ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022

[FL-NC]

Some of my observations: According to the internet, between 3 and 7 million braces have been sold. They were installed on firearms in compliance with regs and the agency letters included with the products. In many cases, firearms were bought that came like that from the manufacturers- also compliant. I'm sure many were bought with the intent to install at a later time and the projects never got around to being completed. Just as many of the completed projects were put away, since everyone who obtained one doesn't necessarily hang out in gun shops or shows, or surf forums like this or on places like you tube. Some people probably found other interests (especially given the price of things like ammo lately) and don't follow "firearm news" so much. How will these people be notified that their property has become illegal, or that there may be an "issue" with it depending on how their gun is configured?
I had a look at the "worksheet" too. Pretty confusing, if you ask me. Will the authorities assist owners in going through this process with their individually owned guns- in the way that safety inspections are done for cars? I see a need for a certified scale right from the start. What is a "known" design? "Known" by who, exactly? What "discourages shouldering"- a sharpened punji stake? What is "useful" for shouldering- an actual recoil pad, or just a "soft" surface? I'm not sure what is meant by a "counterbalance". It also seems that an individual's arm size (which is subject to change based on numerous factors) can also determine legality- bigger guys and gals with forearms like Popeye will have issues no matter what. There are phrases like "length of pull" which I can't aptly define, and many gun owners don't even know what it means. Owners will be required to know the difference between "standard" parts like buffer tubes, stocks, "fins", "cuffs", and so on. Fins are something I wear on my feet when I scuba dive, and what fish use to swim around. I don't understand how things like sights on any gun could be a problem, ever. If a gun is missing sights, it is probably broken or incomplete, nor do I understand how eye relief would prevent a gun from being fired with 1 hand. If a sight (or sight set) is the only sighting device on a gun, then how is there a "back up" sight (or set)? How does a bipod (which is for stability and support) add a threat to public safety? Will shooter be required to carry a beanbag or sandbag to the firing line to zero? Words matter.

 

[12Bravo20]

@FL-NC I couldn't agree more with what you said.

My AR pistol gets docked due to having iron sights. But I can sue said sights with the end of the buffer tube against my shoulder or when the pistol is held at arms length with the brace around my forearm. And mine as built is 1.5 ounces too heavy according to the ATF worksheet. But who's to say my scale isn't off by 1-2 ounces or what scales an ATF agent might use isn't properly calibrated. And the whole bipod issue makes zero sense. A bipod is just fine and used regularly with bolt action pistols for competitions and hunting.

Here is my 9mm AR pistol which per the worksheet is a NOGO.



I could shave off weight by removing the front sling mount and flash hider. But again, depending on who's scale is used and if it is calibrated correctly, I still might be over the weight limit per the worksheet.

 

[AlexanderA]

Think strategically. "Hard enforcement" of the NFA '34 brings its demise, as a whole, that much closer. Conversely, the more workarounds there are to sidestep it, the longer it will stick around. "Pistol braces" are just such workarounds (for the SBR rules). And of course, the ultimate workaround for the machine gun rules is the semiautomatic AR-15 and its functional cousins. (The AR-15 is more effective, militarily, than the M16, because it conserves ammunition.)

If the AR-15 was administratively banned (which could be done by an aggressive ATF), that would lead, in short order, to a repeal of the NFA. (After an electoral revolution.) The hue and cry would be deafening.

 

[Sistema1927]

That's not how precedent cases proceed. Check how the NY case went, nobody risked jail or 2A rights.

It's how some proceed. Based on the direction that this Administration is heading, expect heavy handed enforcement right out of the gate.

 

[SunnySlopes]

Would you even register yours if they didn't charge the $200?

I used to live in California. Somebody shot two sleeping campers on a beach with a Marlin Camp 45. Local law enforcement went to all area FFLs and "requested" their 4473s to locate all extant such guns in the area. Every FFL complied.

Law enforcement went to every owner of that model gun and "requested" to test the ballistics and every owner complied. This was all published in the Sacramento Bee and they never caught the shooter.

I've bought a lot of guns through and from FFLs and realized that they're already "registered." The mere existence of a 4473 is a de facto registration.

Just saying. If I owned an AR with pistol brace (I don't), if it was outlawed except I should register it, I'd have no problem doing so. They'd already know I've got it. If I had it.

 

[12Bravo20]

Just saying. If I owned an AR with pistol brace (I don't), if it was outlawed except I should register it, I'd have no problem doing so. They'd already know I've got it. If I had it.

That would be true for those that bought a complete pistol with brace from a FFL. For those of us that built our own, the only FFL based paper trail is for the stripped lower receiver.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

That would be true for those that bought a complete pistol with brace from a FFL. For those of us that built our own, the only FFL based paper trail is for the stripped lower receiver.

Or if you bought one in a private sale.

 

[Sistema1927]

That would be true for those that bought a complete pistol with brace from a FFL. For those of us that built our own, the only FFL based paper trail is for the stripped lower receiver.

In which case, you built it first as a pistol, right? If so, then you can ditch the brace and continue to possess and use it under these new regs. The problem is for those who purchased one already assembled with the brace from the manufacturer/distributor/dealer. In that case, under the new regs it started life as an SBR, and cannot change to a pistol.

 

[12Bravo20]

In which case, you built it first as a pistol, right?

Correct, it was built as a pistol first and still is a pistol (for now). I'll wait for the ruling to be released before I decide what to do with it.

My other AR pistol got a 16" barrel and a fake slip over suppressor while leaving the brace on just to mess with the goody two shoe range nazis.

 

[CraigC]

What we need is a huge class action lawsuit brought on by people who both manufactured and bought pistol braces because the ATF said they were okay and are now out of luck because they've changed their minds. This kind of crap ain't kosher.

 

[Jim Watson]

I don't understand why someone would need to convert a 10" barrel AR to 16". The issue is the brace not the pistol. Getting rid of the brace should make a pistol legal.

Legal, but not of any use or interest to me.

 

[P89DCSS]

Legal, but not of any use or interest to me.

Nobody cares. The thread is about the BATF and new rules, not what you like or want. Do try to keep up....

 

[SunnySlopes]

Nobody cares. The thread is about the BATF and new rules, not what you like or want. Do try to keep up....

Seriously? You're a relative newbie and being rude like that?

Not acceptable.

 

[Jim Watson]

Nobody cares. The thread is about the BATF and new rules, not what you like or want. Do try to keep up....

My reply was what I would do in the face of added restrictions
Read for content and context.

 

[wesmonster]

Personally, with something like a braced 8” AR pistol, IF it no longer qualifies for a brace, I’d rather just ditch the brace than try to add something to get it to 16”. I shot an AR pistol with just a buffer tube long before braces were a thing.
Other platforms that don’t require buffer tubes to function will have a harder time. If, say, my Scorpion Evo 9mm or Ruger PC 9mm Charger can’t qualify for a brace, I’m not sure I’d spend the time & money to SBR it, when there’s a rifle version available.

 

[SharpDog]

I just want to point out again that getting rid of the brace will only help if the pistol was not delivered from the manufacturer with a brace.

 

[Pudge]

I just want to point out again that getting rid of the brace will only help if the pistol was not delivered from the manufacturer with a brace.

Why would that matter? If I had an 8" AR pistol in .556 that shipped from the manufacturer with a brace, then I sold the 8" upper, and I swapped on a .300 Blackout upper, with a 16" barrel, would it be in violation of the new rule? How is a brace different from a stock, grip, muzzle device, bump stock, or magazine? It is an accessory, not the gun, so why can't it be removed, or swapped out for a "legal" brace?

 

[herrwalther]

I am wondering if replacing the brace with a foam pad on the buffer tube keeps builds as the AR pistol? I would much rather do that than do an SBR register and still keep my pistol builds.

 

[JERRY]

bottom line is the batfe will get their way, so you are left with paying a $200 tax stamp or removing the brace.

 

[SharpDog]

Why would that matter? If I had an 8" AR pistol in .556 that shipped from the manufacturer with a brace, then I sold the 8" upper, and I swapped on a .300 Blackout upper, with a 16" barrel, would it be in violation of the new rule? How is a brace different from a stock, grip, muzzle device, bump stock, or magazine? It is an accessory, not the gun, so why can't it be removed, or swapped out for a "legal" brace?

Because that is how the BATFE rule is written. You are confusing government with logic.

If it was shipped with a brace you have to score it with a brace.

 

[Pudge]

Because that is how the BATFE rule is written. You are confusing government with logic.

If it was shipped with a brace you have to score it with a brace.

Are there any AR pistols with braces that will qualify as a pistol with a brace and not be an SBR?

 

[SharpDog]

Are there any AR pistols with braces that will qualify as a pistol with a brace and not be an SBR?

Not likely, they are going out of their way. What I did was buy an AK pistol that came without a brace and added an aftermarket brace. If I have to ever score the pistol I can do it with the brace removed. Mine has a Picatinny rail at the butt like the MCX pistols. It would be the same if you got an AR pistol without a brace (e.g. just a buffer tube) and added a removable brace to it aftermarket.



https://www.budsgunshop.com/product...astava+zpap92+7.62x39+top+rail+rear+rail+wood

https://atlanticfirearms.com/zastava-arms-usa-zpap85-pistol-zp85556pa-685757098113



https://zastavaarmsusa.com/product/tf1913-folding-brace/

The Sig MCX pistols are similar but more than 2x the price.

If you are going to get a Zastava check out the Youtube videos to educate yourself on what to look for. Basically, you will want to check the fit of the safety and the installation of the rivets.

This is the best AK channel to research:

 

[The Last Outlaw]

I just want to point out again that getting rid of the brace will only help if the pistol was not delivered from the manufacturer with a brace.

So what if I bought one in a private sale and just removed the brace?

 

[SharpDog]

So what if I bought one in a private sale and just removed the brace?

It won't matter. It goes by model not whether it actually contained a brace when it ships. If you look carefully, manufacturers have a different model number for those that ship without braces. CMMG is actually introducing a new line, the 'Dissent', that is completely without braces when they ship. This is essentially their 'Banshee' but without a brace.

CMMG Banshee:



CMMG Dissent:



https://cmmg.com

 

[Capybara]

The ATF's "rules" and the NFA itself simply do not stand up to scrutiny under the new rules put in place by the NYSRPA opinion.
It's just a matter of how long they will stand before they come up as a well thought out, well funded case in a Circuit of Appeals.
It may take a while but the justices gave us the present that keeps on giving.

In the meantime, as a Californian, our state bans modern SBRs so if the regs aren't shot down, nobody in California will legally be
able to register their braced pistol as an SBR. I agree, who would have a pistol brace if they could just register an SBR with a shoulder stock?