ATF changes stance on how braces are measured

[User 1234]

Can you add a vertical fore-grip to an AR pistol?

This article provides the description of the pistol versus non-pistol firearm difference. Once a firearm has a forward vertical grip it is no longer designed to be fired with one hand and is therefore not a pistol. This of course begs the question why an angled front grip does not evidence a design to fire the weapon with two hands.

 

[Member 34319]

Ok - I was unaware of that particular configuration - I always thought that an AR pistol was an AR pistol until it was a rifle and that the foregrip would always make a pistol an AOW.

So is there some other way to make an AR with a barrel shorter than 16" and a foregrip that isn't an AOW?

I think your still confusing "pistol" with "firearm".

When putting a stripped lower receiver together you can make it into many different classifications of guns. A "rifle" a "short barreled rifle" a "pistol" a "firearm" a "shotgun" a "short barreled shotgun" an "any other weapon"

Some of the above require a tax stamp approved prior via the ATF to make. Some don't. Making a "firearm" doesn't require an approval from the ATF.

Made from a stripped receiver transferred as other on the 4473. You can make a "firearm" AR15 using a 11.5 or 12.5 barrel and a featureless pistol buffer tube that has an overall length of 26" or greater. From there on it is not a pistol or an AOW. You made a firearm. Per the legal definition of "firearm" per the ATF you can install a vertical forward grip.

Here is an example.



Adding a pistol brace to the above does not make it a "pistol"

Yet....

 

[Alexx1401]

No where in the constitution does it say, "you can infringe on gun ownership rights if the guns are shorter than this size." Conceal-ability has nothing to do with the right. Last time I checked the folks who use firearms to regularly commit violent crime don't care about arbitrary ATF opinions and the folks who don't use their firearms to regularly commit violent crime represent the lack of need for the law whatsoever.

Except they already long ago got a majority of gun owners to declare it's not really a right, it's a privilege that can be granted and taken at the whim of law makers. Once they got a majority of gun owners to go with that, well the rest is easy.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think your still confusing "pistol" with "firearm".

When putting a stripped lower receiver together you can make it into many different classifications of guns. A "rifle" a "short barreled rifle" a "pistol" a "firearm" a "shotgun" a "short barreled shotgun" an "any other weapon"

Some of the above require a tax stamp approved prior via the ATF to make. Some don't. Making a "firearm" doesn't require an approval from the ATF.

Made from a stripped receiver transferred as other on the 4473. You can make a "firearm" AR15 using a 11.5 or 12.5 barrel and a featureless pistol buffer tube that has an overall length of 26" or greater. From there on it is not a pistol or an AOW. You made a firearm. Per the legal definition of "firearm" per the ATF you can install a vertical forward grip.

Here is an example.

View attachment 597550

Adding a pistol brace to the above does not make it a "pistol"

Yet....

Excellent description and example Reno! It depends on what it is manufactured as. If it is manufactured as a rifle for example you can't do certain things to it such as put on a smaller barrel without additional nfa hoops to jump through. Likewise if it's manufactured as a pistol u can't put a vertical grip on it without additional nfa hoops.

I don't see what all the fuss is about anyway. If u happen to have a pistol u can put an angled grip on it like the one shown below which work great. If u absolutely must have a true vertical grip that means u need to build it for a category that allows a vertical grip. Simply putting a brace (considered an "accessory") on a pistol to get to 26" does not allow a vertical grip to be used.

 

[American123]

Except they already long ago got a majority of gun owners to declare it's not really a right, it's a privilege that can be granted and taken at the whim of law makers. Once they got a majority of gun owners to go with that, well the rest is easy.

Not arguing that. Death by a 1000 cuts is the plague of the American patriot.

 

[2A2Dend]

People need to know what you can, and can not do.
Basically, cross breed what can be a pistol configuration, and/ OR a rifle configuration.
It's one, or the other. I feel the biggest part of the issue is not understanding the limits of the definition.

 

[Boboclown]

The fore grip thing on pistols never sat well with me always felt like that rode a fine line of the law.. but I despise the fact that the ATF can change interpretation any time they want causing more confusion..

They only change it when someone asks them a question. And people keep asking them for whatever damn reason.

Sometimes its better to just not say a thing and use the original interpretation instead of asking again and again.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

People need to know what you can, and can not do.
Basically, cross breed what can be a pistol configuration, and/ OR a rifle configuration.
It's one, or the other. I feel the biggest part of the issue is not understanding the limits of the definition.

Just a note that it can also be built from the getgo as "any other weapon" "short barreled rifle" etc if it meets the classification and u pay the tax stamp. U are right that it has to be built to meet the definition for whatever category the builder is building it to.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

They only change it when someone asks them a question. And people keep asking them for whatever damn reason.

Sometimes its better to just not say a thing and use the original interpretation instead of asking again and again.

I agree. Its like people fish for new answers, and of course with that the answers keep changing.

 

[Member 34319]

Not so much the definition, but understanding that buying a stripped lower receiver makes you the "maker" of the gun, it starts without a classification kind of. If you bought a gun in a certain classification, IE a pistol or rifle, you are still the "maker" but the gun has already been classified as a certain type of gun. You would be altering the existing classification from a "pistol" or "rifle" by making it into something else which is often illegal without permission via a tax stamp application.

I'm thinking eventually, the ATF, will classify the "pistol arm braces" like a stock in a way. IE, a stock can ONLY be on a rifle (or shotguns or NFA items), it is a very defining term to rifles. Putting a "stock" on a pistol, makes it into a rifle, by definition. Putting a stock on most classifications of guns makes it a rifle. Hence why an AR15 without a stock, even with a 24" barrel, can be defined as a "pistol".

I foresee the ATF defining the "pistol arm brace" as a pistol accessory. In other words they will make it illegal to install on anything that isn't a pistol.

Hard to do with the current laws as the are vague as F with the onslaught of new devices like the braces and such. It will happen though, just takes time. Like said above, death by a thousand cuts.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Not so much the definition, but understanding that buying a stripped lower receiver makes you the "maker" of the gun, it starts without a classification kind of. If you bought a gun in a certain classification, IE a pistol or rifle, you are still the "maker" but the gun has already been classified as a certain type of gun. You would be altering the existing classification from a "pistol" or "rifle" by making it into something else which is often illegal without permission via a tax stamp application.

I'm thinking eventually, the ATF, will classify the "pistol arm braces" like a stock in a way. IE, a stock can ONLY be on a rifle, it is a very defining term to rifles. Putting a "stock" on a pistol, makes it into a rifle, by definition. Putting a stock on most classifications of guns makes it a rifle. Hence why an AR15 without a stock, even with a 24" barrel, can be defined as a "pistol".

I foresee the ATF defining the "pistol arm brace" as a pistol accessory. In other words they will make it illegal to install on anything that isn't a pistol.

Hard to do with the current laws as the are vague as F with the onslaught of new devices like the braces and such. It will happen though, just takes time. Like said above, death by a thousand cuts.

My guess is that eventually ATF will realize these rules were based on old definitions of what is "concealable" (26 inches), what is a pistol, a rifle, etc and will have to rewrite the rules somehow.

There are so many things now that no longer fit within the old categories. I think they will get tired of making contradictory statements and rulings of trying to shoehorn things into old categories and will have to redefine things. But maybe that would make things too streamlined and kill the bureaucracy?

 

[2A2Dend]

it is death by 1k cuts, that comes from as said, those not fully understanding, which add into the confusion for asking the ATF to re-clarify to their level of interpretation. People in general need to wise-up on things if they need to ask.
No personal jabs at anyone, merely saying.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I guess what I was trying to say is that in terms of nfa regulation, is there a real difference in public danger or whatever if a gun has a 16" barrel or 14" barrel, that a gun has "stock" instead of a "brace"? Someone at atf needs to ask is there any need to regulate so strictly these categories anymore when they no longer make sense? Fe there is such a tiny, academic distinction between an "accessory", brace, stock, receiver extension, etc. why regulate poeple with stiff penalties when even the ATF has to scratch their head about does it meet the exact definition of one thing or the other. Makes no sense now IMO.

 

[DB is Here]

This is the evolution of a patchwork of laws meant to give the general public a feel good solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Boboclown]

If ya gotta ask, ask anyone but Johnny Law.

 

[User 1234]

This is primarily caused by Congressional choices in 1934 and 1968. Just think how much worse it would be if today's Congress wrote it! Maxine Waters, Hank "tip over Guam" Johnson, and AOC "concentration camp"'s combined "logic" anyone.....

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This is primarily caused by Congressional choices in 1934 and 1968. Just think how much worse it would be if today's Congress wrote it! Maxine Waters, Hank "tip over Guam" Johnson, and AOC "concentration camp"'s combined "logic" anyone.....

Yea looking at the wiki page so much is the same as 1934.



National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

 

[The Heretic]

Measuring the Overall Length of a Pistol? ATF has Altered the Deal | RECOIL

 

[CountryGent]

Having to deal with this kind of BS can be avoided ...

​

Once stamped, you can build almost any rifle, of any length, with any (real) stock, any fore-grip, in any caliber (< .51 SBR, >.50 DD). Pretty much the only "no go" is a happy-switch. And when (it isn't an "if", my friends) they produce another ruling magically turning something NFA, you're still covered because it is already registered. For those that are AR aficionados, that platform gives one a dizzying array of possibilities for configurations. Cheers.

 

[nwslopoke]

We have come too complacent and allow these agencies to create criminals at will. These departments don't want to be inconvenienced so they take a legal act and make illegal because some official is uncomfortable.

These agencies were created to be the experts. They are tasked to bring the facts to the public which is why they were granted authority of enforcement.

It would be nice if the courts did their job and put a stop to this. They make a policy and prove it is legal. Six month later the same group admit they were wrong or lying Either way shows their incompetence