National ATF coming for pistol braces

[wired]

i think pistol braces are almost always used as shouldering devices by the masses and I'm not surprised by this at all.

I see people go on about " what about the disabled veterans?" . They're never disabled veteran's. I doubt that there's a lot of disabled veterans out there single handing a 308 FAL "pistol". It went too far. An ADA compliant buttstock is still a buttstock.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I can't think of any brace I'd want over a real stock.

I was referring to guns where you can't get a real stock (that I have seen anyway) but tons of brace options r available. Not saying prefer the brace over the stock if there were tons of models of both available. One example (I wish I had these on a Glock 18, That would be a riot! )

 

[Kruel J]

I have never seen someone use a pistol brace as it was intended. Ever. I have, however, seen MANY people including myself shouldering one.

I no longer have pistol braces in my collection, I went SBR and will continue to do so.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I have never seen someone use a pistol brace as it was intended. Ever. I have, however, seen MANY people and even myself shouldering one.

How dare they!

 

[Kruel J]

How dare they!

Redirect Notice

When the ATF said it was ok, I was more than happy to shoulder several SB Tactical products.

 

[The Heretic]

As far as I can tell, assuming they are eventually considered to be a buttstock, a "brace" does not become illegal in an of itself, it would be illegal if attached to a "Pistol". So a person could still attach them to a rifle - nothing illegal about that. I have several "braces" that would be fine on an AR rifle, I only have one firearm that I use any of them on; my Mossberg Shockwave, which is not a pistol. I have no AR or AK pistols.

If the braces become illegal for Mossberg Shockwaves too, then I do have rifles they can fit - I will just have to return the Shockwave to the raptor grip and/or buy a Knoxx Breacher grip (which maintains the 26" length) and only use the braces on rifles.

 

[Kruel J]

I still have one SBA3 brace, I actually thought about putting it on my next SBR project. They're light, adjustable, and they shoulder quite comfortably. Or so I've been told.

 

[The Heretic]

I still have one SBA3 brace, I actually thought about putting it on my next SBR project. They're light, adjustable, and they shoulder quite comfortably. Or so I've been told.

It they are declared to be buttstocks, and that holds up in the inevitable court cases, then a person can just replace the brace portion with a recoil pad - at least on some of them. I bought my Mossberg with some version of an SBA4 but I installed the SBA3 instead.

 

[nwslopoke]

I have never seen someone use a pistol brace as it was intended. Ever. I have, however, seen MANY people including myself shouldering one.

I no longer have pistol braces in my collection, I went SBR and will continue to do so.

The ATF ruled against itself and said it didn't matter before it flip flopped. The attachment did not change the function, they said.

IMO, they need to remain relevant or be absorbed by another agency. This is not the environment for them to push back.

 

[American123]

Thought there was some law in precedent cases that legally acquired/used items could not retroactively be made illegal and then used to charge citizens with. I suppose a lawyer could make the argument that I can own a brace legally as long as I don't put it on the AR pistol.

That's another reason why lawyers are scum.

 

[OldTengu]

However you feel about them, it's not an item That should be regulated by the ATF. Or anyone else.

 

[wired]

However you feel about them, it's not an item That should be regulated by the ATF. Or anyone else.

I've known enough people who've gone to jail over NFA charges to know they don't care what you feel.

 

[TTSX]

I have never seen someone use a pistol brace as it was intended. Ever. I have, however, seen MANY people including myself shouldering one.

I no longer have pistol braces in my collection, I went SBR and will continue to do so.

I have two braced things and tried both out how they're "designed" to function. Mine happen to be pretty balanced so it worked out well but I can't imagine shooting an AR with a 14" barrel like that would be enjoyable. Definitely not when things get real front heavy, such as .308 types. Makes one handed considerably more enjoyable/accurate than without one at all, however it's not the primary way I use them by any stretch. Reminds me I need to fill out the forms.

 

[The Heretic]

Thought there was some law in precedent cases that legally acquired/used items could not retroactively be made illegal and then used to charge citizens with. I suppose a lawyer could make the argument that I can own a brace legally as long as I don't put it on the AR pistol.

That's another reason why lawyers are scum.

I am sure you have heard of "constructive possession"?

 

[wired]

Thought there was some law in precedent cases that legally acquired/used items could not retroactively be made illegal and then used to charge citizens with. I suppose a lawyer could make the argument that I can own a brace legally as long as I don't put it on the AR pistol.

That's another reason why lawyers are scum.

That's not how it works. When a law is changed making something illegal that does not mean you get to keep it if it isn't grandfathered in the law. The National Firearms Act being a glaring example.

 

[GWS]

But this isn't "Law" its some shifting interpretation of a regulation.
Maybe we can get Judge Benitez to throw it out as another illegal taking like he did with the CA magazine ban back in 2019.
There looks to be a number of similarities between the 2019 ruling and what we're up against now.

 

[wired]

But this isn't "Law" its some shifting interpretation of a regulation.
Maybe we can get Judge Benitez to throw it out as another illegal taking like he did with the CA magazine ban back in 2019.
There looks to be a number of similarities between the 2019 ruling and what we're up against now.

I doubt that would fly. Where the ATF screwed up was allowing the braces in the first place . That was a misinterpretation of the law and I have a hard time seeing a court backing that. The NFA is well vetted like it or not and pistol braces are buttstocks. I just don't see a court challenge ending well . Now if Congress wants to change the law that would be a thing but that's not likely.

 

[American123]

That's not how it works. When a law is changed making something illegal that does not mean you get to keep it if it isn't grandfathered in the law. The National Firearms Act being a glaring example.

Guess I'll just follow it about as well as democrats follow immigration law.

 

[titsonritz]

The AFT shouldn't be regulating jack-bubblegum beyond the mandate of congress and even that it questionable.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I doubt that would fly. Where the ATF screwed up was allowing the braces in the first place . That was a misinterpretation of the law and I have a hard time seeing a court backing that. The NFA is well vetted like it or not and pistol braces are buttstocks. I just don't see a court challenge ending well . Now if Congress wants to change the law that would be a thing but that's not likely.

In the wording of the NFA and GCA, I believe the term "stock" or "butt" is actually used to define the main grip for a handgun/pistol

The biggest issue is yes, the ATF messed things up.. but its also... the ATF has no Constitutional authority to regulate firearms. Only to enforce Federal Laws. That is what surprises me, that the Congress people have not been able to amend or modify the NFA and GCA laws to include new technology and firearms, and to add their wet dreams of a complete semi-auto ban into the NFA categories one way or other.. I mean, FOPA 1986 passed even with the poison pill of Hughes Amendment; no reason the next set of laws couldn't do the same without being "new laws"/"AWB 2.0"? Just "amend" NFA/GCA to put the broadest possible categories into NFA firearms and say "look, we are updating the NFA and GCA to fit the times, and we are leaving the bolt actions/hunting firearms alone and we are "not" adding new laws, but "updating" existing laws and giving the AFT broader authority!"