Unattached shooting brace for pistol?

[cluttonfred]

With all the uproar about the Sig arm braces, I have a question for the jailhouse lawyers in the group. Is a stock still a stock if it's not attached to the gun? What's to stop someone from creating a "stock-like arm brace" with a thin hollow grip that wraps around the back and sides of an ordinary pistol like a Glock or the pistol grip of a AR-based pistol, held in place only by the pressure from the shooting hand. Relax your grip and the pistol would fall to the ground. Is that still a stock for NFA purposes?

 

[Ryanxia]

That's a good question.
I had asked in the thread about the recent ATF letter if someone made a device that looked exactly like a stock but was only designed for one handed balancing on an AR15 pistol, would that be legal to have (assuming you would never shoulder it)? If it's designed to fire one handed and not be shouldered, that should comply with their recent logic.

 

[tyeo098]

The sig brace is only considered a stock when used as such.
Used in the 'correct' way does not make it a stock, but a brace.

If it is unattached to the firearm, it is not being used as a stock, and is not a stock.

 

[guyfromohio]

I wrote an open letter to the cafeteria in 4th grade explaining my desire for pizza more often than twice per month. It carried no force of law.

 

[Ryanxia]

I wrote an open letter to the cafeteria in 4th grade explaining my desire for pizza more often than twice per month. It carried no force of law.

Did you also work for the ATF in the 4th grade? Because I think their letter is a bit different.

 

[cluttonfred]

Guys, I know that the contradictions and reversals of the ATF are frustrationg, but no one seems to be answering my questions. Let me put it this way.... As folks understand current ATF interpretations of the law, would a stock-shaped shooting aid which functions as stock for a pistol but is never actually attached to the pistol, you simply hold the pistol against it with your hand, be legal?

 

[Ryanxia]

While the stock is not attached, I would think given the current situation at the ATF they would consider your pistol to be redesigned to fire from the shoulder (hence an SBR).
Just my opinion though.

 

[HankB]

I remember a few decades ago someone WAS marketing a "non-attached" stock for handguns - IIRC it braced against the shoulder like a normal stock, but the extension wrapped around the shooter's right wrist; it didn't touch the gun at all, and the claim at the time was that made it legal.

Never really caught on - probably slow to get into action and awkward to use.

 

[dogtown tom]

cluttonfred ......Is a stock still a stock if it's not attached to the gun?

If it CAN be attached you run the risk of constructive possession unless you have a tax stamp.

What's to stop someone from creating a "stock-like arm brace" with a thin hollow grip that wraps around the back and sides of an ordinary pistol like a Glock or the pistol grip of a AR-based pistol, held in place only by the pressure from the shooting hand. Relax your grip and the pistol would fall to the ground. Is that still a stock for NFA purposes?

Quite likely the only way to get a clear answer is for you to submit a sample to ATF requesting a determination.

I have seen what HankB describes..............shoulder stocks that attach to the wrist/forearm but do not actually touch the pistol.......they are not considered as redesigning the firearm.

 

[USAF_Vet]

So in theory, one could make a 'jacket accessory' that would just happen to have a pocket that would be roughly the same same size as an AR buffer tube and it would be perfectly legal.

In other words it's mounted to the shoulder of the shooter, and acts as a brace for the buffer tube, but not attached to the gun in any way.

Might be something to look into.