ATF 2019 letter

[JDS556762]

Agreed, braces are workarounds for a law that shouldn’t exist to begin with.

the new ruling just means that you can still shoulder your brace, so long as you don’t have a vertical grip on it. The vertical grip seems to be the sticking point. If you have a brace, and want a vertical grip you have to register it as an AOW under the NFA. Don’t want to do that? Remove the vertical grip.

Been that way from the get go. Always been an NFA configuration

And it’s stupid to make an Aow because you don’t pay an AOW 5.00 stamp. That’s only for factory manufactured AOWs. You would be paying a form 1 manufacturing stamp to manufacture an AOW, still 200.00 might as well just SBR and get a stock while you’re at it

 

[outlaw1961]

Arm braces are not really arm braces that's bull****. That's a lie and we all know it's a lie . They're stocks, and you (and I) want one so you (we) can have an untaxed, unregistered, affordable short-barreled rifle.

ATF has (mostly) one along with our lies because they don't care --they know that a gun with a shoulder stock is not any deadlier than a gun with an arm brace that fits your shoulder very well and serves the role of a shoulder stock. There's no public safety benefit to strictly enforcing this STUPID provision of the NFA, regarding short-barreled rifles.

But let's face it -- in real life certainly pistol arm stabilization braces ARE stocks. Nobody uses them for holding the gun out at arms' length and not touching it to your cheek or shoulder like a stock.


AtF approved arm braces based on lies.
(Remember, The first one ATF ever approved was hyped as something that allows disabled war veterans to enjoy shooting their AR pattern pistols.)

Yes and yes. The ATF knows that the thousands of various braces sold or not being used by or for handicapped shooters. The instructions coming from Washington D.C. to field agents on various rulings are as confusing to them as us. I have a close friend I use to work with who became a ATF agent 10 years ago. For the past two years he told me that the majority of the agents in his office has been doing nothing but checking gun store and pawn shops records in complying with FFL rules. The only thing that worries me is all the video coming from video commandos that keep poking the bear. The bear may decide enough is enough and braces may go the way of the bump stock.

 

[Dirty J]

So much ******* derp in this thread.

 

[Dirty J]

Arm braces are not really arm braces that's bull****. That's a lie and we all know it's a lie . They're stocks, and you (and I) want one so you (we) can have an untaxed, unregistered, affordable short-barreled rifle.

ATF has (mostly) one along with our lies because they don't care --they know that a gun with a shoulder stock is not any deadlier than a gun with an arm brace that fits your shoulder very well and serves the role of a shoulder stock. There's no public safety benefit to strictly enforcing this STUPID provision of the NFA, regarding short-barreled rifles.

But let's face it -- in real life certainly pistol arm stabilization braces ARE stocks. Nobody uses them for holding the gun out at arms' length and not touching it to your cheek or shoulder like a stock.


AtF approved arm braces based on lies.
(Remember, The first one ATF ever approved was hyped as something that allows disabled war veterans to enjoy shooting their AR pattern pistols.)

A lie?

You mean like the entire basis of the NFA '34 was to begin with?

Fair is fair.

 

[Tactical Beaver]

I see no new ruling on shouldering a brace. In fact, the only new rule I see is ... “The ATF has changed the method by which they measure barrel length for firearms equipped with a stablizing brace”

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...federal-registration-of-popular-short-rifles/

 

[Fatal_Bert]

People talking about AR braces being a "workaround" or "Lie" crack me up. The whole concept of an AR pistol is just a legal loophole in the first place, do y'all just ignore that fact?

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I see no new ruling on shouldering a brace. In fact, the only new rule I see is ... “The ATF has changed the method by which they measure barrel length for firearms equipped with a stablizing brace”

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...federal-registration-of-popular-short-rifles/

Yup, that link is the only one that I could find. The measurement limit for a forward pistol grip changed. Now, if it has a brace, no forward pistol grip without the tax stamp.

I assume that AFG’s are still ok?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Yup, that link is the only one that I could find. The measurement limit for a forward pistol grip changed. Now, if it has a brace, no forward pistol grip without the tax stamp.

I assume that AFG’s are still ok?

The measurement limit didn't change. It's still 26". Your brace just doesn't count towards that measurement. If your "pistol" measures over 26" from the end of the buffer tube to the end of the barrel you can still have a vertical grip and a brace.

 

[Necrosis]

Agreed, braces are workarounds for a law that shouldn’t exist to begin with.

the new ruling just means that you can still shoulder your brace, so long as you don’t have a vertical grip on it. The vertical grip seems to be the sticking point. If you have a brace, and want a vertical grip you have to register it as an AOW under the NFA. Don’t want to do that? Remove the vertical grip.

No...it has nothing to do with the brace...it has to do with a pistol over 26" being classified as a "firearm" and can then have a VG installed. They changed that the brace isn't included in that length measurement anymore, it only includes parts necessary for the gun to function (AR buffer/pistol tube) and not other accessories (brace tube on an AK pistol).

 

[eyemikeb]

Yeah gotta remove the brace (if it’s not necessary to how the firearm operates) to measure if it’s 26 inches or not... for use of a vertical (90°) grip... do not toooooooooo much has changed. Still can shoulder it from my perspective.