Is there a list of "good" pistol lower/brace setups?

[Sistema1927]

I am not planning on becoming a test case, and have very little confidence that our comments are going to change things one iota, based on the current atmosphere.

I own three braced pistols. Two of them I built up from stripped lowers, one in 5.56, the other in 300 BO. I have removed the fin style Shockwave braces, and have covered the buffer tubes with foam. If/when this abomination becomes a reality, I will destroy the braces.

The third pistol is in 9mm, and it came from PSA with an installed SB Tactical brace. Since it is almost 100% certain that it would be ruled an SBR based upon the proposed criteria, foregoing the possibility of it ever again being used as a pistol, I have ordered a 16" upper, as well as a new adjustable buffer assembly and rifle stock. I will be shopping around for a new stripped lower in order to create a virgin pistol on which to use the pistol upper.

Call me a defeatist if you wish, I prefer to consider myself a realist. If this doesn't come to pass, I will put the braces back on, and will end up with an additional 9mm rifle as a bonus. If it does come to pass, then my bases are covered, and I won't be caught up in the panic buying in order to make my 9mm lower legal.

 

[lsudave]

and it came from PSA with an installed SB Tactical brace

So along those lines (seeking clarity): how much actual information is out there, considering "complete lowers"; as compared to complete firearms? There are stocks and braces for sale, in the event one wants to swap something out. In theory a person may have bought one of these lowers, put a regular stock on it, and put a 16" upper on it and it's now a rifle. Or that person may decide they hate the fin, and put a different brace on it.

Am I to understand- the ATF would be able to run the serial number, and state "ok, that was sold with a banned brace *NO LONGER ATTACHED*, so you must register or surrender it?"
Because that seems to be what is being tossed around. How would they know? Are they going to audit every one of PSA's sales, etc? I don't think the 4473 states anything other than serial, manufacturer, and rifle/pistol etc.

 

[Sistema1927]

So along those lines (seeking clarity): how much actual information is out there, considering "complete lowers"; as compared to complete firearms? There are stocks and braces for sale, in the event one wants to swap something out. In theory a person may have bought one of these lowers, put a regular stock on it, and put a 16" upper on it and it's now a rifle. Or that person may decide they hate the fin, and put a different brace on it.

Am I to understand- the ATF would be able to run the serial number, and state "ok, that was sold with a banned brace *NO LONGER ATTACHED*, so you must register or surrender it?"
Because that seems to be what is being tossed around. How would they know? Are they going to audit every one of PSA's sales, etc? I don't think the 4473 states anything other than serial, manufacturer, and rifle/pistol etc.

As far as I can tell, PSA has never sold that particular 9mm lower without it having a pistol brace or rifle stock already attached. If/when I find another stripped 9mm pistol lower, it will not be a PSA as a result. When I purchased it, it transferred as a pistol, and if this mess goes through, it will be considered to have been a rifle from the beginning. As I said, I am not intending to be the test case, and after all, this is the High Road, and we don't wink and nod at guns laws here.

 

[lsudave]

Gotcha. Not attempting to "wink and nod", but I'm also looking at a practical, real-world point of view here.

I bought a multi-caliber lower with said brace attached. I bought it because

1. I wanted to put together a pistol lower, and this met my purpose.
2. Being new to ARs, I wanted to buy something from PSA, a company I have read many good things about; but had not yet gotten any AR stuff from
3. The price as listed was as good/lower than what I was finding, on stripped lowers plus a kit, and then a brace to complete it.

Just my own new-to-it perspective, I'm looking at it as a pre-assembled kit. As such, if I wanted or needed to change something out, this gives me a headstart on that.

My upper did not come with the lower. It is not from PSA. I chose a 10.5" side-charger from BCA in 5.56. In theory (or in practice) I could buy a 300BO or 7.62x39 upper from another company and put that on instead.
To me, this consists of "a build"; although i didn't start from scratch and install every spring etc myself, I also did not purchase and receive from PSA a complete firearm right out of the box.

Sorry if wording is off, typing from my phone. Tree took my power lines down the other day, did some damage to the house. I have partial restoration now but no internet yet. BTW what a pita this is

 

[lsudave]

I guess the legal question is, where is the line between "a build", and "a gun"?

I don't know. It would seem if I had bought, say, a Springfield Saint, and something is taboo on that, there's grounds to pursue a recall or similar.

But for just a multi-caliber lower, that would appear to be a build. Mine is now complete, but I have a friend who has one, and is still considering what upper to get.

 

[Sistema1927]

If it shipped with a brace on it, and if it fails the new criteria, the ATF is going to consider that it has always been a rifle, and as such, it cannot be converted to a pistol. Thus, either pay the tax to register as an SBR, install a long enough rifle barrel, or destroy it.

Mission accomplished here. As I mentioned earlier, I built 2 pistols from virgin stripped lowers, so removing the braces makes them good to go. Honestly, I haven't really lost any functionality with them, since I can still get 3 points of contact with nothing more than a foam buffer cover.

The PSA 9mm that came with an SBA3 brace will fail the new criteria miserably, and will not pass muster as a pistol. So, with the installation of a 16" upper, and a stock replacing the brace, I have a nice handy 9mm AR carbine. I was thinking about a new lower for the 7" 9mm upper, but then thought again. I hardly ever shoot the 5.56 pistol, so the addition of a drop in 9mm conversion block will allow me to go back and forth between 9mm and 5.56.

 

[Sistema1927]

To me, this consists of "a build"; although i didn't start from scratch and install every spring etc myself, I also did not purchase and receive from PSA a complete firearm right out of the box.

Be careful, be very careful. It really doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what ATF thinks.

When you purchased that lower with a brace attached, it transferred to you as a "handgun". A stripped lower would transfer as "other", and could be made into either a pistol or a rifle. If it came with a rifle stock installed, it would transfer as a "rifle". If made into a rifle first, then you are stuck there, forever. It made into a pistol first, then you can go back and forth.

However, here is the rub: ATF is saying that if the firearm which shipped with an installed brace fails the new criteria, then it really never was a pistol in their eyes, but instead a rifle. Now you cannot make it into a pistol, no matter what you do. That is why SBR, put a 16"+ barrel on, or destroy are your only legal options under this proposal.

 

[DoubleMag]

...to a pistol. Thus, either pay the tax to register as an SBR, install a...

Did not the proposal that was out last winter (December?) have a free $200 stamp attached to it. Seems that went poof this time, makes me wonder if they really want ppl to register their...heretofore...legal items...

 

[CapnMac]

Did not the proposal that was out last winter (December?) have a free $200 stamp attached to it.

No. That was an internet meme, hearsay at best, and never in any of the documentation.

Which is at the crux of the OP question.
What is "legal" has not yet been defined.
Even the proposed "scorecard" begins with a statement that the scoring can be trumped by a declaration by ATFE at their discretion, so the scoring is entirely subjective, and not definitive in the slightest.

Therefore, there's no way to create a Go/No Go matrix.
Which is sore frustrating as "we" reflexively desire some level of surety, our privilege being defined by own rectitude as it is.

 

[Sistema1927]

The intent, veiled as it might be, is to eliminate braced pistols. Anyone who trusts the scoring criteria is, in my opinion, being naïve. As CapnMac pointed out above, the ATF has given themselves the right to make whatever determination they desire, regardless of score or your attempted justification. With the present political climate, they aren't going to lean your way.

That is why I have given up on braced pistols, knowing that they are going to coming after them hot and heavy as soon as this is enacted. I am too old to fight, and too fat to run away. This is not the hill that I choose to die on.

 

[tarosean]

No. That was an internet meme, hearsay at best, and never in any of the documentation.

Which is at the crux of the OP question.
What is "legal" has not yet been defined.
Even the proposed "scorecard" begins with a statement that the scoring can be trumped by a declaration by ATFE at their discretion, so the scoring is entirely subjective, and not definitive in the slightest.

Therefore, there's no way to create a Go/No Go matrix.
Which is sore frustrating as "we" reflexively desire some level of surety, our privilege being defined by own rectitude as it is.

As of today there is 127,982 comments.. People still need to comment on the proposed rules.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment

 

[CapnMac]

People still need to comment on the proposed rules.

AMEN.

 

[Tirod]

According to here: https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...ces-warn-it-could-lead-to-gun-registry-n46838 The brace issue has over 100,000 comments. The receiver issue over 70,000.

And the ATF is now being questioned by Senators who are basically asking "why are you making law when it's our responsibility?" That is an important and even decisive issue. They should be asking about clear and concise wording, too.

There is also a longer term issue: if parts of this "ruling" survive scrutiny and a new regulation is issued, then it goes to the ATF having to enforce it. One of the questions was how this will have an impact in a state that has already told the ATF "hands off our residents." That sets up a constitutional issue where one state may be able to protect it's citizens from overreach, where another allows federal oppression, and how that is handled in Federal Courts. The issue of States Rights comes into play, where the concept of "if it's not delegated to the Feds its nunyabizness."

As for destroying the brace, I will only state that it will be as effective as some now defunct ruling on destroying bumpstocks.

 

[herrwalther]

I have left my comment on the ATF brace and receiver proposed rules. I have no delusions that they will be read by anyone important enough to pump the brakes on the ATF. In an ideal world, the ATF wouldn't even exist. But I would settle for their discretionary latitude to be severely hampered. An organization that is allowed to interpret and enforce law blatantly violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. This example of pistol braces are illegal, changed our mind legal, now maybe illegal again, is proof of that.