JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Doing CHRISTMAS will probably be a Felony . :eek:

Oliver Cromwell , the leader of those nutjob Puritans who we celebrate every year at Thanksgiving, banned Christmas celebrations when his New Model Army deposed the king of England in 1645. It used to be a rowdy celebration similar to Mardi Gras. What's old is new again.
 
John has a long mustache.
Some of y'all won't get it...
The chair is against the wall...
Wolverines_pic.jpg
 
From what I am able to understand from ATF's letter is that they are just explaining that 23 braces are being advertised as having been "ATF approved" when they were not submitted to Tech Branch. No different than a celebrity suing a company that says the celebrity endorses a certain product when they hadn't.

Submit the braces for review, allow Tech branch to determine if the are braces or stocks and be done with it.

SF-
 
From what I am able to understand from ATF's letter is that they are just explaining that 23 braces are being advertised as having been "ATF approved" when they were not submitted to Tech Branch. No different than a celebrity suing a company that says the celebrity endorses a certain product when they hadn't.

Submit the braces for review, allow Tech branch to determine if the are braces or stocks and be done with it.

SF-
Imma gonna repeat this again.
The letter released, was dated July 2018 and then the ATF sent this newer letter out in Dec 2018 , saying pretty much that you gotta have the accessory attached to the firearm to be subject to their interpretations for approval.
 
Because nothing is set in stone, ATF just told them to stop using false advertising. Scare mongerers took it upon themselves to say something else.
I believe the false advertising was the line "ATF Compliant"

That phrase is still showing up on many websites selling them. My understanding is it's false because attaching them to a pistol is not compliant with ATF rules.

The "braces" are not illegal, they're just not approved by the ATF for use on a pistol. Some are but most of SB's products are not.
 
Imma gonna repeat this again.
The letter released, was dated July 2018 and then the ATF sent this newer letter out in Dec 2018 , saying pretty much that you gotta have the accessory attached to the firearm to be subject to their interpretations for approval.
Essentially this means no more approved braces can be put on the market unless they submit each firearm to the tech branch? This seems like ATF pretty much shut down the ability to market new braces for pistols.
 
Let's say the local FBI or PD confiscates my AR pistol with SBA3 brace and they send it in to ATF because they suspect it is a nonregistered SBR. ATF comes back and says yep it's an SBR. At that point I am screwed because that brace and firearm combination was never submitted and approved as a pistol?
 
I believe the false advertising was the line "ATF Compliant"

That phrase is still showing up on many websites selling them. My understanding is it's false because attaching them to a pistol is not compliant with ATF rules.

The "braces" are not illegal, they're just not approved by the ATF for use on a pistol. Some are but most of SB's products are not.
The advertisement was ATF approved, not ATF compliant.
 
Let's say the local FBI or PD confiscates my AR pistol with SBA3 brace and they send it in to ATF because they suspect it is a nonregistered SBR. ATF comes back and says yep it's an SBR. At that point I am screwed because that brace and firearm combination was never submitted and approved as a pistol?
Yup. Better start saving those mayo packets in the big house.
 
Let's say the local FBI or PD confiscates my AR pistol with SBA3 brace and they send it in to ATF because they suspect it is a nonregistered SBR. ATF comes back and says yep it's an SBR. At that point I am screwed because that brace and firearm combination was never submitted and approved as a pistol?
Essentially this means no more approved braces can be put on the market unless they submit each firearm to the tech branch? This seems like ATF pretty much shut down the ability to market new braces for pistols.
All good questions. Remember that .. "these letters are not intended to be legally binding" :rolleyes: they are simply opinions

Now, the ATF could choose to prosecute owners of said braces but.. its been 2 years and they've only gone after Q Armory?

Also, might depend on which county or State you're in. :s0092: If you live in a Second Amendment "Sanctuary" county, then there's no reason the local PDs and County sheriff would look as hard on your firearms as the OSP and ATF Tech Branch would. :s0092:
 
All good questions. Remember that .. "these letters are not intended to be legally binding" :rolleyes: they are simply opinions

Now, the ATF could choose to prosecute owners of said braces but.. its been 2 years and they've only gone after Q Armory?

Also, might depend on which county or State you're in. :s0092: If you live in a Second Amendment "Sanctuary" county, then there's no reason the local PDs and County sheriff would look as hard on your firearms as the OSP and ATF Tech Branch would. :s0092:
This may be their way of scaring many firearm owners from buying or owning a non approved braced pistol. They don't even have to prosecute anybody and many thousands of firearm owners will still decide it's not worth the risk.
 
This may be their way of scaring many firearm owners from buying or owning a non approved braced pistol. They don't even have to prosecute anybody and many thousands of firearm owners will still decide it's not worth the risk.
The reason these letters have no force of law behind them.. is.. that there is so far, no Federal statute/law that defines what is a pistol brace, a cheek rest or a shoulder stock, beyond what is defined in the GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 for "rifles and shotguns" as "shoulder stocked" arms.
 
The reason these letters have no force of law behind them.. is.. that there is so far, no Federal statute/law that defines what is a pistol brace, a cheek rest or a shoulder stock, beyond what is defined in the GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 for "rifles and shotguns" as "shoulder stocked" arms.
That is likely why they are not prosecuting anybody right now. They will probably lay the groundwork for future prosecutions by declaring some of the braces as stocks. Heck they might even reverse prior approvals for other braces that have been approved already. It seems like they pretty much do what they want and make up the rules as they go. Bumpstock ban demonstrated that.
 
It was specifically "ATF Approved."
What do you suppose "BATFE Compliant" means. Sounds like the sellers of the braces are trying to imply the same meaning to me. Maybe the ATF will have to send them another letter covering all the different word plays that might imply that the ATF approves of the devices (what ever that might mean)


Edit: It seems as though the Government has a special adversion to approved vs compliant:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that it "objects strongly" to the phrase "Approved by FDA" in connection with the marketing or labeling of a product that has been processed through the food additives regulations (see Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) Section 500.300 or click here). However, a firm may state that it is selling a regulated food additive or that its chemicals are in compliance with the food additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
 
Last Edited:
compliant : inclined to agree with others or obey rules, especially to an excessive degree; acquiescent.
Approved
officially agreed or accepted as satisfactory.
Sounds like sb was playing games just like the atf. Essentially figting fire with fire?
 
compliant : inclined to agree with others or obey rules, especially to an excessive degree; acquiescent.
Approved
officially agreed or accepted as satisfactory.
Sounds like sb was playing games just like the atf. Essentially figting fire with fire?
I interpreted the compliant in the brace advertising as I would a toilet that was advertised as ADA Compliant, which would mean that the toilet meets standards set forth by the government. It seems like they were trying to make it sound like the braces met some BATFE standard for braces. It appears to be OK for them to use Compliant but what the heck does that mean? Sounds like it's intended to deceive the customer to me?
 
Not at all, It means they have followed the guidelines as set by the ATF.
Approved would imply that the ATF has tested and approved the item.
 
I believe the only way to find out whether my SBA4 brace is legal to run on an AR pistol is to send it in. What will happen to the firearm and myself if it is determined to be a SBR rather than a pistol?
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top