PSA no longer selling ARs with pistol braces

F-111 John said:

Am I?

Click to expand...

Yes, among others things you are confused about.

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.​

Click to expand...

Yeah, we know.
I'm puzzled that you think FFL's aren't aware of the regulations we have to abide by.
Literally.......YEAH, WE KNOW about § 478.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

Waiting for the dust to settle.
My guess is they're too cheep to use their own lawyers in the legal fight that's about to ensue, and don't want to get shut down for making so called "illegal" firearms.

I was at a LGS today and there is a wall displaying a number of AR Pistols. Sign on the wall said Manager Special. All AR pistols $200.00 off listed sales price. No this isn't a gimmick, the price tags are the same tags that have been on the guns for weeks now.

Choctaw said:

They will only be useless if ATF wins and we lose.

Click to expand...

even if we “win” it will be years down the road. Bump stock thing has taken 4 years and it’s still not over with two circuits having different opinions.

F-111 John said:

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

Click to expand...

I read this completely different than the sky is falling YouTubers (one of which owns imported pistols that are registered SBR’s)

922r covers rifles and shotguns. Not pistols.
In addition, [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)] states a rifle cannot become a pistol. So the likelyhood of a rifle being imported under 922r converted to a pistol then sold to you would be pretty small.

*course I am at a Hilton and not Holiday Inn so I may be incorrect in my assumption.

tarosean said:

I read this completely different than the sky is falling YouTubers (one of which owns imported pistols that are registered SBR’s)

922r covers rifles and shotguns. Not pistols.
In addition, [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)] states a rifle cannot become a pistol. So the likelyhood of a rifle being imported under 922r converted to a pistol then sold to you would be pretty small.

*course I am at a Hilton and not Holiday Inn so I may be incorrect in my assumption.

Click to expand...

I have no evidence, but I strongly suspect that most of these firearms such as CZ Scorpions were imported as pistols without braces, then CZ USA added the brace here in the U.S. before sale. Plus there is another situation where an individual purchased the pistol and added the brace themselves.

Another YouTuber from the Fudd Busters channel, a Florida lawyer that practices in the field of firearms law, had a slightly different take on the ATF document and it's implications.



Summary of video: 922(r) applies to construction of a rifle from imported parts, not possession of a rifle assembled from imported parts. According to him, if you purchased a CZ Scorpion with a brace, you didn't assemble the rifle so you are not in jeopardy, and the ATF should have no issue with registering it under the amnesty eForm 1. (He also addresses the second "sky is falling (I'm guilty)" issue of the 88 days and automatic rejection. He says that is only for FBI background checks that are still open after 88 days because the FBI can't reconcile something, not for all submissions. These sort of hanging background checks are only 1% of applications according to the video.)

He does not address the issue of an individual owner adding the brace. Can the owner simply remove the brace and be OK, or will the 922(r) violation already have occurred and cannot be cured by removing the brace? The fair thing is for the ATF to allow the removal of the brace within the 120 day period.

George Dickel said:

I was at a LGS today and there is a wall displaying a number of AR Pistols. Sign on the wall said Manager Special. All AR pistols $200.00 off listed sales price. No this isn't a gimmick, the price tags are the same tags that have been on the guns for weeks now.

Click to expand...

As of yesterday, the rule clarification was not published so it has not gone into effect yet.

Jeff H said:

As of yesterday, the rule clarification was not published so it has not gone into effect yet.

Click to expand...

I was in there today and the Manager Special sign is gone and all the braces have been removed.

George Dickel said:

I was in there today and the Manager Special sign is gone and all the braces have been removed.

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that some dealers are so afraid of the ambiguity of the proposed 'law,' they are just calling it quits, and dismounting the braces. It is very likely going to turn into a 'he said, she said' coupled with 'who assembled what...' that it's not worth it.

This is one of the reasons I've stuck with 16" AR barrels or greater on my builds... I knew, eventually, it would come down to something like this.

Some molded plastic and strips of velcro.

Illegal now under federal law (with no legislative action).

Is it because I'm gettin' old, or am I just confused? How is it that we are letting the government foist this ridiculous crap on us?

Rhetorical question, boys.

Old Dog, out.

I know they're called "arm braces" but has anyone here ever used one that way? Or even seen it done? Without exception every person I've seen on video or at the range with one has used it precisely as they would a stock. YMMV.

Phaedrus/69 said:

I know they're called "arm braces" but has anyone here ever used one that way? Or even seen it done? Without exception every person I've seen on video or at the range with one has used it precisely as they would a stock. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Yes I have seen them used as braces. Previously ATF had said braces were legal, and it was OK to shoulder a braced firearm, so there is that too. How you use an item does not change what the item was designed for. If I use a fork to eat my soup, the fork does not become a spoon.

I once tried to use an "arm brace" strapped to my arm as it "intended" the result was absurd. The ergos and geometry are completely wrong and there's no way to actually line it up unless you're strong enough to hold it out to the side like an 18th century duelist. And the "braces" have evolved to the point where they're virtually indistinguishable from a stock. I had an SB Tactical brace once upon a time and was very stock-like. Their later SBA3 is a stock in every way but the writing on the box. I'm not saying the ATF's position is correct or that opining about if they should be legal or not, just commenting that at one point everyone just agreed to pretend they weren't stocks and that agreement has ended. I saw where the whole mess was going and sold mine years ago.

Phaedrus/69 said:

just commenting that at one point everyone just agreed to pretend they weren't stocks and that agreement has ended.

Click to expand...

+1

Someone's inability to use a brace as intended does not mean it is not still a brace. I can't use chopsticks, but chopsticks are still chopsticks.

F-111 John said:

I personally feel that it is unlikely that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA on Constitutional grounds because the law is a tax on firearms, not a ban on firearms.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The government cannot tax a right.

Do they tax us on our 5th Amendment rights? Like..sure, you don't have to testify against yourself, but you have to pay this tax first!

Or, do they tax you walking in tye door of your church?

Lots and lots of arguments against taxing a right...

This assumes logic is used..but we know that word seldom applies to government..even tye SCOTUS

Old Dog said:

Some molded plastic and strips of velcro.

Illegal now under federal law (with no legislative action).

Is it because I'm gettin' old, or am I just confused? How is it that we are letting the government foist this ridiculous crap on us?

Rhetorical question, boys.

Old Dog, out.

Click to expand...

You are confused.
This rule does not make arm braces illegal.

Balrog said:

Yes I have seen them used as braces. Previously ATF had said braces were legal,

Click to expand...

Not true.
ATF can only regulate firearms.
ATF issued only a very few determination letters on "arm braces" submitted for evaluation. They made it clear that ATF does not regulate accessories, only firearms. So many arm brace versions were submitted, that ATF said "Stop it! We'll only do a determination on a complete firearm!" ATF Technical Division can only determine whether in their opinion the firearm+arm brace is an NFA firearm or not. Determination letters are not law, but opinion, and those opinions notoriously change over time. For example, reproduction shoulder stocks on certain Lugers, Mauser and Hi Power pistols. First they were okay, then later ATF issued another letter saying "no reproductions, originals only".

Many of these "arm braces" were never submitted to ATF for a determination letter, relying on the manufacturers claim that it was really, truly, I seriously mean it this ain't a shoulder stock. Some of those determination letters https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/...roval-Letter-Adjustable-Pistol-Brace-2015.pdf made mention of not being used as a shoulder stock.

and it was OK to shoulder a braced firearm, so there is that too. How you use an item does not change what the item was designed for. If I use a fork to eat my soup, the fork does not become a spoon.

Click to expand...

Not a valid analogy.
If you attach anything to a pistol with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock....its a design change. ATF held that position consistently since 1934 until the Sig arm brace determination letter.

Balrog said:

Someone's inability to use a brace as intended does not mean it is not still a brace. I can't use chopsticks, but chopsticks are still chopsticks.

Click to expand...

Anyone that still thinks these were really intended to be arm braces has never worked with people who need arm braces.
<----I do.

Megawatt maker said:

I disagree. The government cannot tax a right.

Click to expand...

Horsehockey.
Plenty of states charge sales tax on the sale of firearms. (and on books, magazines, newspapers and cable TV too)
The feds charge a tax on the transfer or making of NFA firearms.

In eighty nine years the US Supreme Court has yet to agree with you on whether a "right" can be taxed.

Megawatt maker said:

I disagree. The government cannot tax a right.

Do they tax us on our 5th Amendment rights? Like..sure, you don't have to testify against yourself, but you have to pay this tax first!

Or, do they tax you walking in tye door of your church?

Lots and lots of arguments against taxing a right...

This assumes logic is used..but we know that word seldom applies to government..even tye SCOTUS

Click to expand...

We have the constitutional right of assembly, but can still be charged a fee for a permit to assemble. We have the constitutional right to marry, but can still be charged a fee for a marriage license.

While I personally agree with both you and armybrat that a fundamental constitutional right should not be taxed, I don't think that SCOTUS would strike down the NFA on those grounds, nor would they strike down the fees involved with concealed carry permits.

dogtown tom said:

You are confused.
This rule does not make arm braces illegal.

Click to expand...

Like the use of the bold text. Tactful as always (and apparently unable to detect humor or irony), dogtown tom. The patronizing tone you adopt when lecturing us all on the laws only an FFL can truly understand is so appreciated. Not.

And illegal? It's a matter of opinion. The ATF has just declared millions of law-abiding citizens potentially in violation of federal law. Those who purchased their firearms with braces, legally under then-current law, forced with the choice of registering their firearms with the ATF, under an unlegislated law, or to permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached; or turn the firearm in to your local ATF office, or destroy the firearm. Even just scanning the surface of the almost 300-page document, it sure looks as though the agency is saying most everyone with a pistol-brace-equipped gun is “violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches.” Sure looks like a registration scheme to me, leading up to potentially being a confiscation scheme, as well being another executive branch ex post facto law. All for, as I noted previously, pieces of molded plastic and some velcro.

Old Dog said:

Like the use of the bold text. Tactful as always (and apparently unable to detect humor or irony), dogtown tom. The patronizing tone you adopt when lecturing us all on the laws only an FFL can truly understand is so appreciated. Not..

Click to expand...

You asked: "Is it because I'm gettin' old, or am I just confused?" and you didn't like the answer.
FFL's aren't blessed by God with superior brain power allowing us to read and comprehend ATF regs despite your opinion.

And illegal? It's a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

No, its not.

The ATF has just declared millions of law-abiding citizens potentially in violation of federal law.

Click to expand...

Hogwash. No one has been declared anything by anyone.
ATF spent 300 pages to backtrack on a determination letter from a decade ago that deemed pistols with an arm brace attached did not result in the making of an NFA firearm.

They have now decided that determination was faulty and explains why. It doesn't make anyone in violation of federal law unless they fail to comply with the options presented by ATF.

Those who purchased their firearms with braces, legally under then-current law, forced with the choice of registering their firearms with the ATF, under an unlegislated law, or to permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached; or turn the firearm in to your local ATF office, or destroy the firearm.

Click to expand...

Or, you can keep the arm brace and attach to any rifle.

Even just scanning the surface of the almost 300-page document, it sure looks as though the agency is saying most everyone with a pistol-brace-equipped gun is “violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches.”

Click to expand...

No it does not. TODAY, it is perfectly legal to possess a pistol with an arm brace attached.
The rule outline the options and procedures for compliance. You have 120 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register.

Sure looks like a registration scheme to me,

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Thats not been a secret and is required under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

leading up to potentially being a confiscation scheme,

Click to expand...

Oh please.

as well being another executive branch ex post facto law.

Click to expand...

An "ex post facto" law punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.

That you would make this claim shows you don't understand the meaning of the term or the fact that it is not criminalizing possession of pistols with arm braces possessed before the 120 day period has expired.

All for, as I noted previously, pieces of molded plastic and some velcro

Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean squat. Guns are just chunks of metal, cars have rubber, metal and plastic. Drugs are just some ground up plants. Gasoline is just some juice from the ground.
All are regulated to some extent.

Good Lord.

Well, now we know where he stands. Perfectly fine with more senseless federal regulation and no understanding of broader consequences (unintended or otherwise) ... or humor.

Probably okay with this, too.
On the FAQ for the ATF's efile page ( https://eforms-form1.atf.gov/faq ) in the brace info.



Q. If I am the registered owner of a NFA item, can someone else shoot my item in my presence?
No. Only Responsible Person(s) listed on the approved registration may have physical or constructive possession of the NFA item.