JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF "STABILIZING BRACES"

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as "stabilizing braces." These devices are described as "a shooter's aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols." The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator's forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.


The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines "firearm," in relevant part, as "a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length" and "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length." That section defines both "rifle" and "shotgun" as "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder…." (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA "firearm." For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols "having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed" were each classified as a "short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act."

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a "shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand." When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, "the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder." In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any "weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder," any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term "redesign" and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. "Redesign" is defined as "to alter the appearance or function of." See e.g. Webster's II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an "any other weapon."

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division
 
So my two AR's with Sig braces are stamped "pistol" into receiver. It should be clear that they are intended to be pistols and the braces are intended to be used as designed (since this object is clearly labeled pistol) So If I hand this to someone and they hold it up to their shoulder it is instantly (and magically I might add) transformed into a short barreled rifle simply because for a moment it was "redesigned" by holding it up to a shoulder. So I can only assume that once handed back to me it again instantly and magically becomes a legal pistol since no one has it to a shoulder.

Seems logical. :s0084:
 
Intent has always been applied to the manufacturing stage not after the fact. The idea that body position can change the classification of a firearm is a huge legal leap even for the notoriously confused ATF. Again I don't see this line of reasoning surviving in court.
 
<broken link removed>

Today, just days before Shot Show 2015 the ATF has once again decided to implement game changing and sweeping rulings. In response to thousands of requests at the ATF Technology Branch they have released this statement:

The ATF likes to change their mind. So today we have done it again and this time we mean it. Many have asked whether pulling the trigger on a firearm more than once in sequential order is illegal. It in fact is. Using Merriam's Dictionary we look at the word "Design". By pulling the trigger more than once in sequential order with a split time of less than 2 seconds, you in fact have "re-designed" the weapon and it would be considered "Fully Automatic" or a "Machine Gun" by definition which would result in an obvious NFA Law Violation. The fact that your finger itself is a "mechanical" addition to the weapon confirms this. You would also be guilty of Manufacturing since you added your finger to the trigger and of course Excise Tax Evasion the moment you hand this newly redesigned and re-manufactured firearm to your friend.


This is obviously a game changer. The bolt action market is going to explode.


EDIT: To follow the link you have to take Bubblegum out of it and replace it with S ugar H oney I ced T ea, the actual name of the website before the software mangled it.
 
Last Edited:
Hey I just had a great Idea! It is clear from the latest ATF letter that all that matters is intent. It does not matter what kind of furniture you put on your AR, If you hold it to your shoulder then you are redesigning it to be a stock. I it should be plain to see by the same logic that I can simply put a regular rifle stock on my pistol and then simply hold it with one hand there by redesigning it! Who cares about the dumb Sig brace, By the logic presented I can put a regular AR rifle stock on my pistol and it still be a pistol rather than a regulated SBR because I simply dont put it to my shoulder
 
I feel bad for all those companies that made something with the brace on it for this years shot show.
 
Intent has always been applied to the manufacturing stage not after the fact. The idea that body position can change the classification of a firearm is a huge legal leap even for the notoriously confused ATF. Again I don't see this line of reasoning surviving in court.

Give us all a heads up when your trial dates are so we can come watch. Everyone should realize by now you can't beat the BATFE. They will violate federal court orders and still nothing happens. Face the facts, the way things are now, what the BATFE says is basically law. Not saying it's right, just saying we have to stop living in this fantasyland of "well I don't think they have the right" or "well, it'll get thrown out in court."

The fact is BATFE breaks the law consistently and nothing ever happens to them. For this supposed court defeat everyone insists they will have, someone has to risk basically risk their life, liberty, and freedom. Not to mention someone has to have the cash to actually fight them. If a case did come up obviously both sides would appeal all the way to SCOTUS, but the initial ruling would probably be against the citizen. So that person would be in federal prison for years until the case is fully decided.

People need to stop this whole, "oh we can get one over on the BATFE because the punctuation in this sentence means "X" and so I can skirt by the law. HAHA!" Until we get Congress to reign in the BATFE or change the laws no one is going to "beat" them. Not being "defeatist" just saying we all need to come back to reality.

The BATFE made a decision. Congress and the President has given them the authority to decide things like this. Your opinions don't mean anything. If you want your opinions to matter and things to change you have to do it with votes and with contacting your Senators and Representatives.
 
Give us all a heads up when your trial dates are so we can come watch. Everyone should realize by now you can't beat the BATFE. They will violate federal court orders and still nothing happens. Face the facts, the way things are now, what the BATFE says is basically law. Not saying it's right, just saying we have to stop living in this fantasyland of "well I don't think they have the right" or "well, it'll get thrown out in court."

The fact is BATFE breaks the law consistently and nothing ever happens to them. For this supposed court defeat everyone insists they will have, someone has to risk basically risk their life, liberty, and freedom. Not to mention someone has to have the cash to actually fight them. If a case did come up obviously both sides would appeal all the way to SCOTUS, but the initial ruling would probably be against the citizen. So that person would be in federal prison for years until the case is fully decided.

People need to stop this whole, "oh we can get one over on the BATFE because the punctuation in this sentence means "X" and so I can skirt by the law. HAHA!" Until we get Congress to reign in the BATFE or change the laws no one is going to "beat" them. Not being "defeatist" just saying we all need to come back to reality.

The BATFE made a decision. Congress and the President has given them the authority to decide things like this. Your opinions don't mean anything. If you want your opinions to matter and things to change you have to do it with votes and with contacting your Senators and Representatives.

You are being a bit of a defeatist Norm. Here is just one example of BATFE losing a recent court case https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000419/batf-records-demand-ruled-illegal
If you adopt the attitude that nothing can be done then the fight is lost before it even starts. We need to hold BATFE accountable in the courts and as you state through our elected representatives. Perhaps the new Republican controlled congress will do us a big favor and de-fund the agency. One can only hope.
 
Give us all a heads up when your trial dates are so we can come watch. Everyone should realize by now you can't beat the BATFE. They will violate federal court orders and still nothing happens. Face the facts, the way things are now, what the BATFE says is basically law. Not saying it's right, just saying we have to stop living in this fantasyland of "well I don't think they have the right" or "well, it'll get thrown out in court."

The fact is BATFE breaks the law consistently and nothing ever happens to them. For this supposed court defeat everyone insists they will have, someone has to risk basically risk their life, liberty, and freedom. Not to mention someone has to have the cash to actually fight them. If a case did come up obviously both sides would appeal all the way to SCOTUS, but the initial ruling would probably be against the citizen. So that person would be in federal prison for years until the case is fully decided.

People need to stop this whole, "oh we can get one over on the BATFE because the punctuation in this sentence means "X" and so I can skirt by the law. HAHA!" Until we get Congress to reign in the BATFE or change the laws no one is going to "beat" them. Not being "defeatist" just saying we all need to come back to reality.

The BATFE made a decision. Congress and the President has given them the authority to decide things like this. Your opinions don't mean anything. If you want your opinions to matter and things to change you have to do it with votes and with contacting your Senators and Representatives.

So your saying if we leave it alone it will be better?

No. No. No. And no.

We need to rally together like we did on the verge of the AWB ban. Send the ATF letter after letter. Freeze up their telephone lines. Freeze up their email accounts. Inundate them with so much crap on the matter that they give up.

We shouldn't stop there. Start sending in letters to our congressmen as well. As we did during the ban. I know huge organizations like the NRA and Gun Owners of America threw lots of money and time and aiding that battle. Why not this battle, and the next?

But no, that won't happen. We are a passive people. We comply. Mostly because not everyone sees this as a big deal. There are more playboys calling out the fact you should have played nice and gotten a SBR filed. No thanks!

The ATF wasn't the bear, the gun owners of America are the bear. If they keep poking us with their BS we will attack.

Rant over.
 
If I had one, I probably would not go any where public, and shoulder the thing at this time. Do I want to be the test case. No. Does the ATF have 10's of thousands, maybe 100's of thousands of newly illegal (or potentially illegal) SBR's floating around out there, Yes.
I guess even though some (even Sig perhaps) was under the impression that these would ONLY be used as arm braces, I personally find it a little disingenuous to think that most, if not all were thinking about a legal pistol/ad hoc SBR when selling or buying these things. I know of at least one local vendor, while no exact words were spoken, the implication was certainly, use the thing however you want. It's legal. I remember quite a few folks here stating when they first came out, "Wait till the ATF changes their mind" sort of talk.

Now that Mad Max has taken a stand, I guess we will have to wait and see how the fight over this turns out. Good luck to whomever has to be the one dealing with this at the court level.

If I had one, I can assure you it will not be me.
Will I support whomever is, YES.
 
Why not go with an NFA weapon?

Let me count the reasons:

1) There are some people who are still just paranoid enough (and I would argue justifiably so) to not want their names present on, or higher on a list of homes to visit when it is time for a totalitarian government (state or federal) to come knocking on their doors asking them to turn over their NFA items because they have changed their minds about allowing civilian ownership of such items.

You can argue that this will never happen, and others will argue it is just a matter of time. Look at what happened to Washington state last year - 594 the prelude to a de-facto registration system, which in turn is a prelude to confiscation. Look at what happened to Connecticut. Look at what is continuing to happen in California. Look at the fact that Oregon and other states will face these kinds of laws coming to vote either in the legislature or on ballot in the near future.

And yes, there are people who have carefully managed to avoid buying any firearms from FFLs, and therefore do not show up on any kind of government list as owning a firearm.

Also, there is a plausible deniability when it comes to non-NFA items; if confiscation becomes a reality, I can say that I sold my non-NFA items and didn't keep records - whether I bought them privately or not. I can't say that about an NFA item.

2) The background check and the rest of the hassle for purchasing and owning and transporting said NFA items. Then there is the problem of transferring said items when you no longer want them - much easier to sell an AR pistol with or without "brace" than an SBR. What happens when a person dies? Heirs who wouldn't mind owning an AR pistol without paperwork may balk at the hassle of inheriting an NFA item.

3) An SBR is still a rifle. An AR pistol is a handgun, with or without brace. In many states or locales, you can carry an AR pistol loaded and concealed if you have a concealed handgun license/permit, but can't do the same with a rifle (loaded and concealed).

I can probably think of a few other reasons why, but suffice to say, it just isn't about the cost - for some of us, it isn't about the cost at all. If it was about the cost only, and NFA legal issues were not a factor, in setting up an SBR with a conventional rifle stock than a pistol with a "brace", but it isn't just about the cost.
 
I agree with the above statements. I have an AR pistol with the brace. I do own other NFA items. I highly doubt I will SBR an AR, but do have plans on doing other guns.

For me it came down to the regulations of SBR vs Pistol. I wanted a PISTOL, not an SBR..........
 
I like my SBR. I really like my suppressors and I love my machine guns.
That said, if the time comes when these types of firearms are confiscated by the feds, then I will deal with it.
But for now, I am having a ball taking out folks that aren't as fortunate as me and letting them experience the thrill of shooting full auto weapons.
Life is to short to be looking over your shoulder all the time.
 
Also, there is a plausible deniability when it comes to non-NFA items; if confiscation becomes a reality, I can say that I sold my non-NFA items and didn't keep records - whether I bought them privately or not. I can't say that about an NFA item.

Slight nit-pic...
Regarding SBRs/SBSs, you can sell them without any paperwork as long as they aren't in a NFA configuration. So slap a 16" barrel on that SBR lower and sell away. No paperwork involved. (Unless your a WA resident, but that case, I sold whatever it was before the law changed)
 
Slight nit-pic...
Regarding SBRs/SBSs, you can sell them without any paperwork as long as they aren't in a NFA configuration. So slap a 16" barrel on that SBR lower and sell away. No paperwork involved. (Unless your a WA resident, but that case, I sold whatever it was before the law changed)

Not quite that east - you must first notify ATF you want to remove the gun from the NFA registry. A registered NFA weapon is still an NFA weapon until removed from the registry and modified to be a non-NFA weapon or destroyed. Putting a 16 inch barrel onto an SBR registered lower and selling it doesn't change the fact that the lower is still a registered SBR. There are legal hoops to jump through with NFA items that don't exist (in some states anyway) for non NFA items.
 
Not quite that east - you must first notify ATF you want to remove the gun from the NFA registry. A registered NFA weapon is still an NFA weapon until removed from the registry and modified to be a non-NFA weapon or destroyed. Putting a 16 inch barrel onto an SBR registered lower and selling it doesn't change the fact that the lower is still a registered SBR. There are legal hoops to jump through with NFA items that don't exist (in some states anyway) for non NFA items.

Negative. Completely wrong.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top