentioned before, as of now any AR pistol with a brace still transfers as a pistol. A brace is just an accessory. And going by the instruction listed in Section V of the ruling, all you have to do is remove the brace and either get rid of or destroy the brace so it can't be used.

Or you can do like I did with one of my braced AR pistols. I ended up putting a 16" barrel on it along with a fake suppressor that slips over the barrel and left the brace on. So it looks like I still have a short barrel and a suppressor to the uneducated. I did that shortly after the first time the ATF submitted a rule change on braces just to mess with all the Karen's one runs into at public ranges.

Here is my FU build.

FATF build.jpg

And yes a brace makes a poor substitute for an actual stock.
 
Some of you are reading the proposed regs with wishful thinking. Wishful thinking won't help you even a tiny bit when ATF uses these regs to do what they intend them to do and that is to eliminate braced pistols.

As to those who believe that an AR pistol without a brace is worthless, put a foam cover on your AR pistol buffer, plant the end firmly in your shoulder pocket, lay your chin down on the foam cover, and put that nose right up against the charging handle, just like I was trained in Basic Training. I think that you might just be surprised. You might not want to spend an entire day at the range doing this, but it works just fine for a magazine or two.
 
I know this probably won't be a popular opinion, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

I feel an AR 'pistol', especially in something other than 5.56, to be one of the most effective & flexible home defense / ranch rifle platforms you can own.
But if we're being intellectually honest, we all know these braces are actually stocks in disguise. They're an obvious work-around to the NFA. So we shouldn't be surprised they're being targeted.

The solution to this problem isn't to keep repeating a lie that no-one, not even ourselves, actually believes.
Same goes for binary triggers & bumpstocks. Pretending they're not a obvious attempt to work around the NFA is a stain on our collective integrity. It paints us all as cheats & liars.

We're never going to get what we want if our approach to preserving freedom is founded on finding & exploiting temporary legal loopholes that inevitably will be closed.

Was the aft really to blame for approving these devices when they were submitted as stabilizing braces but in practice are being used as anything but?
Honestly, they probably are, because it's hard to look at any of the popular models and not see exactly what they were meant to do. If they were smart they never would have approved them in the first place. I bet they won't make that mistake again.

If we want to be taken seriously, we need to argue from a foundation of honesty. We need to stop acting like children trying to get away with something we're told not to do, and start acting like adults who have every right to defend ourselves and our families with the same weapons readily available to the criminal element which doesn't have a care for any of the laws we're restrained by. Adults who do the telling, not the other way around.

We all understand these laws & restrictions are absurd at face value. We all understand that the only people they impact are the good citizens who aren't the problem. THAT should be the foundation of our argument. An argument based on truth & freedom. Not this embarrasing attempt to hold onto the cookie we stole until mom comes in to put it back in the jar.
 
While I agree in principle with the statement above, it's a bit late to try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. SBRs were a reaction to guns like Clyde Barrow's "whip-it" Auto 5s and BARs. The legislation would not have stopped Clyde or his ilk. What that took was dedicated law enforcement and fighting fire with fire.

Once people have a right, whether it is to pistols with braces or reproductive health and privacy, they don't readily give them up. Lessons should have been learned along the way.

A transfer tax and paperwork are not a high price to pay, but the added nonsense about engraving, complying with state bans, and red tape in transporting across state lines, plus ever changing goal posts with no provision for common sense make it apparent that the NFA was a policy intended primarily to look like anti-crime action was being taken, when all it did was to make more criminals.
 
azrocks said:
I know this probably won't be a popular opinion, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

I feel an AR 'pistol', especially in something other than 5.56, to be one of the most effective & flexible home defense / ranch rifle platforms you can own.
But if we're being intellectually honest, we all know these braces are actually stocks in disguise. They're an obvious work-around to the NFA. So we shouldn't be surprised they're being targeted.

The solution to this problem isn't to keep repeating a lie that no-one, not even ourselves, actually believes.
Same goes for binary triggers & bumpstocks. Pretending they're not a obvious attempt to work around the NFA is a stain on our collective integrity. It paints us all as cheats & liars.

We're never going to get what we want if our approach to preserving freedom is founded on finding & exploiting temporary legal loopholes that inevitably will be closed.

Was the aft really to blame for approving these devices when they were submitted as stabilizing braces but in practice are being used as anything but?
Honestly, they probably are, because it's hard to look at any of the popular models and not see exactly what they were meant to do. If they were smart they never would have approved them in the first place. I bet they won't make that mistake again.

If we want to be taken seriously, we need to argue from a foundation of honesty. We need to stop acting like children trying to get away with something we're told not to do, and start acting like adults who have every right to defend ourselves and our families with the same weapons readily available to the criminal element which doesn't have a care for any of the laws we're restrained by. Adults who do the telling, not the other way around.

We all understand these laws & restrictions are absurd at face value. We all understand that the only people they impact are the good citizens who aren't the problem. THAT should be the foundation of our argument. An argument based on truth & freedom. Not this embarrasing attempt to hold onto the cookie we stole until mom comes in to put it back in the jar.
Click to expand...

If we're going to be honest, then let's all admit that the NFA itself is a ridiculous taxation cheat by the feds to discourage ownership. NFA weapons and especially suppressors are not any more dangerous or lethal than the guns all Americans already own. If they were, the NFA never could have been created, but it was to discourage law abiding citizens from what the government didn't want them to own, largely driven by Hollywood and the sensationalistic media of the gangster era. Let's also be honest that the ATF was literally created by a memo and should not exist. The Justice's brilliant opinion in NYSRPA gives us the standing to basically abolish the NFA and potentially make the ATF a toothless group of bureaucrats they should be, rather than the quasi military thugs that terrorize and intimidate law abiding citizens with their idiotic and arbitrary "rulings", even though they have no legal basis to do so.

If we're going to be honest, let's take a few steps back and realize that the entire NFA/ATF scheme is Unconstitutional just as the NYSRPA ruling outlines. None of it stands up to the scrutiny put in place by the Justices.
 
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