That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.Following the law is not a loophole. We don't fine people for using the crosswalk, because its a workaround for jaywalking.
That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.
I'm aware of that, hence the "among other things" in parentheses in my statement.Handguns were to be included in the NFA, short barreled rifles and shotguns were put in to prevent people from turning them into handguns. Due to lobbying by Smith and Wesson and Colt handguns were removed but the short barreled stuff wasn't.
So what will disabled persons and those with physical weakness use to stabilize their shooting arm?Think they are going to go after pistol braces now?
The flat taking of our rights away should be exploited, worked around, parried, countered and looked upon with disgust.
Rather than pushing hard for changing the rules for SBRs, people were lazy and half-assed a workaround. Now that the lazy loophole is potentially going away, people are suddenly realizing that their half-assed solution wasn't so great.
Imagine if 700,000 x $200 braces = $140000000 was used to overturn stupid gun laws.
Also, I can leave the state with my pistol without having to inform the ATF first.
Some people use the brace as an arm brace to shoot their pistol one-handed.^^^I have to agree. Most common usage of the so called "brace" is as a stock. So if a SBR needs a stamp, and a SBR is basically a handgun with a stock, why does just calling a stock on a handgun, a brace, make it legal to own without a stamp?
Now, I'm not saying I agree with the restrictions on SBRs, I'm just sayin' that a handgun with a brace, IMHO, is just a SBR.
badkarmamib writes:
I'm missing something here. In the context you were typing, it implies that you cannot leave the state with a rifle without informing the ATF first. Is that a regulation regarding SBR firearms?
badkarmamib writes:
I'm missing something here. In the context you were typing, it implies that you cannot leave the state with a rifle without informing the ATF first. Is that a regulation regarding SBR firearms?
..the registrant may be required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) to obtain permission from ATF prior to any transportation in interstate or foreign commerce.
The intention of the NFA was to eliminate the military liquidation of WWI arms stockpiles, as well as the growing pile of modern, functional arms as the arms race of the 1930's was ramping up, without having to give them peacetime funding to keep going, in an effort to undermine the depression era threat of revolution, they type of which had been taking hold all over the earth at that point. The logic of a brace is a way to make an SBR, is the same logic that would say a two handed pistol hold is circumventing the law to create an unregistered AOW, or shooting a shotgun slug is a way to circumvent the law to create an unregistered destructive device. These people have, in writing, declared a shoelace can be a machinegun.That depends on the intention behind the law. The intention of the NFA was (among other things) banning short barreled rifles and shotguns. A brace is clearly a way to circumvent that and end up with a short barreled rifle or shotgun that won't get you arrested, i.e., a loophole. No sane person thinks that a pistol "brace" is actually intended to be used in any other way than as a stock. It can be, but that's not what it's for.
Ed Ames writes:
Would simple, recreational travel to another state be considered "interstate commerce"?
Would simple, recreational travel to another state be considered "interstate commerce"?
Well, it is a work around, and they know it, confirmed with all the videos mentioned of people using them as a stock. I was shocked it was ever approved.Shameful to see gun owners calling a pistol brace a sham.
What would be the legal effect if a person had an adjustable brace that they pinned so that the distance from the end of it to the trigger does not exceed 13.5"?the only thing that matters with braces is if the length of pull from the end of the brace to trigger is greater than 13.5". If length of pull is over 13.5" then it is considered a stock.
If one million braces have been sold, and this particular model represents 700,000 of them?If you read the whole thing it’s clear that ATF is looking at ONE MODEL of arm brace, not the entire category. I just skimmed the thread but I didn’t see where this distinction was discussed. Nothing in the letter implies ATF is showing any interest in arm braces as a whole, just one (curiously unnamed) model that caught their eye somehow.
Maybe the sky isn’t falling after all.