!!

Hello, Guest!

You are viewing the GunLink forums as a guest.  CLICK HERE to register for the forums and unlock more features, hidden forums and the ability post in topics, vote in polls, see poll results and more.

Author Topic: ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces  (Read 511 times)

Offline LivingDeadGirl

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« on: April 30, 2017, 05:14:15 PM »
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/27/allowing-ar-pistol-brace-may-give-gun-industry-just-shot-needs/

The ATF has issues a clarifying statement to a certain manufacturer stating that if a pistol stabilizing brace is installed properly as it is intended to be used, that bringing the brace to the shoulder, like a rifle, does not make the weapon a SBR now.

GunLink Discussion Forums

ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« on: April 30, 2017, 05:14:15 PM »
Chief Supply Tactical Apparel and Gear for Law, Fire, EMS, Military and Outdoors @chief 120x60 logo
Log in or register to disable this ad

Offline Glockzilla3K

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2017, 12:09:52 PM »
CAA just breathed a big sigh of relief! Time for a Micro RONI Stab  ;D

Offline Glockzilla3K

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Re: ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2017, 12:11:01 PM »
Sig and KAK too.

Offline masfonos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
  • Karma: 8
Re: ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2017, 12:33:45 PM »
The letter of the law hasn't changed, just some person's opinion on how the law should be enforced.  It just so happens that this "some person" and his pals have the ability to really wreck your life.   >:(

Quote
(7) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

(8 ) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

(29) The term “handgun” means— (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;


The whole thing is ridiculous.  The original firearm is, as a pistol, designed to be held and fired with one hand according to ATF.  The brace is designed to be held and fired with one hand according to ATF.  The legal definitions above don't say a single thing about "able to be fired from the shoulder" or "able to be fired with more than one hand."  Kingery's letter (first reversal) was about as stupid as saying that using a two handed grip on a pistol makes it an AOW!

Either way, aren't these letters only "good" for the person they are sent to, and even then, they aren't binding since they're just an opinion?  You might be able to beat the rap, but not the ride... the final decision would fall to the courts if some LEO wanted to send you up for putting it against your shoulder.  The plain language above would hopefully be... plain... to a judge/jury.

Offline GunLink

  • GLHMFIC
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Karma: 16
    • GunLink
Re: ATF Reverses - Again - It's Stance on Pistol Braces
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2017, 02:06:57 PM »


A change in the BATFE position was hinted at in Ronald Turk's January letter.

Turk wrote: "Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace:  Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled shooter to fire the firearm.  ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and therefore its attachment to a handgun did not constitute the making of a short-barreled rifle or “any other firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA).  (NFA classification subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.)  In the determination letter, however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock, such use would constitute a “redesign” that would result in classification of the brace/handgun combination as an NFA firearm (i.e., the “use” would be a “redesign” and making of a short-barreled rifle).  ATF has not made another NFA determination where a shooter’s use alone was deemed be a “redesign” of the product/firearm resulting in an NFA classification.  This ruling has caused confusion and concern among firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification.  To mitigate this confusion and concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer – without additional proof or redesign – may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.  While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with future requests based upon the firearm’s individual characteristics."

SB Tactical's excerpt from the ATF's latest determination letter reads: "an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced."

The 2015 determination letter claiming that shouldering a device intended to act as an arm brace constituted a redesign and creation of an NFA weapon created an untenable position for them.  How could they prove intent to enforce the existing NFA/GCA laws?

Offline DieselDude

  • marketplace
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
  • GunLink Member
Where is the best deal on a shockwave blade?