Bracing impact

[entropy]

So this is new. This disclaimer is on the page of any PSA pistol kit. View attachment 960090

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.

Oh, how quickly we forget. Or maybe are too young to remember. Ads from Model 1 Sales and Sarco, and other such purveyors of AR parts, and especially kits, always had a similar warning, often next to every sub-16" barrel or upper. This mostly went away around when SB started selling braces.

 

[Rexster]

“Federal NFA Regulations apply to this item" is very similar to the “All NFA rules apply” warning that I have seen, in other places, for years, in ads for AR15 uppers with barrels less than 16 inches. Nothing new, and has nothing directly to do with the brace, itself. The seller is providing a warning to, and disavowing illegal acts by, the end-line user.

Should we pull the braces from our AR15 pistols? Well, I will neither confirm nor deny that my DDM4 V7P was delivered with that rubber SB Tactical product in place, but when I measured what the resulting LOP would be, I opted to order a Tailhook brace, which adds nothing to the OAL of the RE + LAW folder. (A LAW folder adds considerable length to the RE assembly. My LAW folder was installed at the Daniel Defense factory.) Plus, the Tailhook can act as a true orthopedic device for my forearm, whereas the SB Tactical product seems suited only for folks with VERY slender forearms.

Some braces seem designed chiefly to give the finger to the BATFE. I have no desire, whatsoever, to do that. An AR15-based pistol does nicely fill about three niches for me, but they are not vital niches, so I am not grinding my teeth, about all of this. Worst case, I will re-barrel, or have a 5.7” extension pinned and welded.

 

[DustyGmt]

“Federal NFA Regulations apply to this item" is very similar to the “All NFA rules apply” warning that I have seen, in other places, for years, in ads for AR15 uppers with barrels less than 16 inches. Nothing new, and has nothing directly to do with the brace, itself. The seller is providing a warning to, and disavowing illegal acts by, the end-line user.

Should we pull the braces from our AR15 pistols? Well, I will neither confirm nor deny that my DDM4 V7P was delivered with that rubber SB Tactical product in place, but when I measured what the resulting LOP would be, I opted to order a Tailhook brace, which adds nothing to the OAL of the RE + LAW folder. (A LAW folder adds considerable length to the RE assembly. My LAW folder was installed at the Daniel Defense factory.) Plus, the Tailhook can act as a true orthopedic device for my forearm, whereas the SB Tactical product seems suited only for folks with VERY slender forearms.

Some braces seem designed chiefly to give the finger to the BATFE. I have no desire, whatsoever, to do that. An AR15-based pistol does nicely fill about three niches for me, but they are not vital niches, so I am not grinding my teeth, about all of this. Worst case, I will re-barrel, or have a 5.7” extension pinned and welded.

I get the impression alot of folks think they are a novelty item, like bump stocks were not taken serious by real gun people because they were novelty and provided no advantage whatsoever. Braces however, are another story. Folks think unless you have "one arm" or are in a wheelchair or crippled you have no legitimate use for a brace. Come watch my wife try to wield and effectively shoot my 16" recce mid length. She can hold it up for about 5 seconds before she has to take a rest.

 

[giggitygiggity]

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.

True. And let’s all remember that just because something is “not approved” does not necessarily mean that it is also illegal. This is where some people are jumping to conclusions and assuming that because the ATF contends that the SBA3 and other braces were not approved that they are illegal and must be removed.

Also, what does “ATF Compliant” mean? I am not asking anyone on here, but instead want to point out the vagueness of such a term. I suspect most purchasers of SB products assume it means that affixing the brace to a pistol not violate the NFA. It could also mean that the ATF approves its use on rifles, airsoft guns, etc.

 

[psyopspec]

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.

If I were worried about it would SBR the gun before I would weld on a gaudy muzzle device that defeats the purpose of the gun. For now, I’m not worried about it.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Brace aside, is there any indication that having a short barrel with just the buffer tube and no brace on it leaves us in any danger of having it declared an SBR?

 

[kcofohio]

That is odd that the OP link says only 2 approved.
KAK Industry has 2 letters from the ATF, one for their 1.0 and one for their 2.0 designs.
https://www.kakindustry.com/shockwave

 

[rust collector]

That is odd that the OP link says only 2 approved.
KAK Industry has 2 letters from the ATF, one for their 1.0 and one for their 2.0 designs.
https://www.kakindustry.com/shockwave

The letter was directed to SB Tactical and noted that only two of its models had been cleared. Other producers may have other letters of determination.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

The entire problem goes back to when Congress wrote the law and gave the ATF authority to make the rules. With that comes the ability to change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[kcofohio]

The letter was directed to SB Tactical and noted that only two of its models had been cleared. Other producers may have other letters of determination.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I missed some key points.

 

[buck460XVR]

The entire problem goes back to when Congress wrote the law and gave the ATF authority to make the rules. With that comes the ability to change the rules in the middle of the game.

This is no different than any other "new" from of technology. You have a lag between it's introduction and it comes under scrutiny of the law. It happened with designer drugs years ago too. Create something in the lab that is not illegal, and it's hard to prosecute folks selling it till it has been scrutinized. Then there's intent. Look at Ephedrine, was a OTC medication for many years until it became the basis of home meth labs. Then it was rescheduled like it's ancestor Amphetamine was in the early 70s. While the original intent of arm braces was to benefit those with a disability, they are now widely possessed just to circumvent the SBR regs. No different than Bump socks....and look what happened there. Personally, while I have no need for them, I also don't have an issue with others having/using either Bump Stocks or Arm Braces, but I don't have a say in the matter. But, IMHO, most folks without a disability, that feel the need to install arm braces on a handgun to make them tacticool or to make them a SBR, have the means to get a SBR stamp. But, like loud pipes on a motorcycle(most of them are illegal too), the idea that folks are getting away with something, adds a thrill.

Problem with anything that is regulated, there is always something that is on the cusp. The legal age to drink alcohol. Age of consent. Age to purchase/possess firearms. Restrictions on firearms for hunting. While many argue that the RKBA means no regulations, the unfortunate reality is, as long as we have guns, there will always be some kind of regs on them. Bump stocks, once again are a prime example.