ATF changes stance on how braces are measured

[titsonritz]

ATF Rescinds Prior Methods to Measure a Firearm's Overall Length when Equipped with a Stabilizing Brace

 

[MasterChief]

"ATF has taken the position that once a vertical foregrip has been added to a firearm, it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand, removing it from the definition of a pistol, even though ATF previously lost this argument before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001)."


They pick and choose what decisions they accept?

 

[Tomahawk67]

"Based on this new letter, it is safe to say that ATF is taking the position that firearms equipped with stabilizing braces need to have their overall length measured with the brace folded or to the end of the receiver extension if the brace is stationary and non-adjustable. Adding a vertical foregrip to a firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches results in the making of an AOW, which is subject to the National Firearms Act. "

 

[KKG]

Won't be the first time the BATFE has decided to change a ruling!

 

[The Heretic]

ATF: Some Black Aces Tactical Guns Are Unregistered NFA Weapons

An ominous ATF letter has surfaced indicating that some Black Aces Tactical Pro Series firearms may in fact fall under the National Firearms Act (NFA) law.

www.recoilweb.com

 

[Member 34319]

Better start getting those EFile form ones in. Lol. It's only a matter of time before they put the axe down on braces entirely. Then the 1 month waits that have been normal will turn into a year plus with everyone panicked over the braces getting axed.

 

[arakboss]

Correct, some where under the impression that the brace was a part of the gun and therefore can be included in the measurement. As with rifle barrel overall lengths a pinned device that extends beyond the rifles barrel can constitute a legal overall 16" barrel. No determination had been made to constitute what parts pinned or non permanent make a gun a "firearm".

Before there were braces, and folks just ran featureless buffer tubes to make pistol ARs the length was determined by measuring from the end of the bare muzzle to the end of the buffer tube. With a 7.5" barrel, it was impossible to get a 26" overall length to make a "firearm". Then came braces, and adjustable braces, and collapseable braces or folding braces. That could extend much further than the featureless buffer tube. Using that extra length allowed to increase the overall length to over 26" using various barrel lengths. Some braces are so long they will measure to 26" gun overall length with a 7.5" barrel.

The confusion lies in what is considered a measurable part. This determination helps clear up the muddy waster some. At least until someone creates another device to skirt around the ATFs determinations again.

Impossible? Ext tubes could be made to length necessary to make 7.5" combo work without a brace. But then you might run in to length of pull issues. The batf sure has wacky rules. I get what you are saying though.

 

[arakboss]

It's funny they won't count the brace for this purpose but will they still count the brace for length of pull issues?

 

[Member 34319]

Impossible? Ext tubes could be made to length necessary to make 7.5" combo work without a brace. But then you might run in to length of pull issues. The batf sure has wacky rules. I get what you are saying though.

Nothing is impossible.

Braces were created to circumvent existing old laws. Laws on the books have no place trying to place order on new inventions.

So they will have to change the law. Or do what trump did and give alphabet agencies more power to create defacto law.

No current law exists in theory to ban bumpstocks. They are still legal in my opinion. As no law had been actually passed to make them illegal. The current laws as written would not hold in court. Defacto law was given to the BATF to "rule" them illegal.

This now can be done to anything gun related, all thanks to number 45!

As soon as they state something as simple as, if the pistol was never designed to have a stabilizing brace, adding one to a pistol that was not designed for a brace is making an illegal SBR. Done.

That's how simple it can be now that the ATF has been granted defacto law making.

 

[arakboss]

What's the longest ext tube you could use and not run afoul of length of pull issue.

Why do angled foregrips get a pass for firearm intended to be fired with one hand?

 

[The Heretic]

What's the longest ext tube you could use and not run afoul of length of pull issue.

Why do angled foregrips get a pass for firearm intended to be fired with one hand?

I don't think it is length of the tube, but rather a tube with something that can be shouldered.

It is arbitrary and not very logical, but it is what it is and since it mostly works in our favor compared to the previous situation I am willing to take what I can get sans the possibility of doing away with the unconstitutional NFA.

 

[Member 34319]

What's the longest ext tube you could use and not run afoul of length of pull issue.

Why do angled foregrips get a pass for firearm intended to be fired with one hand?

Why can you shoot a handgun holding it with both hands?

The buffer thing is solely about the SB Tactical braces using regular AR buffer tubes designed for stocks. The one they ship it with only has 5 holes or positions. Limiting the overall length capabilities to a certain length. People would install regular AR15 tubes with more than five points that would extend it even further. The ATF was trying to politely say don't do that your stepping into SBR area. Eventually they will just call it as it truly is, braced are being used to circumvent SBR law.

Like I said. We are holding onto the old laws we have for dear life as they are vague AF.

New laws, would certainly ruin 90-99% of the stuff created to go around them made in the last 10-15 years.

The scariest part now, they don't even need to create new laws. Donald Trump literally opened the door for any president to give law making abilities to the ATF. New prez appoints a new ATF dude or dudette and give them defacto law making abilities to make whatever they want illegal.

 

[arakboss]

Why can you shoot a handgun holding it with both hands?

The buffer thing is solely about the SB Tactical braces using regular AR buffer tubes designed for stocks. The one they ship it with only has 5 holes or positions. Limiting the overall length capabilities to a certain length. People would install regular AR15 tubes with more than five points that would extend it even further. The ATF was trying to politely say don't do that your stepping into SBR area. Eventually they will just call it as it truly is, braced are being used to circumvent SBR law.

Like I said. We are holding onto the old laws we have for dear life as they are vague AF.

New laws, would certainly ruin 90-99% of the stuff created to go around them made in the last 10-15 years.

The scariest part now, they don't even need to create new laws. Donald Trump literally opened the door for any president to give law making abilities to the ATF. New prez appoints a new ATF dude or dudette and give them defacto law making abilities to make whatever they want illegal.

What about angled foregrips?

 

[Member 34319]

What about angled foregrips?

Beats me dude, beats me. The laws we have don't apply to the new guns or accessories we have been able to obtain in the last 10-20 years. Laws made 40-60 years ago. We know they don't and that's why they haven't changed. We have been pretty fortunate to not have many new federal laws created. State laws are different, but federal firearms laws are old AF and I sure as hell hope they stay that way. Unfortunately do to the bumpstock fiasco, the future could be pretty bad as the ATF is now kind of able to bypass the three levels of government.

 

[arakboss]

Beats me dude, beats me. The laws we have don't apply to the new guns or accessories we have been able to obtain in the last 10-20 years. Laws made 40-60 years ago. We know they don't and that's why they haven't changed. We have been pretty fortunate to not have many new federal laws created. State laws are different, but federal firearms laws are old AF and I sure as hell hope they stay that way. Unfortunately do to the bumpstock fiasco, the future could be pretty bad as the ATF is now kind of able to bypass the three levels of government.

My guess is we are one atf letter away from seeing angled foregrips being forbidden on pistols as they essentially provided the same function as a verticle foregrip. This atf effort of ruling the people by opinion letters predates 45. He certainly added a new dimension with BS ban which should be overturned by the court but probably never will be.

 

[Diamondback]

Beats me dude, beats me. The laws we have don't apply to the new guns or accessories we have been able to obtain in the last 10-20 years. Laws made 40-60 years ago. We know they don't and that's why they haven't changed. We have been pretty fortunate to not have many new federal laws created. State laws are different, but federal firearms laws are old AF and I sure as hell hope they stay that way. Unfortunately do to the bumpstock fiasco, the future could be pretty bad as the ATF is now kind of able to bypass the three levels of government.

ATF letter stating that the Magpul AFG is legal for use on AR pistols - Ronin's Grips

ATF letter stating that the Magpul AFG is legal for use on AR pistols

blog.roninsgrips.com

Does the ATF treat angled fore-grips the same as vertical fore-grips?

I received an email today from a client who wanted to know whether an angled fore-grip on an AR pistol makes it an AOW subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) as

johnpierceesq.com

What angled grips are pistol legal? - AR15.COM

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.

www.ar15.com

 

[KKG]

"ATF has taken the position that once a vertical foregrip has been added to a firearm, it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand, removing it from the definition of a pistol, even though ATF previously lost this argument before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001)."


They pick and choose what decisions they accept?

That particular "Change" makes complete sense. When someone chooses to make that type of change to what is supposed to be a Pistol; a one handed Firearm, then they should be willing to accept what the ATF decides. These "Braces" are also pushing the boundaries of what is a "Stock" and I won't be surprised if the ATF decides to chance there status, too.

 

[arakboss]

That particular "Change" makes complete sense. When someone chooses to make that type of change to what is supposed to be a Pistol; a one handed Firearm, then they should be willing to accept what the ATF decides. These "Braces" are also pushing the boundaries of what is a "Stock" and I won't be surprised if the ATF decides to chance there status, too.

I for one am all for taking maximum advantage of whatever silly rules or unjust laws they haven't already thought of. I pitty those who would go further then the rules/laws require to restrict their 2A rights.

 

[The Heretic]

All that the anti-gunners need is some crazy guy using some "feature" or "loophole" gun in a "mass shooting" and they are off and running trying to ban that too. Whether it is an arm brace, or a Shockwave/et. al., or binary trigger or whatever.

Doesn't matter what it is, the anti-gunners will jump on it like zombies on brains.

 

[arakboss]

All that the anti-gunners need is some crazy guy using some "feature" or "loophole" gun in a "mass shooting" and they are off and running trying to ban that too. Whether it is an arm brace, or a Shockwave/et. al., or binary trigger or whatever.

Doesn't matter what it is, the anti-gunners will jump on it like zombies on brains.

It already happened in Dayton, that murderer used a pistol with KAK brace.