ATF brace rule is out

[Varminterror]

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.

This has not been the advisement I have received on these weapons.

In the exact same manner that an AR pistol can be made into a rifle, and then back into a pistol, without becoming a “weapon made from a rifle,” the definition of “other” or “firearm” which includes the Shockwave’s original configuration, then reconfigured into a title 1 shotgun is not “remade” into a shotgun - just as an AR pistol is not “remade” into a rifle - so they retain the ability to return to their original configuration.

Also, based on the advice I have received, you are incorrect that braces could not be added to these Firearms/others, because braces do not create pistols, and until this week, braces did not constitute stocks, hence creating SBS’s from Firearms/Others. This clarification was offered either in 2014 or 2105 that a pistol brace CAN be added to Firearm/Others like the Shockwave, because they - at the time - did not constitute a stock designed to be fired from the shoulder, did not change the design to be fired with two hands, and as long as the length criteria remained satisfied (which it inevitably did, since the tube and brace are longer than the pistol grip), then the brace remained legal on these Firearms. Bluntly - adding a brace does not make a pistol, and at the time, the interpretation that braces did not constitute a stock meant braces COULD be added to Shockwaves with absolutely no effect on their “classification”.

But again, this new interpretation this week has absolutely NO immediate bearing upon “Firearms” such as the Shockwave, as the interpretation is ONLY clarifying the text within the definition of a rifle - and Shockwaves are not and can never be rifles, so this interpretation does not apply. We can expect that there will be subsequent interpretation should be issued for braces added to smoothbore Firearms/Others - which now constitute buttstocks - such NOW the interpretation of adding a brace would be effectively adding a buttstock, IF they choose to make consistent interpretations.

An additional interpretation would have to be drafted in kind to promote consistency and congruency between the braced Firearms/Others which fire shotshells (the brace now being defined as an attachment designed to be shouldered) so the definition of a shotgun would then be consistent with the new definition of a rifle. Until that time, absolutely nothing has changed about the status of a Shockwave or the use of braces on them.

 

[12Bravo20]

This has not been the advisement I have received on these weapons.

In the exact same manner that an AR pistol can be made into a rifle, and then back into a pistol, without becoming a “weapon made from a rifle,” the definition of “other” or “firearm” which includes the Shockwave’s original configuration, then reconfigured into a title 1 shotgun is not “remade” into a shotgun - just as an AR pistol is not “remade” into a rifle - so they retain the ability to return to their original configuration.

I am only going by what the Factoring Criteria for braces states starting on page 22 when it comes to smoothbore firearms such as the Shockwave and TAC14. Which I did quote above.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download

And the discussion about adding a stock and >18" barrel to a shockwave thus turning it into a shotgun has been discussed in detail before. Maybe it hasn't been discussed on this forum. But the word is once you turn it into a shotgun then it can no longer go back to being a "firearm" . The only reason that the TAC14 and Shockwave ARE legal is because they are not a shotgun per NFA/GCA definitions since they have never had a shoulder stock nor intended to be fired from the shoulder.

I know over on ARFCOM this very subject has been discussed by people that know more about NFA laws than You or I know.

 

[Space Ghost]

I wonder what percentage of stabilizing brace owners will comply.
I am also curious what the enforcement mechanism is. Millions of owners. Thousands (maybe) of agents.

I'm guessing that a lot of people scared of doing time in the clink will buckle under and comply.
I'm also guessing that a lot will think there are too many to go after. They may take the chance, and wait it out to see what results the forthcoming lawsuits bring.

Me, I haven't decided yet...

 

[Varminterror]

I’m not remotely going to pretend ARFCOM is a better resource than asking directly to the ATF on how the ATF interprets ATF rules.

These Firearms/Others have never been remade in the eyes of the ATF by adding any attachment which did not constitute a stock, and the Firearm/Other is not a “nothing” which has not ever been manufactured - which is deviously waiting until someone converts it to a goose gun and suddenly it springs to life and says “hey, I’m forever a shotgun now.” That assumption by arfcomers has not been consistent with any clarification I’ve received when asking the ATF - as in the guys which would actually enforce and interpret the law.

The only argument which has ever held any water there is all predicated on a clarification letter which describes a receiver which has never had a buttstock attached can be used to make a Firearm, having overall length over 26” but an under length barrel and no buttstock. This letter was in conflict with the general assignment that the firearm is not made until stocked AND chambered, but it IS congruent with the language for rifles that receivers which have never been stocked (and chambered) can be used to make pistols. However, it remains a false assumption by arfcomers which take that letter out of context to believe adding a stock RE-manufacturers and unassigns the original Firearm/Other Title 1 configuration. It doesn’t.

 

[12Bravo20]

Varminterror, I am not going to argue with you on this. And No I don't trust or believe most posters on ARFCOM either. But when the info comes from FFL holders who are also SOT and also from real lawyers, then I tend to believe them. And this info has came from FFL/SOT holders and lawyers on other forums too.

No matter what, as of 13 Jan 2023, the ATF has made it clear on their stance on smoothbore firearms and braces.

 

[someguy2800]

I'm guessing that a lot of people scared of doing time in the clink will buckle under and comply.
I'm also guessing that a lot will think there are too many to go after. They may take the chance, and wait it out to see what results the forthcoming lawsuits bring.

Me, I haven't decided yet...

View attachment 1127934

There is another category that wanted an SBR all along but didn’t want to pay the government for the “privilege”. I registered 5 of mine and was happy to do it because a brace makes for a pretty crappy stock. I never wanted the brace to begin with.

 

[JohnKSa]

But were unable (or unwilling) to specify any in two Appendices.

The rule document clearly indicates that the very first stabilizing brace approved really was a stabilizing brace and is, apparently, still considered legal.

Their own publication does not suggest they actually believe that any such actually exists.

I see just the opposite. I see multiple references in it that indicate some braces will still be legal.

So, you can have a bare buffer tube, but cannot attach any "bearing surface" upon it.

Surface area is only one of several factors that will apply.

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

If you want to put a shoulder stock on a pistol without turning it into an NFA item, then yes, you do. If you really want to install a stabilizing brace that doesn't have any features that are commonly found on stocks but that serve no purpose for a stabilizing brace, then you're probably good.

The bottom line here is really simple.

Do you want to be able to shoulder your pistol and therefore you wish to install something that provides features that aid you in accomplishing that goal? Yeah, that's probably not a stabilizing brace, it's a stock. Start your NFA paperwork.

Do you want to be able to shoot your large, heavy pistol with one hand but can't manage it practically because of its size, mass and weight distribution? Then you should be able to find a stabilizing brace to put on your pistol that doesn't turn it into an NFA item.

The days of putting a stock on a pistol and calling it a stabilizing brace are over.

 

[army_eod]

All you folks who want to immediately comply are missing the boat. I will not do anything for at least 60 days so I can see what shakes out in the courts. My bet is that this rule will be thrown out. Bets?

 

[army_eod]

There will be many who do not even know they are felons. Lots of folks do not follow this issue. The ATF will not pursue because they cannot for several reasons; first is that there is NO database they are ALLOWED BY LAW to use to see who bought these, and second, they have no manpower or time. This rule will be overturned in courts. The ATF cannot possibly handle all the Form 1 submissions.

 

[HPCadm17]

This is going to be a nightmare for people in states like CT where the predominant configuration is "other" (designed to be fired with 2 hands, does not have a stock (i.e. pistol brace is OK) and has an overall length that exceeds 26″) and to which the state adds requirements of VFG and 10rd magazine. Since the ATF graciously provides a generous 120-day amnesty period, my strategy is to sit tight for a few days and wait and see what happens in court, but not too long.

 

[wcwhitey]

All you folks who want to immediately comply are missing the boat. I will not do anything for at least 60 days so I can see what shakes out in the courts. My bet is that this rule will be thrown out. Bets?

I have been watching the legal implications of this. Quite a few 2A Legal Scholar Lawyers are convinced this is a gross overreach. Effectively altering definitions in the NFA. I would assume you’re correct and it will be challenged. 120 is just enough for them to say they gave you a chance though and not enough for legal challenges to come to fruition. I was wondering if anyone has done it how long does it take for the paperwork to be processed by the ATF for an SBR? I would copy, notarize an throughly document my application to cover one’s self if it runs over 120 days. Hundreds of thousands of new applications will not speed up the process.

 

[BreechFace]

I’ll just put a pistol buffer tube (round tube, no adjustment detents) on my pistol AR’s. I used to shoot that way pre-braces and it worked fine. Cheek shooting utilizing the pistol buffer tube.



This technique with a properly setup pistol AR works great. One just needs to practice.

I think there is a good chance this will get thrown out or drastically changed in the courts. I’m not complying to nothing of a registration until this gets fought.

 

[trackskippy]

This has the whole smell of the last election. If there are questions to its validity, and/or challenges in the courts, then it should all stop, and allow the challenges to be settled, one way or the other.

Considering how this whole thing has been handled all along, I dont see how it can hold up in court, and may even start the downfall of the NFA and the ATF. That is if the courts are really free and unbiased, and we are actually a free people, which hasn't seemed to be the case, for a long time now.

 

[BreechFace]

The bottom line here is really simple.

Do you want to be able to shoulder your pistol and therefore you wish to install something that provides features that aid you in accomplishing that goal? Yeah, that's probably not a stabilizing brace, it's a stock. Start your NFA paperwork.

What precludes one from following the ATF guidelines and removing any braces from the household, installing a pistol buffer tube (no detents for adjustment, just a round tube designed to just house the necessary items for function) and utilizing the end of the buffer tube against one’s shoulder?

Nothing is illegal there. I can do the same thing with a handgun resting the grip against my shoulder and pull the trigger. Stupid, yes; uncomfortable, double yes. Illegal, absolutely not.

I’m tired of the ATF flip flopping and ruining a livelihoods of people who invest in legal manufacture, stocking and selling of goods only to have the rug pulled out from under them when the ATF feels like it.

I’ll get rid of my braces and put pistol tubes back one but I’m not going to amnesty myself into their tyranny. That whole organization is woefully incompetent.

They want everyone to amnesty their pistols so this goes away, they don’t want to fight this in the courts, because they will lose and lose badly. It will bring to light all that is wrong with the NFA. By complying to this, we give them what they want, pistol AR’s registered and buoying up the NFA reason for existence and satiating the 2A masses with handing out “free” tax stamps, which seemingly should have to go through Congress as it’s a budget item. I would rather the 2A population fight this by the fact that the ATF is attempting to require me to register a previously non-registered gun for tracking. It was the ATF that previously allowed pistol braces, they can deal with the fact that their laws are not black and white and it is the government that increasingly is damaging the 2A through unconstitutional rules and laws.

I don’t need an SBR that bad, and if I do want one in the future I’ll pay for it. I’m not going to comply with this and make their indiscretions validated. The pistol owners, manufactures, stocking items, resellers as well as all the people who in the past paid $200 for an SBR should file suit against the ATF for regulating with out any grey matter in their tyrannical brains.

 

[rust collector]

Two unsettling developments in the new regulations: Using appearance as a criteria (if we think it looks like a stock, it's a stock); and removing all but the most basic objective criteria (even if it has a 5" length of pull, we have considered that and conclude that it could be shouldered). There also seems to be a presumption that if the rearward projection could be shouldered (ie is not terminated with an archery broadhead or at least a field point) it is designed or intended to be shouldered.

Ian's video does a great job of providing historical context for the NFA. Now is the time to clean up this mess.

 

[BreechFace]

Two unsettling developments in the new regulations: Using appearance as a criteria (if we think it looks like a stock, it's a stock); and removing all but the most basic objective criteria (even if it has a 5" length of pull, we have considered that and conclude that it could be shouldered). There also seems to be a presumption that if the rearward projection could be shouldered (ie is not terminated with an archery broadhead or at least a field point) it is designed or intended to be shouldered.

Ian's video does a great job of providing historical context for the NFA. Now is the time to clean up this mess.

But what about a pistol buffer tube which is required for function of the firearm? It’s not designed for anything but housing the buffer spring and buffer. If they want 5” or less buffer tube, fine I can give them that. But they cannot regulate someone from using an part that is required for function of the legal firearm as a point of contact, that’s absurd and they know it.

 

[N555]

I say if you are already in the system get your self some free SBRs, let's make SBRs extremely common use. This needs to blow up in the ATFs face.

 

[trackskippy]

SBR's are already "in common use". The only difference is in the make of the "stock".

 

[BreechFace]

I say if you are already in the system get your self some free SBRs, let's make SBRs extremely common use. This needs to blow up in the ATFs face.

That is exactly what they want us to do. They want us to give up a type of firearm without going through Congress. Capitulating to the ATF’s unlawful rulemaking is serving the needs they are desire for this. We don’t need more SBR’s. We need more Americans going out and practicing their rights, we need more Americans pushing back against situations like this. This is a huge ATF overreach, which they have no jurisdiction over, they cannot make laws.

The fact that they approved pistol braces, approved the shouldering of said pistol braces is telling that they meet the criteria of the law on the books according to the ATF which is only there for guidance and enforcement of Congressionally passed laws. Both of these actions by the ATF were with them adhering to actual laws passed by Congress. Now they want to change their mind putting unlawful restrictions on manufactures gun companies, and private American citizens overnight.

If the 2A population doesn’t see this for what it is, which is a precedent for future restrictions and registration on other types of firearms, we will get exactly that.

We firearm owners are playing defense on a checkerboard, while the ATF is playing offense on a chessboard.

 

[someguy2800]

I was wondering if anyone has done it how long does it take for the paperwork to be processed by the ATF for an SBR? I would copy, notarize an throughly document my application to cover one’s self if it runs over 120 days. Hundreds of thousands of new applications will not speed up the process.

From what I’ve been seeing it has been taking them around a month to process Efile submissions. They just redid the efile website so it’s much easier to use than in the past. I’m curious if they have an automated system in place to process these now since they are expecting tens of millions of applications to be mailed in.

 

[JohnKSa]

What precludes one from following the ATF guidelines and removing any braces from the household, installing a pistol buffer tube (no detents for adjustment, just a round tube designed to just house the necessary items for function) and utilizing the end of the buffer tube against one’s shoulder?

Nothing. Because, as you say, the pistol buffer tube houses items necessary for function.

But they cannot regulate someone from using an part that is required for function of the legal firearm as a point of contact, that’s absurd and they know it.

They aren't trying to. Read the rule.

There also seems to be a presumption that if the rearward projection could be shouldered (ie is not terminated with an archery broadhead or at least a field point) it is designed or intended to be shouldered.

No, that's only one factor that will be considered.

The fact that they approved pistol braces...

Actual pistol braces are still approved. Read the rule.

The bottom line is that a lot of people jumped on "braces" as a way to skirt the NFA. They never had any intention of using them to strap onto their arm and shoot the pistol one-handed, they wanted to shoulder the gun because it offers significant advantages. Because there was a lot of confusion about "braces" and their use, that went on for awhile, but now it's over. Now if it looks and functions like a stock with features that stocks have but braces don't need, it's going to be regulated like a stock. Like it has been for the past 90 years or so since the NFA was passed.

I would rather the 2A population fight this by the fact that the ATF is attempting to require me to register a previously non-registered gun for tracking.

Read the rule. The BATF's position is that it is a clarification of the NFA as it applies to shoulder stocks on pistols and not any sort of expansion of enforcement or new legislation. Having read the document, their position has some merit.

Look at where we are now vs. before the first brace was proposed. In reality we're exactly where we were except that now there is an option to put a stabilizing brace on a pistol as long as the resulting weapon doesn't meet the definition of an SBR.

That's actually more leeway than before since hanging anything that looked like a stock off the back of a pistol before was illegal without NFA registration.

Look, I'm not a fan of the NFA, but it's been the law for 89 years now. It's stood up to SCOTUS review, people keep electing officials that leave it alone. As far as I can tell, the majority of people want the NFA and until that changes, it's not going anywhere no matter how much the gun community wants it gone.

 

[DoubleMag]

and conclude that it could be shouldered). There also seems to be a presumption that if the rearward projection could be shouldered (ie is not terminated with an archery broadhead or at least a field point) it is designed or intended to be shouldered.

But what about a pistol buffer tube which is required for function of the firearm? It’s not designed for anything but housing the buffer spring and buffer. If they want 5” or less buffer tube, fine I can give them that. But they cannot regulate someone from using an part that is required for function of the legal firearm as a point of contact, that’s absurd and they know it.

Two VERY good points that I'll put to rest in part, and affirm in part. But NOT the way some are thinking...
Firstly, and using the Govs info in the info I took straight from last Fridays latest-greatest release (see below re: pg 162), the AR15 PISTOL buffer tube is a necessary functioning part of the firearm, NOT never can be considered a shouldering point.

The 2nd point is to , unfortunately, address BreechFaces comment, if they want a lesser (than generally accepted normal) length buffer tube. Again, unfortunately, their document ONLY mentions a 6 to 6-1/2inches rearward buffer tube for the AR style pistol. Again, when I do a search through the document for the word ''buffer'', the ONLY inches provided is 6 to 6 1/2.

The industry accepted and therefore easily available is 7- 71/2inches. BIG oopsie, I do NOT believe its a typo.

Whereas some have rightly figured that all the Form1 submissions will be completed in a matter of potentially decades, I can only find a whopping THREE (3) companies that commercially manufacture a less then 6 to 6/12inches pistol buffer tube...

I understand length of pull in the writing,and, clear examples including a rifle chart stating such. However, ARE WE SEEING A POTENTIAL DEFACTO AR PISTOL BAN HERE?


From the News release...

''...factors listed in this rule are to be considered in determining whether the firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
One objective design feature ATF may consider is whether the attachment is required for the cycle of operations of the weapon, which could indicate the firearm is not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. For example,an AR-type pistol with a standard 6- to 6-1/2-inch buffer tube may not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired. On an AR-type pistol, the buffer tube encases a spring that drives the bolt forward when the bolt is driven into the buffer tube by the gas from the initial shot. The picture below displays the internal function ofanAR-15 type rifle. The AR-type pistol is a variant of the rifle with the stock removed and has the same receiver and buffer tube function of the rifle version.
PAGE162 ''

 

[BreechFace]

If we don’t take advantage of the ATF’s missteps, and this was a huge misstep, the NFA is here for good.

You all go and get your peace accord “free SBR registration,” I’ll continue misusing my buffer tube AR pistol.

The ATF is operating outside of their parameters, waiving taxes, turning law abiding citizens, manufacturers and gun shops inventory which followed the ATF guidelines into unsellable contraband. The fact that we cannot see this is indescribable.

Doesn’t matter if the intention was to get a shouldered accessory in the pistol brace. The fact of the matter is they accepted that as a useful accessory for disabled persons and it is outside the ATF’s purview to state how one can shoot their firearm as it pertains to ergonomics, etc.

This is just like bumpstocks. It doesn’t matter that the item attempted to simulate full auto. The simple fact is that it met the Congressional voted in guidelines of “one pull, one bullet.”

If the ATF or the President doesn’t like how the law is established then it needs to go through Congress. Not a reinterpretation or executive order; this is putting further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Sometimes I think we forget how important that is because we let it happen daily it seems these days.

Our Congressional “leaders” are abdicating their authority to appointed positions, and we the people are allowing it.

Utter nonscence.

 

[someguy2800]

Nothing. Because, as you say, the pistol buffer tube houses items necessary for function.They aren't trying to. Read the rule.No, that's only one factor that will be considered.Actual pistol braces are still approved. Read the rule.

The bottom line is that a lot of people jumped on "braces" as a way to skirt the NFA. They never had any intention of using them to strap onto their arm and shoot the pistol one-handed, they wanted to shoulder the gun because it offers significant advantages. Because there was a lot of confusion about "braces" and their use, that went on for awhile, but now it's over. Now if it looks and functions like a stock with features that stocks have but braces don't need, it's going to be regulated like a stock. Like it has been for the past 90 years or so since the NFA was passed.Read the rule. The BATF's position is that it is a clarification of the NFA as it applies to shoulder stocks on pistols and not any sort of expansion of enforcement or new legislation. Having read the document, their position has some merit.

Look at where we are now vs. before the first brace was proposed. In reality we're exactly where we were except that now there is an option to put a stabilizing brace on a pistol as long as the resulting weapon doesn't meet the definition of an SBR.

That's actually more leeway than before since hanging anything that looked like a stock off the back of a pistol before was illegal without NFA registration.

Look, I'm not a fan of the NFA, but it's been the law for 89 years now. It's stood up to SCOTUS review, people keep electing officials that leave it alone. As far as I can tell, the majority of people want the NFA and until that changes, it's not going anywhere no matter how much the gun community wants it gone.

I agree with you that their new interpretation is correct. I also think the NFA is unconstitutional and should be struck down, but that is a separate issue.

Do you know of any braces that fit an AR buffer that would meet their requirements? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that would since they can pretty much all be extended past the buffer tube and have vertical rear surfaces, but I think it would be possible to make one.

I think if you made a brace to go on a carbine buffer but would need to slide on from the front rather than the back, and make it so that it cannot be slid past the end of the buffer tube, and had a slanted rear surface, that it would satisfy all their requirements. I wouldn’t want one because as I’ve stated I don’t want an arm brace, I want a stock. But it would be a good solution for someone that actually wants an arm brace.

 

[JohnKSa]

The ATF is operating outside of their parameters, waiving taxes, turning law abiding citizens, manufacturers and gun shops inventory which followed the ATF guidelines into unsellable contraband. The fact that we cannot see this is indescribable.

They have the right to waive registration taxes. They are the enforcement branch for the law in question, so it's hard to argue they're operating outside their parameters by enforcing the law. Their position is that they are not turning anything or anyone into anything--they are merely clarifying the law so people understand more clearly what is and isn't regulated. There's some merit to their position.

If we don’t take advantage of the ATF’s missteps, and this was a huge misstep, the NFA is here for good.

Like it or not, (and I don't) the NFA IS here for good. It's stood up to all challenges for almost 90 years. It's not going anywhere.