Pistol Brace "rules" signed by AG today

[O4L]

Riddle me this...

If you are registering an AR short barreled upper on a lower as a SBR, does it matter how the lower was originally designated (rifle, pistol, other) on the 4473?

When lowers change hands several times there is no way of knowing what the original designation was.

 

[mightymouse]

Riddle me this...

If you are registering an AR short barreled upper on a lower as a SBR, does it matter how the lower was originally designated (rifle, pistol, other) on the 4473?

When lowers change hands several times there is no way of knowing what the original designation was.

No, not as I understand it.

 

[mightymouse]

Sounds like some of the other folks without AR's can now just remove the brace and store it separately?

From the ATF website (FAQ on rule 2021R-08F):

"An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case."

As I said before, I'd rather not take my chances if I were in that position.

 

[CutBaitNBlowSh*tUp4ALivin]

Firearms Policy Coalition
FPC Files New Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rulemaking
TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2023 POSTED BY FIREARMS POLICY COALITION
GET UPDATES AND ALERTS VIA EMAIL
(WE NEVER SPAM OR SHARE YOUR INFO)

Email
Email address
DALLAS, TX (January 31, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of litigation challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Final Rulemaking on firearms equipped with stabilizing or pistol braces. The Petition in FPC’s Mock v. Garland, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“This lawsuit challenges, inter alia, the Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces, promulgated by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate ‘braced pistols’ as ‘short-barreled rifles.’ In so doing, for the reasons set forth herein, the Agencies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution,” the Petition states.

The Petition continues: “Even if the Final Rule does not violate the APA and is allowed to stand, the Agencies’ National Firearms Act (“NFA”), laws, regulations, policies, and enforcement practices with respect to ‘braced pistols’ that the Agencies’ have classified as “short-barreled rifles” violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs thus further seek declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the absence of vacatur of the Final Rule.”

“Federal agencies do not have the power to write new laws, and yet the ATF continues to attempt to expand its authority using the federal rulemaking process,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This ‘rule’ is, in effect, a federal law that will transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for decades. We won’t stand idly by while the ATF tramples the rights of millions of peaceable individuals.”

“At its most basic level, this rulemaking represents a massive and unlawful bait-and-switch on peaceable gun owners,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “For nearly a decade the ATF’s position on pistol braces has been relied on by millions of gun owners. Now, with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, those same people are told they are felons unless and until they submit themselves to invasive regulation, registration, dispossession of their property, or worse.”

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Overall length is not the question. The AR-15 was designed as a rifle. AR-15 "pistols" were designed as pistols. According to the ATF, the addition of a brace that allows the "pistol" to be fired from the shoulder makes it an SBR. The Kel-Tec you mentioned earlier was designed as a rifle, albeit in a bull pup configuration, so it is quite short in overall length, but it was designed, and is in fact, a rifle.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. You're still missing the point.

 

[dennishoddy]

I just got this link from the Silencer shop. Have not read it yet.

https://www.silencershop.com/blog/p...gn=1.31.23 [Ruling (Engaged)]&utm_content=CTA

 

[mightymouse]

Thanks, Captain Obvious. You're still missing the point.

What point? As long as the Kel-Tec has an overall length greater than 26 inches and a barrel longer than 16 inches, it is a rifle, no matter how otherwise short you believe it to be. An AR-15 pistol with a seven inch barrel and a stabilizing brace is an SBR no matter how that squares with your view of what's right and what's not. The ATF makes the rules, not you or I.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

Short barreled rifles are considered to be more easily concealed than a non-SBR, yet have far more destructive power than a handgun. That reasoning comes directly from the DOJ and that's why they're regulated.

Since the 1930s, the NFA has imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...,destructive power than traditional handguns.
An AR-15 pistol with an 11.5" barrel and standard flash suppressor is about .5" longer than a Kel-Tec RDB and meets the OAL requirements of a rifle. Put a brace on that pistol and, under the new ATF rules, it's magically transformed into a SBR...it's no longer a pistol. Because of the short barrel it instantly becomes more concealable and more destructive than a handgun/pistol and therefore requires special registration to be legal.

Yet the RDB, a perfectly legal rifle that meets both barrel length and OAL requirements, is somehow not as easily concealable and doesn't possess the "destructive power" of the illegal SBR AR-15, even though it's shorter.

That makes no sense. And I understand the ATF makes the rules...I'm painfully aware of it. I'm saying the logic behind this rule is incredibly absurd because some rifles are legal even though they're shorter than some illegal SBRs.

 

[sh00ter]

From the ATF website (FAQ on rule 2021R-08F):

"An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case."

As I said before, I'd rather not take my chances if I were in that position.

So then they need to turn in their uppers and other gun parts?...I mean, if they own any stocks, braces, what have you, they all "could" be a part of a build? What if they own other AR's uppers or rifles that are 16"? Are they not allowed to own a stock that fits them? The ambiguity of the whole thing is why I already said folks should just put a 16" barrel if they don't plan to apply for stamp...but a stock or brace is still just a piece of plastic that can be used on any rifle. If I had one, that's what I'd be doing and just make it legal...easy peasy. I suppose if you had a short upper you could either keep it as a legal pistol (assuming they clarified pistol buffer tube is fine), or you could store it (the upper as a part) at someone else's house. But as I understand it, a regular stock or brace will NOT fit a pistol buffer tube? So if the AR had a pistol buffer installed then it would not be able to receive a stock or brace...don't you agree?

 

[sh00ter]

Short barreled rifles are considered to be more easily concealed than a non-SBR, yet have far more destructive power than a handgun. That reasoning comes directly from the DOJ and that's why they're regulated.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...,destructive power than traditional handguns.
An AR-15 pistol with an 11.5" barrel and standard flash suppressor is about .5" longer than a Kel-Tec RDB and meets the OAL requirements of a rifle. Put a brace on that pistol and, under the new ATF rules, it's magically transformed into a SBR...it's no longer a pistol. Because of the short barrel it instantly becomes more concealable and more destructive than a handgun/pistol and therefore requires special registration to be legal.

Yet the RDB, a perfectly legal rifle that meets both barrel length and OAL requirements, is somehow not as easily concealable and doesn't possess the "destructive power" of the illegal SBR AR-15, even though it's shorter.

That makes no sense. And I understand the ATF makes the rules...I'm painfully aware of it. I'm saying the logic behind this rule is incredibly absurd because some rifles are legal even though they're shorter than some illegal SBRs.

There is already something worse as far as concealment. Terrorist scumbag Major Hassan used a five-seven if I recall correctly?

https://promagindustries.com/fn-five-seven-usg-5-7x28mm-55-rd-drum-black-polymer/
I'm also pretty sure 10mm is awful powerful too.

https://promagindustries.com/fits-the-glock-model-20-10mm-50-rd-black-polymer-drum/
They are just doing what they can to walk back something that the people running the bureau now didn't like about the previous people's opinion. It's like if your company gets a new CEO and he shakes things up...still sux for those affected. But I was honestly suprised that they ever even "agreed" that pistol braces were okay. I would have thought even in 2014 they would have tried to use the ADA to issue a permit just like a handicap parking pass or something to own one. They created this mess.

Perhaps they could solve some of this by just doing a regular background check and then making the "special" stuff like the AR pistols have to go through an FFL if you ever sell them...that could avoid the entire tax stamp thing and still keep them out of the hands of criminals.

It does anger me when I see gen-z gang bangers on youtube with the 33rd glock mags or drums or in some cases "SBR's" showing off and/or committing crimes with them...I don't want bad guys to have them but I don't know the perfect solution.