Brace v Stock finalization & enforcement schedules

[12Bravo20]

I guess after I receive SBR stamp e mail I can put real stocks on everything instead of those stupid braces.Also put on forward hand grips or bipods and grip lights on the registered SBR

Yes once you receive your approve Form 1 back, then you can swap the brace out for a real stock and also install any type of forward grip you want.

I've posted this screen shot in another thread but will post it here too.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

 

[Rule3]

Well.........it is and has been since the National Firearms Act of 1934. That ain't exactly a new law.
Don't want your gun on that registry? Then don't make have a firearm determined to me an NFA firearm.

Well, I didn't I had a pistol, then bought a brace all with the blessings of the ATF.
Now they decide that it is not legal without their stamp of approval and paying them money.

 

[Havok7416]

A Question on my Ruger Charger 9 mm Which I clipped on a SIG folding brace. The Charger is without a doubt a pistol and sold as one.It was designed with the 1913 tab to take a stock and yes some were sold by Ruger with a brace. So I guess I take a picture and apply just like the Three A R based ones are ?

Neither the brace or the tube is required for function on the Charger. I believe a standard Form 1 is required there and not an amensty Form 1.

 

[Gordon]

Neither the brace or the tube is required for function on the Charger. I believe a standard Form 1 is required there and not an amensty Form 1.

Brace required for function on what ? I guess all those braced Ruger Chargers Ruger factory sold are kicked under the AR discrimination bus then ?

 

[Gordon]

Yes once you receive your approve Form 1 back, then you can swap the brace out for a real stock and also install any type of forward grip you want.

I've posted this screen shot in another thread but will post it here too.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

Now that is what I been waiting to hear ! Thanks for those buried facts ! Now what about the Ruger Charger pistols with braces and Sigs and Slorpions ect that used the 1913 attachment , or is this whole thing just about AR format ?

 

[dogtown tom]

Well, I didn't I had a pistol, then bought a brace all with the blessings of the ATF.
Now they decide that it is not legal without their stamp of approval and paying them money.

And?...........

First, ATF didn't "approve" your pistol and arm brace combination unless you submitted it for determination.

Second,
Determinations aren't law or regulation and are only the opinion of ATF.
Regulations change.
Determination letters issued in the past change as ATF staff changes.
Laws change.

Just because "XXXX" is legal today doesn't mean it will be legal tomorrow, next month or five years from now.


IMO, and I wrote this the first day I laid hands on the Sig arm brace......."It's a shoulder stock". I get that it was supposedly designed by a disabled vet. That doesn't mean its legal. ATF could have inserted the warning "does not constitute the making of an NFA firearm when used as designed and intended" into that first determination letter. They didn't and they've been scrambling to put the kittens back in the bag ever since.

Couple that with arm brace manufacturers changing their design after submission means the ATF determination may change as well.
ATF was inundated with arm brace designs (which they don't regulate) asking "is this arm brace legal?" So many that ATF stopped issuing determinations unless the arm brace was submitted with a firearm attached.
Several manufacturers didn't bother submitting their design for determination at all.
Numerous manufacturers just modified their existing shoulder stock to allow it to be strapped to the forearm....and called it an arm brace.

Whether foolish, naïve or just plain stupid, ATF Technical Branch screwed this one up. It points out just how poorly written the National Firearms Act of 1934 really was. A law intended to prohibit (via an onerous tax) machine guns, silencers and originally ALL CONCEALABLE FIREARMS. That included handguns.

After submission to Congress, handguns were removed from the NFA '34. The Treasury Department originally determined that "concealable" meant 18" barrel and 26" overall length. (years later changed to 16" bbl length for rifles)
And thats why we are in this sad state of affairs. While we may think adding a shoulder stock to a handgun makes it LESS concealable, the NFA says its no longer a handgun (which is exemt from the NFA), but a concealable firearm (which is not exempt from the NFA).

I wonder which federal judge would view a handgun with a shoulder stock as a "handgun with a shoulder stock" and not as an SBR......because it was never a rifle to begin with. Federal definitions can change either by ATF's rulemaking authority, passage of a law or by the judiciary.

 

[Rule3]

And?...........

First, ATF didn't "approve" your pistol and arm brace combination unless you submitted it for determination.

Second,
Determinations aren't law or regulation and are only the opinion of ATF.
Regulations change.
Determination letters issued in the past change as ATF staff changes.
Laws change.

Just because "XXXX" is legal today doesn't mean it will be legal tomorrow, next month or five years from now.


IMO, and I wrote this the first day I laid hands on the Sig arm brace......."It's a shoulder stock". I get that it was supposedly designed by a disabled vet. That doesn't mean its legal. ATF could have inserted the warning "does not constitute the making of an NFA firearm when used as designed and intended" into that first determination letter. They didn't and they've been scrambling to put the kittens back in the bag ever since.

Couple that with arm brace manufacturers changing their design after submission means the ATF determination may change as well.
ATF was inundated with arm brace designs (which they don't regulate) asking "is this arm brace legal?" So many that ATF stopped issuing determinations unless the arm brace was submitted with a firearm attached.
Several manufacturers didn't bother submitting their design for determination at all.
Numerous manufacturers just modified their existing shoulder stock to allow it to be strapped to the forearm....and called it an arm brace.

Whether foolish, naïve or just plain stupid, ATF Technical Branch screwed this one up. It points out just how poorly written the National Firearms Act of 1934 really was. A law intended to prohibit (via an onerous tax) machine guns, silencers and originally ALL CONCEALABLE FIREARMS. That included handguns.

Just before submission to Congress, handguns were removed from the NFA '34. The Treasury Department originally determined that "concealable" meant 18" barrel and 26" overall length. (years later changed to 16" bbl length for rifles)
And thats why we are in this sad state of affairs. While we may think adding a shoulder stock to a handgun makes it LESS concealable, the NFA says its no longer a handgun (which is exemt from the NFA), but a concealable firearm (which is not exempt from the NFA).

I wonder which federal judge would view a handgun with a shoulder stock as a "handgun with a shoulder stock" and not as an SBR......because it was never a rifle to begin with. Federal definitions can change either by ATF's rulemaking authority, passage of a law or by the judiciary.

OK, so if I take the brace off it then becomes a pistol again which is was in the first place. Doesn't the 4473 indicate TYPE as in pistol??

NOW what about the angled foregrip.? For some reason they were OK but not the vertical type grip. So now a pistol with a angled foregrip, is that OK with them or whomever??

https://magpul.com/afg-angled-fore-grip.html?mp_global_color=118

 

[12Bravo20]

While the Worksheet 4999 is no longer being used, the ATF did mention that angled fore grips and even hand stops meant that the firearm was intended/designed to shoot using two hands. Having either added points under the Worksheet 4999.

I read the Factoring Criteria again and didn't see where either were specifically called out. But the whole idea that a pistol is designed to be shot using only one hand is stated numerous times throughout the 291 page document.

I would personally err on the side of caution and not have any type of fore grip or hand stop on a braced pistol at this time.

 

[Soonerpesek]

William Kirk @ washingtongunlaw.com has a lot of insightful Youtube vids on this subject as well as others.
Doesn't tell you HOW to do things, but gives insight on choices, and explains the laws and how they read.
They are a good watch......................IMO.............................

 

[Rule3]

While the Worksheet 4999 is no longer being used, the ATF did mention that angled fore grips and even hand stops meant that the firearm was intended/designed to shoot using two hands. Having either added points under the Worksheet 4999.

I read the Factoring Criteria again and didn't see where either were specifically called out. But the whole idea that a pistol is designed to be shot using only one hand is stated numerous times throughout the 291 page document.

I would personally err on the side of caution and not have any type of fore grip or hand stop on a braced pistol at this time.

I understand what you are saying but I usually use both hands when shooting a pistol or revolver
Just showing how crazy this whole thing is!
I have a bull pup rifle which other than the exact barrel length is not a whole lot different in size than a braced pistol

 

[12Bravo20]

Most people do use two hands when shooting pistols. But the ATF is stringently sticking to the official definition of a pistol as it is written in the laws.

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

• a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
  
  
• and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

Plus the ATF has already stated that having any type of fore grip or hand stop changes the design from being shot with one hand to be shot with two hands. This was mentioned in the original brace rule change that was released (and rescinded) in Dec 2020 and in the next proposed change in June 2021 and again on the Worksheet 4999.

I agree that this is total nonsense but the ATF is sticking to the definition of a pistol and are not wanting to budge from that.

And the thing with bullpup rifles is that they do meet both length requirements for barrel length and overall length. This is no different than youth rifles with very short stocks that was previously brought up in another thread. If BOTH length requirements are met then the firearm in question is a Title 1 rifle per the definitions and is not subject to NFA restrictions.

 

[Rule3]

William Kirk @ washingtongunlaw.com has a lot of insightful Youtube vids on this subject as well as others.
Doesn't tell you HOW to do things, but gives insight on choices, and explains the laws and how they read.
They are a good watch......................IMO.............................

Like this one!!!

 

[dogtown tom]

OK, so if I take the brace off it then becomes a pistol again which is was in the first place.

Yes

Doesn't the 4473 indicate TYPE as in pistol??

It does. But only at the time of transfer. If ATF or federal law were to change and redefine pistol as " a firearm designed to be held in one hand, weighing less than two pounds and no less than 12" in noverall length".........what you bought in 2008 may no longer be a "pistol".

NOW what about the angled foregrip.? For some reason they were OK but not the vertical type grip. So now a pistol with a angled foregrip, is that OK with them or whomever??

https://magpul.com/afg-angled-fore-grip.html?mp_global_color=118

I believe that combined with an "arm brace" ATF believes that is making an NFA firearm.

 

[12Bravo20]

I believe that combined with an "arm brace" ATF believes that is making an NFA firearm.

That is my understanding also since the ATF specifically stated that either would redefine the pistol on the two proposed rule changes and also on the Worksheet 4999. And that is still my understanding since the final version released is sticking to the government definition of a pistol - fired using one hand.

 

[Havok7416]

Brace required for function on what ? I guess all those braced Ruger Chargers Ruger factory sold are kicked under the AR discrimination bus then ?

The buffer tube (and brace) are not required for the Charger to function. As @12Bravo20 has mentioned, the ATF is no longer using the worksheet, but they are also saying a rearward extension NOT needed for function of the gun is not allowed. This encompasses the Charger, the Scorpion and virtually every similar "pistol" that isn't an AR. So far I haven't read of a distinction in the ATF's new rule for guns that came with an unnecessary brace from the manufacturer. In other words, if you don't have an AR "pistol", you also have no claim to a feature (the tube/brace) that is used primarily to skirt the NFA - at least that what the ATF stance appears to be.

When all this nonsense started last year (or was it before that?) The first thing I did was to file paperwork on my Charger to turn it into an SBR knowing that the receiver extension added to the gun was in the ATF's crosshairs even then. I figured it was better to have my main travel gun ready to use rather than having to wait until after a potential ban, especially with all the forms that were likely to be filed at that time.

 

[Elkins45]

Like this one!!!

When someone starts a video with “I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, but…” it means that whatever follows is going to be pure lunacy.

I generally like him but I really think he’s off the rails on this one.

 

[12Bravo20]

Actually what Ian stated in that video makes a lot of sense. Especially the it comes to the history and laws concerning SBR's

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Gordon]

The buffer tube (and brace) are not required for the Charger to function. As @12Bravo20 has mentioned, the ATF is no longer using the worksheet, but they are also saying a rearward extension NOT needed for function of the gun is not allowed. This encompasses the Charger, the Scorpion and virtually every similar "pistol" that isn't an AR. So far I haven't read of a distinction in the ATF's new rule for guns that came with an unnecessary brace from the manufacturer. In other words, if you don't have an AR "pistol", you also have no claim to a feature (the tube/brace) that is used primarily to skirt the NFA - at least that what the ATF stance appears to be.

When all this nonsense started last year (or was it before that?) The first thing I did was to file paperwork on my Charger to turn it into an SBR knowing that the receiver extension added to the gun was in the ATF's crosshairs even then. I figured it was better to have my main travel gun ready to use rather than having to wait until after a potential ban, especially with all the forms that were likely to be filed at that time.

So does everyone agree that this pogrom is only for AR types ? I can't think of any other types that have a great receiver extension required for operation ! Does that mean a pad on the back end of a Draco pistol is now ok ? How about the folding AR conversions that don't require buffer tubes ? What about AR 180 types ? How about a cup holder extension off the back of my Ruger Charger I can clip on with the 1913 take on rear of receiver ?

 

[Soonerpesek]

NOW what about the angled foregrip.? For some reason they were OK but not the vertical type grip. So now a pistol with a angled foregrip, is that OK with them or whomever??

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 the firearm is not regulated under the NFA. On October 28, 2014, ATF concluded: (1) 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)

..............................on pg 22 of the new rule........................

 

[MachIVshooter]

I believe that combined with an "arm brace" ATF believes that is making an NFA firearm.

Under this rule, seems that even just the AFG combined with a receiver extension absent a brace might "cross the line"

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 the firearm is not regulated under the NFA. On October 28, 2014, ATF concluded: (1) 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)

..............................on pg 22 of the new rule........................

That was regarding vertical forward grips. Angled ones, and some of the little nubby things, have been OK, at least up until now.

Unfortunately, there is no clear line one what is or isn't going to be considered a rifle based on features or accessories. There's a lot of "may be" language in this rule, basically left wide open to interpretation.

 

[12Bravo20]

At least with the Worksheet 4999, angled fore grips and hand stops were specifically mentioned. They are not specifically mentioned in the final ruling released on the 13th.

And as I mentioned earlier, the ATF is pushing the "firing with one hand" part of the definition of a pistol.

I agree with MachIV, they are leaving it wide open for interpretation (to the ATF's advantage).

Again, I personally would not have any type of fore grip or hand stop installed until things are clarified more.

 

[dogtown tom]

Remember, it's not just the one thing.
ATF is looking at the entire firearm when making a determination that it is designed/redesigned/intended to be an SBR.
What may be perfectly fine on your AR pistol, may not be on another AR pistol.

 

[jahwarrior]

Seeing all the posts here from people who plan on complying and submitting a Form 1 is sad, hilarious, and pathetic. I'm not submitting anything, to any agency, for free or not. All my firearms are staying as is.

Hell, may as well put a regular stock on those pistols. Y'all are pathetic.

 

[Nuclear]

Look, the ATF was caught between a rock and a hard place as soon as someone created a stabilizing brace for a disabled shooter and submitted it for determination. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forced them to approve them for disabled shooters. The ADA also has wording that prohibits inquiries as to the disability one has (stupid, but we are talking about the federal government). So virtually anyone could (and can) declare themselves to be disabled and need a stabilizing brace. What should have been done in a rational world would be to either admit the various gun control acts violate the 2nd Amendment, or to go to Congress to get clarifying laws passed or to change the ADA. None of that was going to happen, so it is almost inevitable that we were going to end up with the braces being legal until an anti-gun President came along.

 

[12Bravo20]

Seeing all the posts here from people who plan on complying and submitting a Form 1 is sad, hilarious, and pathetic. I'm not submitting anything, to any agency, for free or not. All my firearms are staying as is.

Hell, may as well put a regular stock on those pistols. Y'all are pathetic.

And comments like this are not helpful to the conversation.

I know that myself and others here think this whole brace ruling is a load of BS and we are discussing it and trying to answer others' questions so they can make an informed decision on their own.