Selling a pistol with a brace... is this now an issue?

[wired]

They were designed to. Doesn't mean they should be treated exactly the same as shoulder stocks but that is what the ATF is doing anyhow

They were designed to skirt the SBR rules. The ATF fell for it. We pretty much all knew it was a matter of time. As we are tired of hearing, agencies dont get to make law. Thats for the legistlature and if there is a question the courts weigh in. The ATF overstepped its boundaries allowing them in the first place. They dont have the authority to tell you its OK to break the law,

 

[CamoDeafie]

. The ATF overstepped its boundaries allowing them in the first place.

I do not see where in the NFA definitions does a "stock" be defined to include what you are opining to include by that same token, the foam buffer tube cover and the cheek rests should also have never been legal by your logic and ATF's "objective criteria" list

They dont have the authority to tell you its OK to break the law,

They also, IMO don't have the authority to expand what construed "designed to be fired from the shoulder" means

Edit. We'll see what happens with the lawsuits.

 

[wired]

I wonder if they actually ever were, or if they were designed to look like that could happen.

It doesn't matter.

It was SIG that did that. They were doing all kinds of technicality builds at the time. Most of them flopped. The SIG brace got approved although it bore no similarity to what got marketed.

 

[wired]

I do not see where in the NFA definitions does a "stock" be defined to include what you are opining to include by that same token, the foam buffer tube cover and the cheek rests should also have never been legal by your logic and ATF's "objective criteria" list

View attachment 1425235



They also, IMO don't have the authority to expand what construed "designed to be fired from the shoulder" means

Edit. We'll see what happens with the lawsuits.

That's where it belonged in the first place . In the courts not at ATF technology.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's where it belonged in the first place . In the courts not at ATF technology.

Where what belonged?

 

[wired]

Where what belonged?

The initial question of the legality. What WV v EPA clearly said is that broad questions of law belong in the courts not agency discretion.

 

[billdeserthills]

Or rifles. Or shotguns. Or SBS. No more braced "firearms" anymore it seems

Still can't see how they can take away legality for something in common use

 

[wired]

Still can't see how they can take away legality for something in common use

The common use argument was used ONCE and was outside the courts purvue when settled and at best marginally for firearms. Until I see that one fleshed out I'm not a believer that's going anywhere. Wishful thinking.

 

[billdeserthills]

The common use argument was used ONCE and was outside the courts purvue when settled and at best marginally for firearms. Until I see that one fleshed out I'm not a believer that's going anywhere. Wishful thinking.

The atf already decided that braces were lawful,
I'm gonna hold them to that

 

[wired]

The atf already decided that braces were lawful,
I'm gonna hold them to that

They don't get to decide squat.

 

[The Heretic]

Or rifles. Or shotguns. Or SBS. No more braced "firearms" anymore it seems

The braced "firearm" issue is up in the air. There was some back and forth on that with the ATF and supposedly the final ruling did not include such firearms as the Shockwave or Rem Tac-13/14 or similar "firearms". Only SBRs.

 

[Bushman]

The braced "firearm" issue is up in the air. There was some back and forth on that with the ATF and supposedly the final ruling did not include such firearms as the Shockwave or Rem Tac-13/14 or similar "firearms". Only SBRs.

So are you saying you CAN install a brace on those two? That's strange. How is that not a SBS?

 

[The Heretic]

Source? I know they had a letter long ago for the Shockwave but also the SBA and look at that now...

There was a lot of discussion by numerous people (myself included) about the fact that the "final" ruling included discussion regarding "firearms" being considered to be a SBS (IIRC, whether they had a stock or not).

But then the ATF said that was a draft and it included a discussion not meant to go into the final ruling.

I am not going to go back and dig into it to find where that was discussed - in part because some of it was here on NWFA and some on Reddit, in part because I am tired after doing chores today. Maybe look into the main thread(s) about brace rulings?

 

[RX-79G]

There was a lot of discussion by numerous people (myself included) about the fact that the "final" ruling included discussion regarding "firearms" being considered to be a SBS (IIRC, whether they had a stock or not).

But then the ATF said that was a draft and it included a discussion not meant to go into the final ruling.

I am not going to go back and dig into it to find where that was discussed - in part because some of it was here on NWFA and some on Reddit, in part because I am tired after doing chores today. Maybe look into the main thread(s) about brace rulings?

I saw some ATF document that essentially pointed out that if it has rifle sights (for instance) that make it pretty hard to shoot at arms length like a pistol, it isn't a braced pistol but and SBR.