Bracing impact

Status
Not open for further replies.
DustyGmt

DustyGmt

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
4,014
Location
Green Mountains
So this is new. This disclaimer is on the page of any PSA pistol kit. IMG_20201203_201036.jpg

It was never there before, I dont have my boxes anymore but I'm 99.9% positive that I researched this stuff beforehand and when I did, they were sold as "ATF" compliant. I never even wanted to go the pistol route because I didnt want complications but I also wanted to have suitable 5.56 pistols that my very small framed wife and daughter could use. Has anything official came down on this, because this looks official. It looks like CYA time for palmetto. Do we all really need to go pull our braces off our pistols. I was late to the pistol craze, I didnt jump on until it seemed like there was very solid legal footing and established ATF "approval".

Kind of vague. " Federal NFA Regulations apply to this item". Yes, that could be true if you put a stock on your 11.5" bbl upper and turned it into a short barrel rifle".

If they were being totally above board they would call it their "SBR rifle kit". One of the questions on the PSA page was "does this need to be registered with NFA?" And the response was "this kit isnt currently being shipped with a lower reciever so no regulation applies" or some such thing. Just seems kind of dodgy to me.
 
Last edited:
People keep trying to beat this dead horse, the people in charge keep shutting it down. If you do not want to use a brace DO NOT BUY ONE. Simple as that.
Option #2, keep beating this dead horse on the internet because it must feel good :confused:
 
Currently, the ATF contends that only two braces have submitted for and received letters of approval. The ATF also contends that until the other braces have been submitted for approval, they are not approved and may possibly be considered a buttstock.
 
Alex Clayton said:
People keep trying to beat this dead horse, the people in charge keep shutting it down. If you do not want to use a brace DO NOT BUY ONE. Simple as that.
Option #2, keep beating this dead horse on the internet because it must feel good :confused:
Click to expand...
Must feel good? Sorry but that's ridiculous. I am confused about whether the next time I go to the range me or my family could be in legal jeopardy and figured some of the people in this RKBA forum might know more than I do. I havent seen this topic beat to death, I've seen a couple non definitive ammoland news articles. If you dont want to participate feel free to not participate. It's a discussion forum. Its voluntary. Telling me not to buy a brace is a little silly, I already bought one (two). Obviously.
 
Last edited:
MistWolf said:
Currently, the ATF contends that only two braces have submitted for and received letters of approval. The ATF also contends that until the other braces have been submitted for approval, they are not approved and may possibly be considered a buttstock.
Click to expand...
Helpful.
 
I wonder if it would be prudent to try to source some 5" muzzle devices to weld on to be in compliance or basically forfeit my wife and daughters guns. Neither is ideal. Actually a bummer. Is there any indication that SB has submitted additional models that may be reviewed.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
I sure as heck would. I never understood how those were legal to begin with. But I'm also no expert on any of this, and, if I owned such a gun, I certainly wouldn't risk it.
Click to expand...
I get that. I didnt go for the brace at first but it seemed like the ATF gave the all clear. I thought it was great, the NFA tax stamp business seems of little use to anybody so to see a legal path around it didnt bother me. Didnt know it was an unsettled, non definitive thing.

Only recently did I even happen to see a possible issue online because surprisingly it's not on the morning news or being covered in the mainstream media, that I saw anyway.
 
.
MistWolf said:
Currently, the ATF contends that only two braces have submitted for and received letters of approval. The ATF also contends that until the other braces have been submitted for approval, they are not approved and may possibly be considered a buttstock.
Click to expand...

OK - so what two braces have been approved ? Does anyone know as we are on the subject, and also does anyone know how it applies to the Tac-14. Remington I believe was selling the Tac-14 with a brace installed. If I recall it was a listed item in that configuration. Last time I looked it was gone.
 
mnrivrat said:
.


OK - so what two braces have been approved ? Does anyone know as we are on the subject, and also does anyone know how it applies to the Tac-14. Remington I believe was selling the Tac-14 with a brace installed. If I recall it was a listed item in that configuration. Last time I looked it was gone.
Click to expand...
Read this all the way through before panicking-
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6ema2ljtI

The dispute between SB Tactical and BATF is still ongoing
 
Within the ammoland article cited in post #13 (thanks!:thumbup:) is an actual LETTER REQUESTING DETERMINATION, from SB to ATFE. Complete with pictures, showing the alleged ''non approved''' braces attached to various go-bang sticks. I.e. birdshead handled shotgun, 7.62X39 AK stye pistol config. Determination was, firearm. Firearm, firearm. NOT Short Barrel Rifle, SB Shotgun, Other, lollipop (LoL).

How exactly can ATF then afterward say, 'we never determined that ' :scrutiny: ? Complete with pictures!


I would like to say now at this specific time, which is several minutes removed from my typing the statement above, that I never said that. I was talking about a holiday recipe from my dearly departed grandmao_O, YOU the reader interpreted it as a firearms...whatever:confused:

So yes it's a bit of a sticky wicket, and hardly cricket:p
 
DustyGmt said:
So this is new. This disclaimer is on the page of any PSA pistol kit.

.

Kind of vague. " Federal NFA Regulations apply to this item". Yes, that could be true if you put a stock on your 11.5" bbl upper and turned it into a short barrel rifle".

Just seems kind of dodgy to me.
Click to expand...

I see nuttin' mentioned about the brace, just the barrel length. Wonder if it comes from folks trying to use the short barrel on a firearm originally sold as a rifle.
 
DoubleMag said:
Within the ammoland article cited in post #13 (thanks!:thumbup:) is an actual LETTER REQUESTING DETERMINATION, from SB to ATFE. Complete with pictures, showing the alleged ''non approved''' braces attached to various go-bang sticks. I.e. birdshead handled shotgun, 7.62X39 AK stye pistol config. Determination was, firearm. Firearm, firearm. NOT Short Barrel Rifle, SB Shotgun, Other, lollipop (LoL).

How exactly can ATF then afterward say, 'we never determined that ' :scrutiny: ? Complete with pictures!


I would like to say now at this specific time, which is several minutes removed from my typing the statement above, that I never said that. I was talking about a holiday recipe from my dearly departed grandmao_O, YOU the reader interpreted it as a firearms...whatever:confused:

So yes it's a bit of a sticky wicket, and hardly cricket:p
Click to expand...

How can the ATF say they are not legal after the ATF has given letters saying that the brace was legal?? All braces that I have seen come with a copy of the ATF letter stating that the brace is legal.
 
I wish I'd kept my boxes because I thought the same thing. Do u happen to have an image of the Compliance letter?
 
Alex Clayton said:
If you do not want to use a brace DO NOT BUY ONE. Simple as that.
Option #2, keep beating this dead horse on the internet because it must feel good :confused:
Click to expand...
"If you don't want an AK pistol DO NOT BUY ONE. Simple as that. The ATF would never ban cheap surplus steel core amunition as armor piercing."

Unless you've only got one arm or are otherwise eligible for a handicap license plate, it's a stock. Everyone knows this and everyone has been using them that way.
 
AK Hunter said:
How can the ATF say they are not legal after the ATF has given letters saying that the brace was legal?? All braces that I have seen come with a copy of the ATF letter stating that the brace is legal.
Click to expand...
Click on the Ammoland link above and READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE INCLUDING LETTERS FROM BATF AND STATEMENTS SB TACTICAL

Pay particular attention to the BATFs claim that only two braces have been submitted for and received approval. What has and has not been submitted is, for the BATF, the heart of the issue
 
DustyGmt said:
I wish I'd kept my boxes because I thought the same thing. Do u happen to have an image of the Compliance letter?
Click to expand...

I two would like to have someone post an image of the BATF letter and add a specific comment regarding the legality of an SB brace on my Tac-14. I do not want to have to join or accept cookies in order to read what is available on ammoland.

The flyer enclosed in my SB box states the following: COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has stated the SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace is legal to own, legal to purchase. and legal to install on a pistol. BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a Pistol Stabilizing Brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.

On the outside of the box it states : ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching a Pistol Stabilizing Brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.

This box is clearly marked for use on the Remington Tac-14 firearm.
So is anyone aware of a document that is in conflict with these statements ? Note: heads up on the wording "when used as designed" That to me implies you can not shoulder the brace.
 
Last edited:
This link is to the Ammoland article which incorporates the ATF letter that seems to be causing such a stir. In reading the letter, I see a number of brace models that are claimed to be in compliance by SB Tactical, but for which ATF states approval letters have not been issued. The fact that a brace is referred to in the letter does not mean it is illegal or noncompliant. It means that SB Tactical cannot legitimately claim that the ATF has determined those models to be braces which may be used without making an SBR. https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6fiMu7MEW Please read the letter in its entirety and draw your own conclusion. I would expect to see letters of acceptance posted for those models by SB Tactical if that was not the case. Perhaps they exist, but I have not seen them.
 
Last edited:
I just took a look around for my my SBT box because for some strange reason I keep the boxes for things I buy but my wife might have tossed it. I just am kicking myself now because I'm pretty sure it came with a letter like others are saying. Its unlike me to not have thrown a document like that in my safe given how I was a lil leery about it. Not that it probably means a tinkers damn, just wish I had it.
 
BreechFace said:
You guys can go on SB Tacticals website and request the ATF letters for yourself. It’s not like the letter they included with purchase is something magical. They are worth as much as the paper they are written on.

https://www.sb-tactical.com/resource-category/atf-letter/
Click to expand...
Well understood. I sometimes thought that it would be prudent to have the letter for the possibility that it might be a helpful visual aid for any inquiring LEO who might not be in the AR pistol loop. I always thought it would be a good thing to throw in the case when traveling outside the home or whatever but ultimately didnt concern myself with it. I know it as not a magic immunity letter, still think it'd be good to have.

At first I thought this whole thing applied to one manufacturer who made a brace not true to ATF specs, Honey Badger AR. I didnt know that the ATF didnt give definitive specs or outline for manufacturers to go by to be in Compliance. This whole thing is weird....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
citizenconn
  • Locked
ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
20K
Capybara
Capybara
LiveLife
  • Locked
Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
6K
Odd Job
Odd Job
O
NAGR has a very interesting theory related to the pistol brace rule
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
RetiredUSNChief
RetiredUSNChief
hso
  • Locked
Oppose the Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule through the Federal Budget
Replies
5
Views
747
hso
hso
Back
Top