ATF rules that pistol Braces are shouldering devices and are now illegal

[Bushman]

Seems I’ve gone from not even having a ticket to a felon

Will this impact my next BGC????

Trumps still in charge until 12:00PM EST on January 20, 2021... Might be time to light that switchboard up, let him know he needs to provide us with a consultation prize...

And what good will that do after Biden takes office and reverses the order???

 

[CamoDeafie]

Slow down everyone.

SB Tactical can still submit each of its new designs to the ATF for approval or disapproval.

SB Tactical was asked multiple times in the past when they released new braces if they came with an approval and most of the time they said things along these lines, “our technology in this product is no different than the original design and therefore the same.” I’ll try and find an old shot show video of the guy saying that exact thing.

So if anyone IS to blame here, it is SB Tactical, and or any other company that did not “””ASK”” permission first and just started selling their items. THIS IS THE MAIN PART OF WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. The ATF doesn’t like not being included in things.

I brought it up once before, it was weird that Magpul released braces at shot show, yet they died somewhere after. Me thinks, magpul did the right thing and went to the AFT. They likely got a no, as the braces were identical (slimmer) than some of their stocks.

Anyways, I saw this coming so it no longer affects me much. I know some here likely have a ton of braced guns, to you all, I wish you the best!

Um. Just to clear some things up... until SB Tactical went and started submitting things, there were no published rules nor regulations officially made by the ATF as to what constituted a "shoulder stock" or "arm/wrist brace". So using the 2017 Ohio court decision on the 13.5" LOP thing as a current guide.. if an owner had no reasonable way of knowing the specific "rules"; then the owner is not guilty of breaking Federal rules

This is brought up by Alex of SB Tactical, in that since the ATF is not willing to publish or make public any sort of standards as to what makes a pistol brace a brace or stock; we are left with the assumption based on decades of Court precedence and legal doctrine of the US that if it is not expressly prohibited, it is legal to use the pistol braces as designed.

 

[nammac]

And what good will that do after Biden takes office and reverses the order???

Simply prolong the inevitable comrade, simply prolong the inevitable...

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Slow down everyone.

SB Tactical can still submit each of its new designs to the ATF for approval or disapproval.

SB Tactical was asked multiple times in the past when they released new braces if they came with an approval and most of the time they said things along these lines, “our technology in this product is no different than the original design and therefore the same.” I’ll try and find an old shot show video of the guy saying that exact thing.

So if anyone IS to blame here, it is SB Tactical, and or any other company that did not “””ASK”” permission first and just started selling their items. THIS IS THE MAIN PART OF WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. The ATF doesn’t like not being included in things.

I brought it up once before, it was weird that Magpul released braces at shot show, yet they died somewhere after. Me thinks, magpul did the right thing and went to the AFT. They likely got a no, as the braces were identical (slimmer) than some of their stocks.

Anyways, I saw this coming so it no longer affects me much. I know some here likely have a ton of braced guns, to you all, I wish you the best!

I was thinking this too.. sounds like these items were simply not approved but assumed approved by certain companies.. The KAK Shockwave 2.0 is basically more a certain “item”/brace than some of the SB tactical braces are.. yet it is gtg because it has an approval letter.. thats basically what Im seeing here.. the ATF just wanted to rubber stanmp these products.. and with the narrow skirting of the law.. It would make sense to cross the t’s and dot the i’s before rolling out unapproved products.

As for the shouldering.. It would seem its all about the wording.. if its designed to be shouldered and worded as such its a “stock”.. but if it is marketed as a brace, used as a brace and happens to “accidently” make contact with the shoulder during fire well then thats a “tactical operator whoopsies“ and in the clear. Why do people keep writing letters to the ATF and digging at this? It seems like its causing more confusion rather than clarification.

 

[Reno]

Um. Just to clear some things up... until SB Tactical went and started submitting things, there were no published rules nor regulations officially made by the ATF as to what constituted a "shoulder stock" or "arm/wrist brace". So using the 2017 Ohio court decision on the 13.5" LOP thing as a current guide.. if an owner had no reasonable way of knowing the specific "rules"; then the owner is not guilty of breaking Federal rules

This is brought up by Alex of SB Tactical, in that since the ATF is not willing to publish or make public any sort of standards as to what makes a pistol brace a brace or stock; we are left with the assumption based on decades of Court precedence and legal doctrine of the US that if it is not expressly prohibited, it is legal to use the pistol braces as designed.

True, but even gun makers have to submit new gun models before selling them.

A new model is not the same as the original. Therefore they duped consumers by stating they were the same.

My thinking, SB Tactical likely wouldn’t have so many models available to sell if they sent each one in for approval.

Folks think the ATF is an all knowing creature, however it usually takes them years to figure stuff out. Just look at past instances. They likely started looking into things based on some company sending in a new model for evaluation. Likely with one of SB Tactical’s newer (not approved) designs.

Ya, I know I know, Molon Labe, come and take it... ATF is bad blah blah blah.

However, that’s the game, play it or don’t.

 

[bbbass]

I thought they would wait until after inauguration but it seems they will have no interference from DJT so why wait.

As I mentioned in another thread on some forum somewhere, the Biden team was noted to be reaching out and working with the BATF in the last week or two... they are moving quickly. Now you know how it is going to be!!!

Here is an example of a determination letter for a brace that is approved to be used on a short barrel firearm without making an NFA item. It's for the Shockwave 2.0

Edit can't get direct link to copy:

It is top link in this search results page:

kak brace atf letter - Google Search

It is still unclear to me if the "KAK" Shockwave is approved. Since the letter does NOT specifically say "KAK" and my brace looks like the dark top one pictured with the 3 places to attach straps instead of the white 2.0, and IIRC did not come with said straps, it looks like I'm screwed anyway.

 

[ma96782]

Surely, the ATF took their "victory" over the bump stock issue and ran with it.....

Remember......The Camel's nose under the tent?

-- by Martin Niemoller (with my additions for firearms)

First they came for the Socialists Hi-cap magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist had no Hi-cap magazines.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists Semi-automatic firearms, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist had no Semi-automatic firearms.

Then they came for the Jews shotguns, rifles and revolvers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew did not own a shotgun, rifle or revolver.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me real weapons left to put up a fight with.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Stomper]

Boy do I remember that....did pass and got a funny story with it as well....
Andy

You got a funny story out of it? All I got was a rock.

 

[bbbass]

This from Shockwave (apparently in 2017). IIRC it has already changed at least once where they, ATF, said no you can't shoulder it... oh jeez. https://shockwavetechnologies.com/atf-says-that-shouldering-shockwave-blade-is-okay/

 

[CamoDeafie]

True, but even gun makers have to submit new gun models before selling them.

A new model is not the same as the original. Therefore they duped consumers by stating they were the same.

My thinking, SB Tactical likely wouldn’t have so many models available to sell if they sent each one in for approval.

Folks think the ATF is an all knowing creature, however it usually takes them years to figure stuff out. Just look at past instances. They likely started looking into things based on some company sending in a new model for evaluation. Likely with one of SB Tactical’s newer (not approved) designs.

Ya, I know I know, Molon Labe, come and take it... ATF is bad blah blah blah.

However, that’s the game, play it or don’t.

ATF Discontinues Accessory Classifications

Moments ago, I received an email that ATF’s Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch would no longer offer classifications on accessories, effective immediately. The Firearms Technology I…

blog.princelaw.com

So.....? How are companies supposed to get opinion/determination letters if the ATF refused to give these out; but now says companies need to have them to continue selling them? Again, the lack of published standards is going to hurt ATF and gun owners both because it's going to take a SCOTUS decision one way or other in a long legal battle

 

[Reno]

ATF Discontinues Accessory Classifications

Moments ago, I received an email that ATF’s Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch would no longer offer classifications on accessories, effective immediately. The Firearms Technology I…

blog.princelaw.com

So.....? How are companies supposed to get opinion/determination letters if the ATF refused to give these out; but now says companies need to have them to continue selling them? Again, the lack of published standards is going to hurt ATF and gun owners both because it's going to take a SCOTUS decision one way or other in a long legal battle

ATF doesn’t make law.

The “published standards” are the existing laws on rifles, pistols, AOWs, etc. That is what they are using.

Once laws are made on these items, which won’t be good, then they will have new “published standards” to go off of.

No where does it state in any of this that the products are illegal. The statement issued by the ATF just states that there are quite a few models that SB Tactical makes that were not submitted or approved.

 

[Hueco]

It's all going downhill from here folks. I miss the days when banned items would be grandfathered. Thank you DJT for emboldening the BATF to come up with this BS. AR, AK, Pistols and 80% lowers/frames are next boys and girls.

Just when you thought 2020 couldn't get any worse.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ATF doesn’t make law.

thats true.

The “published standards” are the existing laws on rifles, pistols, AOWs, etc. That is what they are using.

you mean like how there's supposedly a "maximum LOP rule of 13.5" before a brace or cheek rest becomes a "stock" "? Which was thrown out in a Ohio court because it was not published anywhere, therefore the owner had no reasonable way of knowing whether or not his accessory violated laws and regulations...

Once laws are made on these items, which won’t be good, then they will have new “published standards” to go off of.

thats if Congress submits bills and so forth. Not holding my breath if Congress will stay basically deadlocked or not.

No where does it state in any of this that the products are illegal. The statement issued by the ATF just states that there are quite a few models that SB Tactical makes that were not submitted or approved.

"not approved" basically opens up owners of said accessories to legal prosecution even if there's case law weighted against the ATF. Again, if the ATF refuses to issue opinion letters of approval from 2018-onwards how are companies supposed to follow the ATF's most current statements, in that they need to have "approval letters" or to submit them for consideration, before selling them? Look at what the link I provided says..

Those that have recently submitted samples for classification can expect to have them returned without being classified.

Simply put, if an individual or company submits an accessory to ATF for classification and it is not attached to a firearm, they won’t be rendering any decisions on it.

Emphasis added.

 

[Reno]

thats true.
you mean like how there's supposedly a "maximum LOP rule of 13.5" before a brace or cheek rest becomes a "stock" "? Which was thrown out in a Ohio court because it was not published anywhere, therefore the owner had no reasonable way of knowing whether or not his accessory violated laws and regulations...
thats if Congress submits bills and so forth. Not holding my breath if Congress will stay basically deadlocked or not.
"not approved" basically opens up owners of said accessories to legal prosecution even if there's case law weighted against the ATF. Again, if the ATF refuses to issue opinion letters of approval from 2018-onwards how are companies supposed to follow the ATF's most current statements, in that they need to have "approval letters" or to submit them for consideration, before selling them? Look at what the link I provided says..

Emphasis added.

I feel like anything I type, you’ll combat. I’m not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one.

I’ll leave it be.

Best luck to brace owners.

 

[JedB]

For those that have the KAK Blade (1 & 2) I would suggest downloading the PDFs.
For those that have any of the SB Tactical stocks, I would suggest downloading their original approval letters

I have a digital folder for all my ATF Stamps that I bring to the range. These PDFs are now in that folder.

Just a thought.

 

[No_Regerts]

I feel like anything I type, you’ll combat. I’m not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one.

I’ll leave it be.

Best luck to brace owners.

That’s what conversation is, no? Its not “The Way It is According to XYZ”.

 

[Reno]

That’s what conversation is, no? Its not “The Way It is According to XYZ”.

Not if, during the conversation, the other side isn’t listening but only hearing what they want to hear.

Let me guess, feelings?

 

[No_Regerts]

Not if, during the conversation, the other side isn’t listening but only hearing what they want to hear.

Let me guess, feelings?

Is that side the only one obligated to listen?

Let me guess, narcissism?

 

[CamoDeafie]

As far as I can tell, there is no further definition of a pistol brace other than "not a shoulder stock"

By that, according to NFA and GCA definitions, the difference is that these laws says "shoulder stocks" are an integral part of "rifles and shotguns" definitions, but a pistol does not have a shoulder stock.

Nothing about the 13.5" LOP "rule" that the ATF tried to prosecute for, nothing about the design of the brace that sets it apart from a shoulder stock, except what the ATF "determines" and classify in their opionion letters but that is entirely subjective because they did not publish guidelines on what constitutes a pistol brace, nor what makes it different from a shoulder stock.

If SB Tactical and SIG had never gone to the ATF for their original braces in 2015ish... this entire matter might have been mooted, or it might have pushed Congress to pass a bill or President Obama to put an EO to add braces as a category of shoulder stocks or AOW accessories

 

[Reno]

Is that side the only one obligated to listen?

Let me guess, narcissism?

Narcissism sounds nice!!!

You’re funny!