And now they go after pistol braces

[cohunt]

New ATF Power Play Could Impact Millions Of Gun Owners

bearingarms.com

Open ended wording, case by case basis, waiver of $200 tax stamp if you register your ar pistol as an sbr.

Thoughts? You can go ahead and give your 2cents to the atf, but if this goes the same way as almost everything the atf does then it will go through and you'll have the option of giving up your firearm, getting rid of your brace, or applying for a free tax stamp....hmmmm, will be interesting for sure


Looks like tennis balls and cane tips might be popular again.

 

[Andrew Massi]

Too many folks use pistol braces as rifle buttstocks and are in posession of a sbr. Seems like this is long overdue and interesting the atf is waiving their stamp fees.

 

[cohunt]

I never understood the whole sbr/sbs thing anyway.

The original law was to stop people from shortening their rifles or shotguns to be easily conceiled--- now take an ar pistol and put a "brace" or stock on it and you are actually making it longer and harder to conceil.

Braces were a "work around" to a old dumb law -- I knew at some point the atf would "revisit" their interpretation of the "brace" as too many companies were making it way too blatent on their intent and its all about "intent" -- right?

Pretty sure at some point, someone (Biden or other future wonder) will add all AR's to this "atf" list and they will probably waive the fee for you to "register" your rifle. One thing at a time, its a slippery slope.

It seems like its just a test of the waters to see how far they can go before someone tries to reel them in.

I don't care for the term "reinterpretation " its too loose

 

[Deleted member 103481]

The argument that pistol braces are a workaround is not valid because it's a "workaround" of something that is invalidated by the bill of rights.

Well that's the law ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

well the law is illegal

 

[SteelBanger]

As the article states, the ambiguity of the proposal creates a bigger mess than the mess we have now. I thought the issue of brace legality was centered around whether or not you can "shoulder" a brace? The ATF has gone back and forth for years on that, and currently it is acceptable to shoulder a brace. I don't see the topic of shouldering anywhere in the article, is that to mean that the brace will be either legal or illegal, regardless of whether it is shouldered or not?

 

[cohunt]

A pistol brace is an accessory not a firearm so I don't think it's covered by the bill of rights.
But technically sbrs and sbs's would be covered though

 

[cohunt]

As the article states, the ambiguity of the proposal creates a bigger mess than the mess we have now. I thought the issue of brace legality was centered around whether or not you can "shoulder" a brace? The ATF has gone back and forth for years on that, and currently it is acceptable to shoulder a brace. I don't see the topic of shouldering anywhere in the article, is that to mean that the brace will be either legal or illegal, regardless of whether it is shouldered or not?

It's not the brace that will be illegal, ot will be the pistol that its on.

 

[KurtB]

Don't pay attn to the news much. Must be a lot of criminal activity with pistol braces going on? Did the BLM and ANTIFA rioters use a lot of pistol braces and that is what finally got the ATF fired up?

 

[Deleted member 103481]

Nope

 

[jbs2014]

Don't pay attn to the news much. Must be a lot of criminal activity with pistol braces going on? Did the BLM and ANTIFA rioters use a lot of pistol braces and that is what finally got the ATF fired up?

Probably not, this is the ATF after all, an entity infinitely more foul than ANTIFA or BLM.

 

[cohunt]

The main thing that bothers me about this is the change and ambitious nature of the wording.
In the days of tennis balls and cane tips- the rule was if you shouldered your pistol, then it was an sbr-- so this would be very easy to figure out, shoulder it- bad, not shoulder it- ok. Pretty cut and dry

But with this new "rule interpretation" you no longer even have to shoot your pistol for it to be considered an sbr
It is no longer cut and dry, its up to interpretation. If the caliber/cartridge is too lage then its not a pistol, if the optics are not designed for pistols then it's not a pistol, if the "lop" is too long its not a pistol, if its too heavy its not a pistol.
Yet you see they don't actually give you any numbers for lop, weight, cartridge-- its all subjective .

After they get away with this, I expect they will carry it further-- if it has a handguard or forend then it won't be a pistol, then maybe "all bottleneck cartridges" won't be allowed as pistols, then what-- its a slippery slope
One of your options is to et the "free tax stamp" and register it, I'm guessing that any ar style chassis firearm will be "re-classified" as nfa items and need to be registered in the future
But you see that what happens with pistol braces could just be generated to pistol classification, which could even roll over to breach or bolt action pistols that fire "rifle cartridges" in the future.

 

[Andrew Massi]

The main thing that bothers me about this is the change and ambitious nature of the wording.
In the days of tennis balls and cane tips- the rule was if you shouldered your pistol, then it was an sbr-- so this would be very easy to figure out, shoulder it- bad, not shoulder it- ok. Pretty cut and dry

But with this new "rule interpretation" you no longer even have to shoot your pistol for it to be considered an sbr
It is no longer cut and dry, its up to interpretation. If the caliber/cartridge is too lage then its not a pistol, if the optics are not designed for pistols then it's not a pistol, if the "lop" is too long its not a pistol, if its too heavy its not a pistol.
Yet you see they don't actually give you any numbers for lop, weight, cartridge-- its all subjective .

After they get away with this, I expect they will carry it further-- if it has a handguard or forend then it won't be a pistol, then maybe "all bottleneck cartridges" won't be allowed as pistols, then what-- its a slippery slope
One of your options is to et the "free tax stamp" and register it, I'm guessing that any ar style chassis firearm will be "re-classified" as nfa items and need to be registered in the future
But you see that what happens with pistol braces could just be generated to pistol classification, which could even roll over to breach or bolt action pistols that fire "rifle cartridges" in the future.

All the things you noted as "not a pistol" are accurate in describing a rifle, short barreled rifles have been regulated for 86 years.
Theres a process(I dont agree with it but it does exist) to legally own a sbr, the shooting industry found a loop hole and openly and blatantly thinned their noses at the atf for a decade and the gov is now closing said loophole.
They should include an amendment allowing disabled shooters to keep their pistol braces as they were originally designed.
I find it funny watching all these posts on social media yesterday crying foul about a mass registration event from people who already have tax stamped suppressors- aka already on the "list". If they legitimately use them as pistols then simply remove the brace and put a pistol buffer back on

 

[cohunt]

But, are ar pistols really pistols at all? Is this where its actually going is a new "definition" of pistols period.
Its not the brace thing that gets me-- I think we all knew what would happen with the brace over time. Its the other "definitions" of what a pistol vs rifle is.
As I said, if they actually do include "caliber/cartridge" in this "definition", what then stops them from saying ALL bottleneck cartridges are rifles and not pistols? What then happens to bolt cation pistols or breach action single shot pistols-- they would by definition now be sbr's. No?

 

[Andrew Massi]

But, are ar pistols really pistols at all? Is this where its actually going is a new "definition" of pistols period.
Its not the brace thing that gets me-- I think we all knew what would happen with the brace over time. Its the other "definitions" of what a pistol vs rifle is.
As I said, if they actually do include "caliber/cartridge" in this "definition", what then stops them from saying ALL bottleneck cartridges are rifles and not pistols? What then happens to bolt cation pistols or breach action single shot pistols-- they would by definition now be sbr's. No?

Existing bottleneck pistol cartridges in actual pistols would stop them from expanding the definition to include all bottlenecks. Think 22 cm, 357 sig, 5.7fn et el.