ATF brace rule is out

[someguy2800]

So there are still braced pistol configurations that are legal? Sorry, I was told it was like a 300pg document, just wondering if the KAK Shockwave made the list of approved braces or not. I doubt the ATF was so kind as to spell it out in clear and concise terms or named any specific manufacturers. I just downloaded the document, I'm gonna read as much as I can. Just wondering if anybody knows if the KAK blade is no bueno....

The KAK blade is no beuno. The rules as I read them don't specifically say that you cannot have a brace on a pistol, it basically says that such a brace cannot extend the length of pull to a length that would make it easily shoulderable, and that the brace cannot enlarge the rear surface area of the pistol. A kak blade and practically every brace that I can think of would do both of those things. I think the only way to make a brace legal now is if it was designed in such a way that it cannot extend past the end of the buffer tube, and have the rear surface of it slanted so that you could not use it to apply pressure from your shoulder.

I have two braced firearms under the following circumstances, here's how I'm understanding my options:

I have a single AR15 10.5", all other ARs are over 16".
- I can apply for a SBR tax stamp and keep my silly brace and it's not constructive? Especially if I have rifle stocks on my other AR rifles?
- The buffer tube is now a rifle stock? So any AR with a buffer tube must have a barrel over 16" or a SBR tax stamp?

My Ruger 9mm PC Charger (6.5" barrel) has a 1913 rail on the backend and I have a folding brace that mounts on the rail.
- I need to dispose/destroy the 1913 brace or get a SBR tax stamp because it's the only firearm that I can mount the brace on and it's just a hex-head bolt and 10 seconds?

This is just my understanding of it from having read through it quickely, but any brace that extends the length of pull to a shoulderable length or increases the rear surface area (in other words practically all of them) is now a stock. So you could still put a brace on a 16" rifle if you wanted because its now considered a stock. Once you have the SBR tax stamp you will be able to put whatever stock you want on it.

A functional buffer tube by itself is not a stock. It specifically calls out in the document that buffer tubes that are required for the firearm to function are allowed, but you cannot put an accessory on it that increases its rear surface area or extends it toward your shoulder. The buffer tube on your Ruger PC charger is not required for the firearm to function and will be a no go. Same would go for adapters for other guns like contenders or AK's that put a buffer tube on the back for no other reason than for mounting a brace. There was even a mention in the document that putting an A2 rifle length buffer on a pistol would not be an acceptable work around because the length of pull would be similar to other firearms designed to shoot from the shoulder.

 

[JohnKSa]

So there are still braced pistol configurations that are legal?

The wording of the rule makes it clear that some stabilizing braces will remain legal. There's 300 pages of explanation that should make things clear on what is and what isn't.

Seriously, this is one of those situations where it's hard to come up with a concise definition, but it's not that hard to understand what's going on. If you put a "brace" (note the quote marks) on your pistol so you could use it as a shoulder stock without having to do the SBR rules, then there's a good chance that it's got features that are stock-like (the document covers them) and that have nothing to do with stabilizing brace functionality. Those are not going to be legal since it's not legal to put a shoulder stock on a pistol without doing the SBR dance. If you bought a brace to help you shoot the pistol one handed and picked one that is actually a good, functional brace that is not modified/designed to function as a stock, then there's a good chance it's still legal.

So you could still put a brace on a 16" rifle if you wanted because its now considered a stock.

You have to be a little careful here--it's possible, depending on the final configuration (for example, overall length) putting a brace on a rifle might result in an NFA firearm.

But you are correct, if you can assemble it onto one of your other firearms without creating an NFA firearm then you should be good to keep it.

 

[12Bravo20]

You have to be a little careful here--it's possible, depending on the final configuration (for example, overall length) putting a brace on a rifle might result in an NFA firearm.

As long as the barrel length is at least 16" AND the overall length is over 26" then there won't be any problems having a brace installed onto a rifle.

Also remember that the ATF measures overall length with adjustable stocks fully extended. Because if they measured OAL with the stock fully collapsed, then a lot of rifles would be SBR's. The Kel-Tec CMR30 is a prime example since it is definitely shorter than 26" in OAL with the stock fully collapsed.

 

[JohnKSa]

Right. It's just something to keep in mind.

 

[browneu]

So is it to now illegal to purchase a braced pistol at the LGS or through private transaction? I thought I'd ask since I'm still seeing ads on Armslist. Or could the purchase go through if the brace was removed.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

And, a random thought. Should this nonsense become status quo, will that be the death of the 300BO?

Does the Blackout have a point as a stockess pistol? Or, as a 16" carbine?

That's a very good question. Its entire purpose is for 1) door-kicker-inners and 2) the people who want to cosplay as them. Goodyear ads come to mind: if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you. If you are persuaded by that ad, you're a sucker, and I can hear registers ring as you walk by.

 

[Mosin77]

That's a very good question. Its entire purpose is for 1) door-kicker-inners and 2) the people who want to cosplay as them. Goodyear ads come to mind: if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you. If you are persuaded by that ad, you're a sucker, and I can hear registers ring as you walk by.

I think it’s got enough popularity that it will be fine. The guys that enjoy buying braced pistols are not going to sacrifice a tactical advantage and many have already made the jump to NFA with suppressors so they’ll just embrace SBRs. But it might cool the industry somewhat since buyers will be less willing to lay out a bunch of cash on something they may not be able to legally sell easily. Dealing with NFA is relatively complicated compared to going down to the gun shop and buying a 10” “pistol” that can be sold as is with no problems if they decide to go a different route. .300blk is also an effective substitute for 7.62x39 and performs well in longer barrels too, it’s just not the primary role these days.

 

[Varminterror]

Let’s rein this thread back to reality about the 300blk… The vast majority of 300blk firearms on the market aren’t braced pistols.

The 300 Whisper has been around since the early 1990’s, with the majority of its users shooting the round in bolt guns. The Blackout version dropped in 2010, obviously focused on AR’s. Despite marketing that the round was designed with a 9” barrel in mind, AR pistols really weren’t popular at the time - SB Tactical wouldn’t get their clarification letter from ATF to support that braces were legal at all until 2012, and further didn’t get their clarification letter allowing adjustable length braces (allowing use of carbine tubes for pistols) until 2015… and further reminding, the ATF clarification of “design vs use” wasn’t settled until 2017 when they confirmed shouldering a brace didn’t manufacture (and redesign) the pistol…

So we’ve really only had 5-6 years of freedom with braced pistols, only half of the life of the 300blk, with its heyday long over now - a LOT of companies made 300blk rifles and barrels, and the 300blk market really boomed and burst before the brace boom. I’d hazard a guess than braced 300blks are less than 10% of the 300blk market. Maybe even less than 1% - as I’m hedging my bets at 10% to concede there’s ambiguity in marketshare between home build and factory sales.

 

[BreechFace]

Pictures are easy. These two will have Form 1's filed.
View attachment 1127498

Are they requiring proof of ownership before the date of the regulation change? Are they going to require timestamps on photos to prove the photos were taken before the regulation change?

Just curious. I have several braced lowers, which I would get the free tax stamp for, but I'm honestly not sure I have photos that are date stamped; I don't photograph my firearms much if at all. I'll have to go through my photographs, I may have taken a few when I first assembled the "firearm" lower into a pistol.

 

[BreechFace]

So what about the Remington Tac14 and Mossberg Shockwave shotguns that were sold by the manufacturers with braces on them? I guess the same will apply to those as well and one ends up with a SBS tax stamp free as well?

 

[Sistema1927]

So what about the Remington Tac14 and Mossberg Shockwave shotguns that were sold by the manufacturers with braces on them? I guess the same will apply to those as well and one ends up with a SBS tax stamp free as well?

Nope. Read the new reg. If a buffer tube is not required for operation, such as a CZ
Scorpion, then they aren't allowed. At the same time, they explicitly mention that they will not allow registration of SBS's tax free.

 

[12Bravo20]

So what about the Remington Tac14 and Mossberg Shockwave shotguns that were sold by the manufacturers with braces on them? I guess the same will apply to those as well and one ends up with a SBS tax stamp free as well?

There will not be any tax exempt registration of the Tac14, Shockwave or similar firearms. The reason for this is that they were designed to be fired using two hands from the start. And being design to use two hand, they do not meet the federal definition of a pistol. So if you want to keep a brace attached to them, you will have to submit a Form 1 AND pay the $200 tax to register them as a Short Barreled Shotgun.

Such smooth bore firearms are addressed starting on page 22 of the Factoring Criteria

Also in 2014, an individual asked ATF to examine the SB15 “stabilizing brace” on a firearm commonly known as a “pistol grip firearm” with a smooth bore to verify that thefirearmisnotregulatedundertheNFA. OnOctober28,2014,ATFconcluded1) that a forward grip (an additional handgrip toward the front of the firearm in addition to the pistol grip) attached to a pistol redesigns the firearm to be fired with two hands and therefore the firearm is no longer a “handgun” or “pistol,” and (2) that it would be classified as “any other weapon” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) under the NFA if its overall length is less than 26 inches or if it is actually concealed on the person.27 The overall length of the submitted firearm was 27-1/4 inches and therefore ATF determined that, as submitted, the firearm was subject to regulation under the GCA but was not an NFA firearm, “provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock.”28 In essence, ATF’s original analysis focused on whether the inclusion of the forward grip subjected the firearm to the NFA, but ATF did not consider how the classification would be affected if a “pistol grip firearm” without a forward grip were to incorporate a “stabilizing brace.” Nevertheless, the addition of a “stabilizing brace” to these types of firearms does not assist with one- handed firing but rather redesigns the firearm by providing surface area for firing from theshoulder. Therefore,thesetypesoffirearmswouldfallwithinthepurviewofthe NFA as short-barreled shotguns. 26 U.S.C. 5845(d). Because these types of firearms were never designed to be fired from one hand, this rule, as described in the NPRM, does not apply to firearms commonly referred to as pistol grip shotguns.29 86 FR at 30828–29. The 2014 classification described above and any classification that provides that a pistol grip shotgun is not an NFA firearm is no longer valid or authoritative as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the firearm should be resubmitted to FATD for evaluation.

That is actually pretty clear and easy to understand. So again any type of brace attached to a smooth bore firearm such as the Remington Tac14 and Mossberg Shockwave is now considered a SBS - short barreled rifle. And since they were always intended to be fired using two hand, they are not pistols either.

It has also been long understood that if you install a barrel that is at least 18" in OAL and a should stock to these firearms, then they can never go back to their original configuration since doing so would be making an AOW out of a shoulder fired shotgun.

 

[BreechFace]

Thanks for the clarification. I own a Tac-14 but just with the birds head grip.

It just crossed my mind as I knew both Remington and Mossberg came out with braced versions.

There will not be any tax exempt registration of the Tac14, Shockwave or similar firearms. The reason for this is that they were designed to be fired using two hands from the start. And being design to use two hand, they do not meet the federal definition of a pistol. So if you want to keep a brace attached to them, you will have to submit a Form 1 AND pay the $200 tax to register them as a Short Barreled Shotgun.

Such smooth bore firearms are addressed starting on page 22 of the Factoring Criteria



That is actually pretty clear and easy to understand. So again any type of brace attached to a smooth bore firearm such as the Remington Tac14 and Mossberg Shockwave is now considered a SBS - short barreled rifle. And since they were always intended to be fired using two hand, they are not pistols either.

It has also been long understood that if you install a barrel that is at least 18" in OAL and a should stock to these firearms, then they can never go back to their original configuration since doing so would be making an AOW out of a shoulder fired shotgun.

 

[BreechFace]

Nope. Read the new reg. If a buffer tube is not required for operation, such as a CZ
Scorpion, then they aren't allowed. At the same time, they explicitly mention that they will not allow registration of SBS's tax free.

Thanks for this clarification as well. Good to know, so much of this "free" SBR tax stamp is going specifically towards AR15's as there are not that many other firearms where something protruding out the back is required for function.

So @WestKentucky you will not be getting free SBR stamps for your Contender pistols.

 

[JERRY]

So at 1st they say it's OK now they say it's not OK all without any law actually going through Congress. I'm not familiar with Federal firearm restrictions but what else is out there that they can arbitrarily change their minds on that is currently legal?

 

[BreechFace]

So I understand that there is criteria on certain "stabilizing" attachments that fall under the ATF's definition of "rifle" seen below in bold on pages 100-101 of the 2nd link of the OP.

So where do pistol buffer tubes (buffer tubes with no adjustment notches, just a round tube or buffer tubes made specifically not to handle standard stocks) fall in this ruling? They are still not saying one cannot shoulder a pistol, as I can do that with a revolver if I so choose, so what about just going back to using a pistol buffer tube?

Do we assume we can buy the pistol buffer tubes such as the Phase5 buffer tube with the foam cover, you know so that I can cheek weld my pistol and fire it?

Are they going to regulate me erroneously shouldering the buffer tube, as I'm just shooting the pistol as it was not intentioned? I can do the same with a standard pistol, I could hold the grip of the pistol on my shoulder and pull the trigger with my off hand, stupid yes, but certainly not illegal.

What about the Thordsen Custom Pistol Cheek Rest? This is not designed to be used from the shoulder but to provide a cheek weld to shoot as a pistol.

What about this Thordsen offering with storage compartments on each side (widening the back of the buffer tube area) of the cheek rest? Are they going to look at this "cheek rest" (not a stock) as the ATF has established with Thordsen as being shoulderable?

Do we have to play "Mommy may I" again with ATF letters?

The ridiculousness of a 300 page document that provides more questions than answers is purposeful.

PAGE 100-101 of ATF's Guide of Obfuscating

In clarifying the definition of “rifle,” this rule states that the term “designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” shall include 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 other factors, as listed below, indicate that that the weapon is
designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
100


attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.​

 

[CapnMac]

the new rule makes it clear that there are stabilizing braces out there that are legal--

But were unable (or unwilling) to specify any in two Appendices.
They had to say that there was a possibility of a legal brace existing, to not be under the rubric of "regulating an accessory."
Their own publication does not suggest they actually believe that any such actually exists.

The buffer tube is now a rifle stock?

There is clear and exacting language that says "rearward projections" that are "necessary to operation" are exempt.
So, you can have a bare buffer tube, but cannot attach any "bearing surface" upon it. (Open question on 550 cord wraps and similar.)

The buffer tube will have to be "necessary," though. A .22lr that does not use a buffer will be affected. A BRN-180 or AR-180 upper will be affected. All the MP-5 clones, the AK pistols, they are affected.

Putting a rubber washer on the end of a buffer tube, might be considered illegal. Maybe. YMMV.

 

[CapnMac]

The question of enforcement has cropped up again and again.
Which is only natural.
The reality is that there are millions of braces but only hundreds (scant hundreds) of ATFE men out there. Walk out the door the day after this goes into effect, and a suburban-full of goons are not going to jump out and haul you away to durance vile in the nearest fedgov gaol.

Like as not what we will need to watch out for are people making "friend requests" and then bragging about owning contraband. (Probably ought keep an eye out for TV remote trucks in one's neighborhood after gaining such "friends.")

 

[CapnMac]

Ian makes some cogent points here on the prima facie absurdity of this new Rule. He offers a suggestion for correcting it, too (which is far too simple to be implemented in our "modern world"):

 

[Varminterror]

It does not appear to me that the brace equipped FIREARMS which fire shotgun shells will not fall withunder any restriction related to this clarification of PISTOL and RIFLE accessories.

This interpretation does not appear to be defining braces as firearms or NFA items themselves, but rather is providing clarification and definition for what constitutes “designed to be fired from the shoulder” as is applies within the context of the ATF definition of a “rifle.”

Since the Mossberg Shockwave has never been a rifle, this interpretation and clarification of the definition of a rifle doesn’t apply.

However, it’s simple enough to assume that subsequent interpretation change in the definition of a Shotgun which is congruent with this interpretation change to the definition of a rifle will be forthcoming, the moment someone realizes it has been overlooked.

Naturally, this interpretation and the 120 day Tax-Free application period are not opportunities to get an SBS stamp.

 

[12Bravo20]

The Remington Tac14, Mossberg Shockwave, etc. were designed from the start to be used with two hands and NOT fired from the shoulder. And the only reason they are legal is because they have an overall length of at least 26" AND have never had a shoulder stock attached to their receivers.

They were approved as a non NFA firearm since then do not meet the definition of a shotgun (fired from the shoulder) nor could they be a handgun since smooth bore handguns are also restricted by the NFA and are AOW's. The ATF and manufactures all agreed from the start that these are designed to be shot using two hands. So under the current definitions and rule changes, they are not pistols so they can not legally have an arm brace.

Again adding a 18" or longer barrel AND a shoulder stock to these means that they can no longer go back to having the 14" barrel and birds head grip. The reason is that you are now making a weapon from a shotgun which is again regulated by the NFA.

I am not a lawyer but I still found the text easy to understand on page 22 and page 23 where smooth bore NON NFA firearms designed to be fired using two hands are discussed.

 

[trackskippy]

ATF's mentor Allen Greenspan on the matter.....


I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said.
Alan Greenspan

If I've made myself clear, I've misspoken.
Alan Greenspan

If you think you understand what I am saying you do not understand what I am saying.
Alan Greenspan

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”

― Alan Greenspan

 

[SharpDog]

Very informative, worth a watch:

 

[JERRY]

No lawsuits challenging this can be filed until after tomorrow, we shall see what happens.

 

[wesmonster]

Well I for one don't plan on getting out of .300bo.
I have an AR pistol with an 8" barrel in .300bo in addition to a 16" .300bo upper, a Ruger Ranch bolt action in .300bo and a Mini-14 in .300bo. I just like a 30cal bullet that works in an AR platform. I don't run a supressor.