question about pistol braces

[Creeky73]

ok, so....count me as one of the guys who is completely perplexed by the pistol brace thing, and specifically the legalities around it.

I remember when these things first started coming out, and a whole lot of people snatched them up before the inevitable swarm of letters to the ATF asking for clarification on the legalities of these boogers.
So then we get the ATF response that basically says that they are legal as long as you don't use them illegally. Oooookay.
So I still see plenty of people in youtube vids and elsewhere that are acquiring pistol-classified firearms with the pistol braces on them, yet there is absolutely no visible need for them to have such a firearm. In other words, if the ATF's justification for allowing pistol braces is so that handicapped/physically challenged people can use them more easily, why is there zero requirement to prove a disability when purchasing them? And this is being done on the honor system, that said unencumbered person, with no need of a firearm with a pistol brace, will simply never, ever put that brace up to their shoulders. Neither in the privacy of their own home, a private range, a public range, nowhere. And I've also noticed that some of these "braces" are pretty much looking just like a stock, except the manufacturer just calls it a "brace."

In other words, I want to clarify that it is perfectly legal for me to own a firearm that a) has a barrel length of less than 16" and b) has one of these ridiculous braces on them, even though I have no physical need of this firearm, as long as I never use it inappropriately?

And if this is affirmative, then my next question is, wtf??? This looks like some pretty obvious shenanigans designed to game the ATF laws, and that the ATF has apparently gone along with it.

Clarification or comments please?

[fledge]

In other words, I want to clarify that it is perfectly legal for me to own a firearm that a) has a barrel length of less than 16" and b) has one of these ridiculous braces on them, even though I have no physical need of this firearm, as long as I never use it inappropriately?

a) yes because without a stock they are pistols UNLESS the receiver started out as a rifle. Then it's always a rifle. If a pistol, you can use a stock with a 16" barrel. Then you can remove the stock and put on the short upper again.

b) yes. Sig, KAK, Thorsden, etc.

But always do your own research or ask your attorney for the "official" law.

[Sak007]

I use my ar pistol as my car gun as my state will not allow me to carry a loaded rifle .

[UWone77]

I'm not an attorney, how it's not supposed to be used is on an ATF opinion letter, which is not law.

Personally, I think it would be an extremely difficult case to pursue if someone was unlawfully using a KAK Blade/Sig Brace

I like real stocks, so I'll pay the tax. I know some don't want to and/or it's not an option.

[velocity2006]

For the sole purpose of interstate transport a pistol is much easier to deal with than an SBR.

[Jerry R]

I keep a pistol kit (usually completed) so I can use a build while waiting on the stamp to clear. This is only legal on a stripped lower transferred as "Other Firearm (Frame, Receiver, etc.", and that was never completed or sold as a rifle. You can convert a pistol to a rifle, but you cannot convert a rifle to a pistol - only an SBR.

[LHTwist]

I disagree that "the ATF's justification for allowing pistol braces is so that handicapped/physically challenged people can use them more easily".
Anyone can purchase and use the braces as long as they're used as intended and not as a shoulder stock.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

[Former11B]

You can't require someone to PROVE a disability for HIPAA reasons, I'm sure. They are not medical professionals providing treatment and the braces are not prescription items. Just like you wouldn't refuse to sell someone crutches, a cane, or a wheelchair even if they couldn't PROVE they needed it.

Like UWone said, I think it would be very hard for them to prosecute someone for shouldering a Sig Brace or other device. Not to mention, if you are on private land or by yourself on a range....who's going to know? As far as gaming the NFA....it's a dumb ass law anyways. Any way around it is fine with me.

[DeviantLogic]

You can't require someone to PROVE a disability for HIPAA reasons, I'm sure. They are not medical professionals providing treatment and the braces are not prescription items. Just like you wouldn't refuse to sell someone crutches, a cane, or a wheelchair even if they couldn't PROVE they needed it.

Like UWone said, I think it would be very hard for them to prosecute someone for shouldering a Sig Brace or other device. Not to mention, if you are on private land or by yourself on a range....who's going to know? As far as gaming the NFA....it's a dumb ass law anyways. Any way around it is fine with me.

Well said.

[Creeky73]

You can't require someone to PROVE a disability for HIPAA reasons, I'm sure. They are not medical professionals providing treatment and the braces are not prescription items. Just like you wouldn't refuse to sell someone crutches, a cane, or a wheelchair even if they couldn't PROVE they needed it.

Like UWone said, I think it would be very hard for them to prosecute someone for shouldering a Sig Brace or other device. Not to mention, if you are on private land or by yourself on a range....who's going to know? As far as gaming the NFA....it's a dumb ass law anyways. Any way around it is fine with me.

no disagreement there. It's actually the whole point of my thread. These pistol "braces" are obviously stocks with slight modifications to allow them to be strapped to the arm. Some of these things look so absurd when used in this fashion that it becomes pretty obvious what the intention of them is. Not saying that there isn't a handful of people out there that might be using these items AS OFFICIALLY STATED intended, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of ones sold vs ones used in the intended fashion are two numbers that ain't even close to each other. And that is what makes me so sketchy about owning one. It's like, if you stood next to the person who made the decision that an SBR is a no-go but a pistol with an AR stock and a velcro strap on it is ok, even that very person could not logically explain to you how he/she came to that conclusion. And that is what lead me to asking the question on my thread. It seems RETARDED that these ridiculous "braces" essentially allow us to build what is, for all intents and purposes, an SBR. Without doing paperwork. So I just wanted to confirm that this is indeed the case. Ya'll are saying that it is, so...I guess it is.

Edit: Please don't misread my post(s) as if I am in favor of the ATF or their stupid rules. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I can and can't do, and if at all possible, the why's and wherefore's of those answers.

[Creeky73]

I disagree that "the ATF's justification for allowing pistol braces is so that handicapped/physically challenged people can use them more easily".
Anyone can purchase and use the braces as long as they're used as intended and not as a shoulder stock.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

I had always heard/read that was part of their justification, even if it wasn't specifically written into law that way. The 2nd statement you made is pretty much what this entire thread is about. I had guessed that anyone could buy them, I'm just extremely perplexed as to how the ATF sees these devices as significantly different enough from a standard stock to classify them differently. Like I said, anyone could take a velcro strap to a standard stock and create a makeshift pistol brace, even if the plastic sides don't necessarily split down each side of the forearm. By the same token, if the device were being designed strictly as a brace, they could be designed in such a way to easily allow the strap to put around your arm, but didn't have anywhere near the amount of plastic hanging down that so easily allows them to be shouldered. See what I'm getting at? It's as if the ATF flat out allowed a device to be legal that almost makes their rule on SBR's obsolete because now anyone who wants an SBR without doing the paperwork can just use a pistol brace. See what I'm getting at?

[DeviantLogic]

no disagreement there. It's actually the whole point of my thread. These pistol "braces" are obviously stocks with slight modifications to allow them to be strapped to the arm. Some of these things look so absurd when used in this fashion that it becomes pretty obvious what the intention of them is. Not saying that there isn't a handful of people out there that might be using these items AS OFFICIALLY STATED intended, but I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of ones sold vs ones used in the intended fashion are two numbers that ain't even close to each other. And that is what makes me so sketchy about owning one. It's like, if you stood next to the person who made the decision that an SBR is a no-go but a pistol with an AR stock and a velcro strap on it is ok, even that very person could not logically explain to you how he/she came to that conclusion. And that is what lead me to asking the question on my thread. It seems RETARDED that these ridiculous "braces" essentially allow us to build what is, for all intents and purposes, an SBR. Without doing paperwork. So I just wanted to confirm that this is indeed the case. Ya'll are saying that it is, so...I guess it is.

Edit: Please don't misread my post(s) as if I am in favor of the ATF or their stupid rules. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I can and can't do, and if at all possible, the why's and wherefore's of those answers.

If I was forced to have an AR Pistol instead of an SBR, I'd want to have a brace on the buffer tube for a few reasons. 1) For shooting a pistol AR...I'll take any stability enhancements I can get. 2) Having a naked buffer tube sticking out looks weird IMO. 3) It makes it easier to stand/store the rifle upright. 4) If I needed to use it in a defensive situation...you bet your ass I'd shoulder the thing. Still, if you want an SBR, pay the $200...chalk it up to just part of the build cost. It's not worth it to get sideways with the ATF.

[mustangfreek]

Nothing good to add but seen the shockwave blades in stock/on sale at primary arms for 30 bux...for us non nfa players..lol

[LHTwist]

I had always heard/read that was part of their justification, even if it wasn't specifically written into law that way. The 2nd statement you made is pretty much what this entire thread is about. I had guessed that anyone could buy them, I'm just extremely perplexed as to how the ATF sees these devices as significantly different enough from a standard stock to classify them differently. Like I said, anyone could take a velcro strap to a standard stock and create a makeshift pistol brace, even if the plastic sides don't necessarily split down each side of the forearm. By the same token, if the device were being designed strictly as a brace, they could be designed in such a way to easily allow the strap to put around your arm, but didn't have anywhere near the amount of plastic hanging down that so easily allows them to be shouldered. See what I'm getting at? It's as if the ATF flat out allowed a device to be legal that almost makes their rule on SBR's obsolete because now anyone who wants an SBR without doing the paperwork can just use a pistol brace. See what I'm getting at?
The fact that the ATF doesn't't see the arm braces as being any different than a rifle stock - when applied to a firearm with a barrel length less than 16" - is precisely why there's a ruling.
I think you're trying to determine what sets the braces apart and the issue is solely in the application, not the device. Asside from any personal opinions, the ATF was merely try to prevent people from building what is essentially an SBR, by putting an arm brace on a pistol, and circumventing the need for a tax stamp. They want the money!

Sent from my LGUK410 using Tapatalk

[Creeky73]

The fact that the ATF doesn't't see the arm braces as being any different than a rifle stock - when applied to a firearm with a barrel length less than 16" - is precisely why there's a ruling.
I think you're trying to determine what sets the braces apart and the issue is solely in the application, not the device. Asside from any personal opinions, the ATF was merely try to prevent people from building what is essentially an SBR, by putting an arm brace on a pistol, and circumventing the need for a tax stamp. They want the money!

Sent from my LGUK410 using Tapatalk

this has me even more confused. You said the ATF sees a pistol brace as a stock, if used on a firearm with less than 16". So would that not require a tax stamp to use? My impression, and a big part of this entire thread, is that the ATF does NOT require a tax stamp for a pistol brace. That's sort of what the whole thread is addressing...if there's no stamp required with braces, and braces pretty much look and function just like a normal AR stock except some perhaps-real perhaps-perceived extra function of strapping it to your arm like Ash's chainsaw, then TO ME the ATF more or less gave everyone an out to buy/build SBR's with no paperwork, as long as the stock product says "pistol brace" somewhere in it. I am aware of the rules regarding converting existing rifles, so I'm not talking about that. For sake of argument, assume a new complete gun that comes with the brace, or a new build on a pistol-marked receiver.

[Creeky73]

I disagree that "the ATF's justification for allowing pistol braces is so that handicapped/physically challenged people can use them more easily".
Anyone can purchase and use the braces as long as they're used as intended and not as a shoulder stock.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Here is a pic of a letter from the ATF in regard to the Shockwave Blade brace, and this letter specifically mentions the SB-15 Brace being used by handicapped individuals. Must have at least been part of the decision-making process.

1373

[DeviantLogic]

The ATF letter pretty much sums it up. Really don't see where the confusion is. An AR pistol with a brace is not a short barrel rifle...it's still an AR pistol. According to the ATF, you cannot use the brace as a shoulder stock. If you want to shoulder your <16" AR legally and for the whole world to see, you have to fill out a Form 1 and pay $200. Yes, it's bullshit, it sucks, it's not easily enforceable...and if most people saw you shoulder a pistol brace, they really wouldn't care.

[Joelski]

Your ex might turn you in. [;)]

[Creeky73]

The ATF letter pretty much sums it up. Really don't see where the confusion is. An AR pistol with a brace is not a short barrel rifle...it's still an AR pistol. According to the ATF, you cannot use the brace as a shoulder stock. If you want to shoulder your <16" AR legally and for the whole world to see, you have to fill out a Form 1 and pay $200. Yes, it's bullshit, it sucks, it's not easily enforceable...and if most people saw you shoulder a pistol brace, they really wouldn't care.

Thank you sir. I basically just wanted the confirmation that I was understanding this correctly.