National Constructive Possession Brace vs Stock

[CamoDeafie]

Thompson/Center Arms made the case that if one has the parts for both a rifle and a pistol starting with a pistol receiver; they are not in constructive possession of a SBR; rather, the SBR configuration must be assembled to be unlawful. You can legally go Pistol to Rifle to Pistol, as long as it does not go into a SBR configuration. ATF still holds that "Once a Rifle, always a rifle"; meaning you cannot just cut a barrel and swap for a pistol buffer tube (or swap upper for a pistol and swap buffer tube assembly for a pistol tube)

Edit. Thompson/Center case should have ended the SBR portion but it didn't. If it had ended/overturned/nullified just the SBR portion of the NFA, we might not even be having this discussion about braces and everything. The AWB of 1994 might still have happened anyways but at the least people would be free to own SBRs tax-free, had the SBR part of NFA been overturned back in 1992

Plurality	Souter, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor
Concurrence	Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas
Dissent	White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy
Dissent	Stevens

Quoting myself..it looks like it was a 5-4 decision with the 5th hinging on one of the Justices going along and compromising that as long as the SBR configuration is not assembled, it's not constructive possession to have both the stock and 16" barrel kit for a pistol, as opposed to just the stock/brace.


So it looks like based on this.. if you do have an extra 16" upper for your pistol braced firearm, you should be OK? I don't know. We'll see what happens!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yes, Congress told them it was too complicated, so they changed it to their tried and true "Here's an impossibly vague description. The criteria are secret. Send us your design and we'll tell you if it's OK". Or words to that effect.

I think atf eliminated scorecard for two reasons, both of which are about control.

1) scoresheet gave somewhat "objective criteria" that manufacturers can design new products around, creating new "legal" braces

2) scoresheet gives somewhat objective criteria that defendant can use in court (e.g. "see I meet all the cirtieria judge").

By eliminating scorecard and saying "we look at it holistically" they can prosecute anyone they want and makes it hard for any new innovative braces to be made. They can even use "manufacturer's advertising" as one of the criteria and what people are doing on YouTube, which is ridiculous.

 

[oa98pistol512]

So if you own a NON braced pistol and a rifle I guess that would be constructive possession?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So if you own a NON braced pistol and a rifle I guess that would be constructive possession?

Nope. Nothing in the ruling, nor any laws I know of, says you can't have an AR pistol and an AR rifle. I do not think that the ATF will go after you for having an AR pistol without a brace in the presence of an AR rifle.

Now, an AR stock and nothing to go on except the AR pistol? maybe. But you could get around that by having a 16" AR upper.

 

[Member 53328]

To everyone that says the ATF doesn't have the ability to create laws (which they don't) -

So you were ok/happy with the ATF "legalizing" the use of the brace as a stock to avoid the SBR/NFA registry and tax stamp.

But

You are not ok with they do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum and now say the are "criminalizing" the use of the brace as a stock and if you want to continue to do so you get a free stamp or you just remove the brace…..

Can't have it both ways. Liking it when it benefits your wants and hating it when it doesn't. We all knew it was coming.

Let the record show I hate the ATF and don't think it should be in operation at all.

 

[CamoDeafie]

To everyone that says the ATF doesn't have the ability to create laws (which they don't) -

So you were ok/happy with the ATF "legalizing" the use of the brace as a stock to avoid the SBR/NFA registry and tax stamp.

Bit of a misleading thing. First, the ATF said they were okay to have on a pistol/short barrel firearm, as long as they can fit over a forearm and has a strap nothing wrong if "just so happen to put near shoulder like a stock", just the "manufacturers/designers intended as not stocks"

Then they flip flopped to say that using them as stock was bad/illegal, and turns the pistol into SBR

Then they flopped back to its okay to "sometimes" use them as stocks, because again; thats "not what they were designed for" most likely because people more competent pointed out that cheek rests and sling stances existed

and then they quit giving letters saying your brace design/brace is legal..


And now we have this "ruling"

But

You are not ok with they do the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum and now say the are "criminalizing" the use of the brace as a stock and if you want to continue to do so you get a free stamp or you just remove the brace…..

Can't have it both ways. Liking it when it benefits your wants and hating it when it doesn't. We all knew it was coming.

Let the record show I hate the ATF and don't think it should be in operation at all.

Agreed about the AFT. Honestly I think the SCOTUS should have thrown out the SBR part of the NFA back in 1992 and we'd never have the whole pistol brace drama.

 

[Member 53328]

Bit of a misleading thing. First, the ATF said they were okay to have on a pistol/short barrel firearm, as long as they can fit over a forearm and has a strap nothing wrong if "just so happen to put near shoulder like a stock", just the "manufacturers/designers intended as not stocks"

Then they flip flopped to say that using them as stock was bad/illegal, and turns the pistol into SBR

Then they flopped back to its okay to "sometimes" use them as stocks, because again; thats "not what they were designed for" most likely because people more competent pointed out that cheek rests and sling stances existed

and then they quit giving letters saying your brace design/brace is legal..


And now we have this "ruling"



Agreed about the AFT. Honestly I think the SCOTUS should have thrown out the SBR part of the NFA back in 1992 and we'd never have the whole pistol brace drama.

So should we really surprised at where we are now?

 

[CamoDeafie]

So should we really surprised at where we are now?

Nope. but... alot of people simply ignored the past behavior of the ATF and went "if I can buy this now in gun stores without transfer tax stamp, it's legal dammit and its muh right!"

 

[RX-79G]

I think the ATF just went back on a dumb decision to allow them in the first place. Which isn't going to endear them to many, but it is understandable that someone could think and observe more and change their mind.

Personally, I thought braces were stupid looking and sketchy, and would have never gotten one if the Free SBR thing hadn't been announced. Now I have the SBR I would have never wanted to pay $200 for.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1662180104338825216

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1685129339/Mock_v_Garland_Order_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339

There is already a swarm of comments asking for further clarification on this:

"Am I covered since I donate?"
"Is this only for members in the 5th?"
"if I donate now am I covered on or before date X?"
etc etc

 

[Flopsweat]

Nope. but... alot of people simply ignored the past behavior of the ATF and went "if I can buy this now in gun stores without transfer tax stamp, it's legal dammit and its muh right!"

I bought my stuff fully expecting the "rules" to change. I was prepared to go back to simple braces or no brace if need be. I doubt I'm the only one - there's nothing that special about me. And no, @solv3nt, that's not an invitation for more of your "humor".

 

[ilikegunspdx]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1662180104338825216

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1685129339/Mock_v_Garland_Order_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339

There is already a swarm of comments asking for further clarification on this:

"Am I covered since I donate?"
"Is this only for members in the 5th?"
"if I donate now am I covered on or before date X?"
etc etc

Says FPC members and/or maxim defense customers and their families are covered if they were a member/customer since day 1 of the suit.

Does not say members that signed up after day one are covered.

Doesn't say 5th circuit only but I assume the judges wouldn't say that as it's implied maybe? The 5th circuit vs nationwide question seems unclear. I bet mark smith the four boxes diner guy will have a video out soon that will clear it up.

 

[Flopsweat]

...

Doesn't say 5th circuit only but I assume the judges wouldn't say that as it's implied maybe? The 5th circuit vs nationwide question seems unclear. I bet mark smith the four boxes diner guy will have a video out soon that will clear it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if all members, regardless of location, are covered. If I understand correctly, the 5th circuit had the authority to apply it to all Americans but chose to only include plaintiffs. If they intended to exclude any of the plaintiffs, they'd surely have mentioned that.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I wouldn't be surprised if all members, regardless of location, are covered. If I understand correctly, the 5th circuit had the authority to apply it to all Americans but chose to only include plaintiffs. If they intended to exclude any of the plaintiffs, they'd surely have mentioned that.

I guess I'm thinking of the bumpstock ruling where only poeple in the 5th circuit could/can? legally own bumpstocks. I didn't read the bumpstock ruling though so I don't know if it specified 5th circuit only or if it didn't specify.

 

[Diamondback]

I wouldn't be surprised if all members, regardless of location, are covered. If I understand correctly, the 5th circuit had the authority to apply it to all Americans but chose to only include plaintiffs. If they intended to exclude any of the plaintiffs, they'd surely have mentioned that.

Per what 5Cir just ruled for FPC, if you're an FPC member you're covered. Join up by 5/31 and you're golden for the duration of Mock v Garland at least.

 

[Flopsweat]

Per what 5Cir just ruled for FPC, if you're an FPC member you're covered. Join up by 5/31 and you're golden for the duration of Mock v Garland at least.

Oh, I read "Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition ('FPC') have represented since day one of this litigation" to mean members since the start of the suit, but maybe that "since" part was rhetorical rather than descriptive. Those are words from their motion, quoted in the court's reply, not the court's words. Hmm...

 

[Flopsweat]

OK, at their donation site, it says you're covered if you join now.

Spoiler: NSFW: Bad word, but good news

"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS. LET'S bubblegumING GO!!
Join FPC RIGHT NOW to gain protection for you and your immediate family against the ATF's pistol brace ban. If you do, you will also automatically be entered to WIN a Custom "FPC" Glock generously donated by Rhino First Arms! "

EDIT: Hold on, there's something going on with that URL. Here's the link from the FPC site, which is different from the one I got from twitter:

Fight for the 2A Right Now!

Fight for the 2A by making a contribution to the Firearms Policy Coalition right now!

secure.anedot.com

This is the one from a twitter post by Shadow Defense. Not sure what's going on right now, but I would donate at the above link rather than this one:

Join FPC - Win a Custom "FPC" Glock from Rhino First Arms!

Join FPC - Win a Custom "FPC" Glock from Rhino First Arms!

secure.anedot.com

At their main website, you can join for free. I recommend that you donate, as these guys rock.

Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of Patriots organizing to take back our Constitution and defend the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[ilikegunspdx]

OK, at their donation site, it says you're covered if you join now.

Spoiler: NSFW: Bad word, but good news

"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS. LET'S bubblegumING GO!!
Join FPC RIGHT NOW to gain protection for you and your immediate family against the ATF's pistol brace ban. If you do, you will also automatically be entered to WIN a Custom "FPC" Glock generously donated by Rhino First Arms! "

EDIT: Hold on, there's something going on with that URL. Here's the link from the FPC site, which is different from the one I got from twitter:

Fight for the 2A Right Now!

Fight for the 2A by making a contribution to the Firearms Policy Coalition right now!

secure.anedot.com

This is the one from a twitter post by Shadow Defense. Not sure what's going on right now, but I would donate at the above link rather than this one:

Join FPC - Win a Custom "FPC" Glock from Rhino First Arms!

Join FPC - Win a Custom "FPC" Glock from Rhino First Arms!

secure.anedot.com

At their main website, you can join for free. I recommend that you donate, as these guys rock.

Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC is a coalition of hundreds of thousands of Patriots organizing to take back our Constitution and defend the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[eustace_stelio]

Me personally, I had no idea about the atf and pistol braces until I bought a 7.5" 300 black out last year in June. Then I was told about the nfa rules on sbr, the brace ruling and how my newly purchased gun was evil and soon to be illegal in its configuration.

I was unaware of the nfa stating anything under 16" is a "short barreled rifle." Because that is dumb and makes very little logically sense so my ignorance of the rule of assumed law bit me in my arse.

I mean I can buy a .50 bmg rifle that can shoot 2 plus miles and go through 1/2 steel but somehow a shortened barrel with lower accuracy/power is unconscionable? Idiotic.

Honestly I wouldn't have gotten the 7.5 had I know the lunacy. And to "register" one and have to ask permission in writing from big poppa ATF to take it out of state is even dumber.

 

[RX-79G]

Honestly I wouldn't have gotten the 7.5 had I know the lunacy. And to "register" one and have to ask permission in writing from big poppa ATF to take it out of state is even dumber.

You're not asking permission