Atf open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”

Status
Not open for further replies.

dogtown tom

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
8,772
Location
Plano, Texas
I just received this via email from ATF:

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.


Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division


*This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the "News" tab.
 
Yep.

I thought it was odd when I heard/read all those claims that the November letter didn't contradict the letter from March. It seemed like those people were trying to read through rose-colored glasses and find some sort of favorable interpretation of the November letter. This plainly says that the letter from March is hereby revoked.

A few of the thing that the March letter said:
...we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR:

...we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.

...placing the receiver extention of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon.

...using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using an accessory improperly would not change the classification of a weapon under Federal law.
All of that has now changed.

I think we have to suppose that shouldering the buffer tube of an AR pistol, or shouldering the grip of a mare's leg "constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item".
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity; is there any way to challenge an ATF opinion? Or is the only way to fight it at the supreme court level (after being arrested and tried got an unregistered SBR)?

I'm not OK with the ATF just being able to decide whatever they want when they want, but it's downright disgusting that they're able to change their minds, too.
 
^^ Sure.

Get arrested and defend yourself in court. This is all opinion. Challenge it in court at your peril.

Willie

.
 
Smalls, what are you gonna challenge?

That using something that looks like a stock as a stock on your legally classified handgun DOESN'T make it an SBR?

If they didn't do this, what's to stop someone from making an M4 collapsing stock with some extra weights on it and call it a 'balance' to facilitate one handed shooting?

They got backed into a corner on it and had to do something, at least they're not saying the brace is illegal, just using the brace as a stock.
 
I think we have to suppose that shouldering the buffer tube of an AR pistol, or shouldering the grip of a mare's leg "constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item".

How does that not apply to a two handed grip stance, as well? Design is not use, no matter how much intent the ATF can muster, so they are limited to banning/licensing the grip itself. If this does not soon follow, they are in for a world of suck in the courtroom when all industry leaders pile in to defend the one product that made their machine pistols marketable. I can almost see the ATF losing the ability to issue these "rulings" at all if this goes to court, with that task kicked (rightfully) back to congressional commitees for decision.

This fiat edict crap has gone on way too long, and now they've declared dominion over the shooters as though they are part of the machines the law gives them limited authority to regulate/classify. This is a shot over the bow if there's ever been one. They'll be registering Miculek's fingers as machine guns next if this is allowed to stand.

The ATF double backed to get where we are today, so they'll do it again if we make them. Get your reps on the horn, and convince them to make the Bureau's life miserable.

TCB
 
"Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked."

Uh, yeah. I'd say so. The ATF-FTB does that a lot, actually (but it seems like they've laid kinda low since the AWB expiration)

On a side note; by what authority does the Bureau issue these 'rulings?' I can understand them requiring internal best practices in order to resolve the extremely poor wording/structure of the NFA into something remotely enforceable, but the statement above looks & sounds remarkably like a court ruling. The ATF cannot rule on law, as it is not a judicial body, nor can it create new language from thin air (i.e. "constructive possession," "straw purchase" do not appear in the law, yet they are enforced as hard and fast legal boundaries, just like laws).

It'd be like the local police weighing in on exactly how fast over the speed limit constitutes "speeding," which they almost never do since they lack the authority (Art Acevedo in Austin, TX cannot just decide that anyone registering the .02 he wishes were the booze limit will be treated by officers as "intoxicated," and brought to the drunk tank for the night.)

TCB

PS: Friday at 4:45PM --very classy, ATF :rolleyes:. The new director really is a chip off the ol' blockhead...
 
Soooooooooo.......... If you put a second hand on a pistol have you redesigned it to not be fired by one hand?


Also: sigh, I guess I'll drop a couple e-form 4's this weekend.
 
smalls Just out of curiosity; is there any way to challenge an ATF opinion? Or is the only way to fight it at the supreme court level (after being arrested and tried got an unregistered SBR)?
Sure, you present evidence to ATF Technical Branch that convinces them that using the Sig Arm Brace as a shoulder stock is not a violation of the National Firearms Act.


ATF's original letter regarding the Sig Arm Brace was spot on............but they should have addressed its use as a shoulder stock because its pretty darn obvious what the makers real intent was. If they had done that in the initial letter they wouldn't have had to issue any of these subsequent letters.



I'm not OK with the ATF just being able to decide whatever they want when they want, but it's downright disgusting that they're able to change their minds, too.
You need to understand the role and authority of regulatory agencies. They are tasked with taking a law passed by Congress and deciphering both the letter of the law as well as the intent of that piece of legislation.

While it may seem arbitrary to you, if you read the NFA, almost all ATF determination letters make sense.
 
Soooooooooo.......... If you put a second hand on a pistol have you redesigned it to not be fired by one hand?


Also: sigh, I guess I'll drop a couple e-form 4's this weekend.

Yeah...that more than anything really makes this whole cluster lack cohesion or anything even remotely resembling consistency
 
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005).

Does anyone have a 1968 edition of the Webster Dictionary?
 
While it may seem arbitrary to you, if you read the NFA, almost all ATF determination letters make sense.

Unfortunately this is absolutely true. The ATF has a real bad deal, being charged with trying to enforce a federal law that is inaptly written, over a large variety of subject matter that doesn't fit well into the amateurish and limited vision of the framers of that law.

(Oddly, this is much the same problem as we find in English grammar, for which many of the rules were written based on Latin, seen as a perfect language, even though English doesn't work like Latin so the rules often don't fit well and must be inconsistently applied. But I digress...:D)

But, all that to say, when you really read the text of the law, the ATF hasn't seemed to come up with unrealistic applications of it, no matter how insulting and annoying the whole thing is to us.
 
"Sure, you present evidence to ATF Technical Branch that convinces them that using the Sig Arm Brace as a shoulder stock is not a violation of the National Firearms Act."
So, that'd be the Second Circuit Court of BATFE for use southerners? ;) Just snickering at how the Bureau is functionally all three branches simultaneously, in practice. :evil:

"The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005)."
Okay, I'll see the ATF and raise them a "what is the common meaning of 'alter' in Webster's II New College Dictionary?"

The gun does not function differently because of its shooters' posture...unless of course you now want to classify bump firing as full auto, and pistols as AOW when Weavered. I'm just not seeing much hope for the ATF's point of view on this one; they really need to just admit defeat, say they screwed up when they approved the brace, set up an amnesty for all of them to be registered as AOWs, and endure the resultant popular/industry backlash. What they've done currently is even worse than their trust BGC arm-flailing, which has landed them in several expensive lawsuits*, if nothing else.

TCB

*Even if the ATF doesn't end up carrying the cost they pass to us tax payers, they do have to admit to their congressional overseers that they are involved in embarrassing litigation they haven't been able to fend off, themselves. Political cost.
 
Smalls, what are you gonna challenge?

That using something that looks like a stock as a stock on your legally classified handgun DOESN'T make it an SBR?

That just because you use something in a different way than intended doesn't make it illegal. Just like their original opinion stated.
 
They've ruled a muzzle device to be a silencer even though it didn't reduce sound emissions at all. So it's pretty hard to say that their rulings make sense.
 
"They've ruled a muzzle device to be a silencer even though it didn't reduce sound emissions at all. So it's pretty hard to say that their rulings make sense."
The rulings make perfect sense if viewed from the Bureau's convenience/ease of enforcement (as I have said before, this kind of stuff is kinda necessary if they are to get anything done; it's not their fault the guiding laws are so terrible, they are still charged with enforcing them). Besides, the ATF lost the silencer suit --the judge said they have to prove the device reduces the sound signature of the gun before they can reject it*

TCB

*I wonder if this actually opens a door to us, much the way the SCOTUS case with T/C did for SBRs; that the burden of "constructive possession/manufacture" is substantially raised on the ATF, with the presumption of innocence for the citizen reinforced. Unless your gun reduces sound, you can't be convicted, end of story (and you have to have all the means and proven intent of constructing something illegal to be found in possession of it, instead of just the latter as defined by the ATF itself)
 
"The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.”



They had to ask.

Ask a stupid question and you might get an answer you don't want to get.

Doesn't the term "sleeping dogs" mean anything?

The stupidity of our own "community" never ceases to amaze me.


Willie

.
 
While it may seem arbitrary to you, if you read the NFA, almost all ATF determination letters make sense.

Doesn't make any sense when they constantly change their minds and contradict themselves.

"Yes, this is OK, because we can't tell you how to use this item".

"Wait, yes we can, you're now in possession of an illegal firearm if you use this 100% completely legal accessory any other way than we say you can".

I'm sorry, but that does not make sense to me.

If I was small enough to use a plain ol' AR pistol buffer tube as a "stock", I'd be in violation.
 
"Doesn't the term "sleeping dogs" mean anything?"
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact this decision is the ATFs, and the ATFs alone. No one made them arbitrarily change their mind, and it is painfully obvious the initial approval was the actual mistake, here. The public letters are merely an excuse, since I don't think the FTB is even required by law to answer them.

If the letters actually carried any broadly applied protection, there wouldn't as much need for people to ask them; they'd refer to a previous ruling. But each person gets a personal response, which may or may not be consistent. It helps not that previous letters aren't catalogued in a convenient database. When there are people who don't know about the NFA, where would you expect them to think they should go for clarification? Guyontheinternet.com, or RubyWacoMcDoorkicker.gov? ;)

This ruling was merely a matter of time, these letters just the ATFs scapegoat. They own this decision, and they know it (late on Friday before a 3 day weekend... :mad:)

TCB
 
The permission slip they get is for riding the bus…..from the jail to the courthouse and back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top