Will AR pistols and other braced pistols drop in price after ATF rule?

[ZA_Survivalist]

I agree, but again if you don't already have the brace/gun you won't have it in time to register it free. And if I'm wrong on that, it's still only 120 days... what happens after that? Stores won't be able to sell pre-braced pistols anymore without stamps. And when joe schmoe walks into the store and learns that gun he's eyeing requires a $200 stamp and registration I have to think sales are collapsing..

True. Only those in the know will get it in time. Some will be left holding the bag due to their lack of engagement on the issue.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think there are outright ban proof variants, but so also think a shortened cheek brace with a rounded or pointed end that dissuades shouldering is proof enough on paper that it's a device not intended for shouldering. Pair that with OAL or a new standard tube length be it 1-2 inches shorter, they'll have to define this exact number.. then it fits within the new policy and I think the market will be quick to skirt this nonsense. It does seem like simply taking off the brace and using only the tube meets the criteria on paper for a portion of it. Seems to mostly read as if they are focused on shouldering, OAL and weight. Bench shooting and cheek-welding seem to be an ungraspable concept for them and I truly believe the market will exploit this raw ignorance put on display by the ATF. Basically this mew policy is just a means to cut off the brace market at the knees and cripple it. But the damage is done, far too many brace owners out there to comply let alone file for SBR status.

The weight focus is a bit out there. I'd love to see an AFT agent shoot a air weight 500 S&W single handed.. as if weight isn't also a means to aid in ramping down recoil.. if anything shouldn't a firearm be heavier and MORE cumbersome versus smaller and lighter and easier to conceal?
All they are trying to do with this weight ruling is basically ban out all but the skeletonized featherweight firearms.. it's a blanket rule catch-all.

Thankfully the ATF is overreaching with the sights/optics portion too. Optics and sights have little to do with shouldering. I run red dots at various lengths on firearms.. so to prove intent of shouldering via eye relief is a bit out in the weeds.. I think it's a weak argument on their part should this go to court.

The biggest legal issue after EPA; is the first part I see; "The Department amends the definition of rifles under 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11..." if I remember correctly, only Congress can amend and change definitions in laws? But supposedly authority is from 5 US sec 552...

 

[Flopsweat]

Might be a good time to get a couple of free tax stamps. This thing is bound to get turned around at some point. Then you can move the braces from your SBRs to some new pistols and put stocks on your SBRs.

 

[orygun]

In the short term I see the price of a braced pistol rising slightly with the "free stamp" being part of the equation, if this is enacted, but only within the 120 day period.
Afterwards I see registered guns with braces being worth less than a registered, stocked SBR.

 

[CamoDeafie]

After the 120 days, expect to see dirt cheap braces on the market after the registered SBR owners convert their SBRs to have real stocks.. or to see braces and pistol uppers for real cheap because owners decided to convert to 16"+ rifles

 

[orygun]

. or to see braces and pistol uppers for real cheap because owners decided to convert to 16"+ rifles

I didn't even think about that option. Guess I like the short barrel too much.

 

[Artilleryman]

I can see this going either way. Will have to wait & see what happens.

But the "(not really) pistols" and "brace loophole" statements are incorrect in my opinion.
They 'really are' pistols. Or at least have been until the ATF came up with this farce. And the braces are the exact opposite of a loophole.
The anti gun kooks on the far left love to misuse the loophole term to sensationalize their false claims & win support from the low information voters. Think of how frequently one of them drones on about the so/called "Charleston loophole" when referring to the legal safeguard against unreasonable delays & abuse of the system. Just an example of the many ways in which the left manipulates Terminology to gain traction… it's their NewSpeak. We've always been at war with East Asia… unfortunately, they have gotten so good at it that these terms creep in the common usage, even among some gun owners…..like "assault rifle", "ghost gun", "cop killer bullets", etc…rant complete

 

[jamez]

I can see this going either way. Will have to wat & see what happens.

But the "(not really) pistols" and "brace loophole" statements are the n correct in my opinion.
They 'really are' pistols. Or at least have been until the ATF came up with this farce. And the braces are the exact opposite of a loophole.

It all depends on how you define the words... I consider a pistol something designed to be efficiently fired with a single hand. AR pistols, scorpions, stribogs, etc are not that. They might meet some technical legal definition based on barrel lengths but you know they're not the same category as a revolver or a glock. That's why every article and video featuring them calls them sub-guns or PDWs or PCCs... nobody really considers these pistols.

As for the braces 99% of them are being shouldered and used exactly like a stock. They were simply a loophole to the SBR law and if you read the ATF's new ruling they have numerous examples from SB Tactical and other makers flagrantly stating it. I don't agree with SBRs being any more dangerous than their full sized counterparts or their NFA status.. but I just call it like I see it.

 

[Flopsweat]

It all depends on how you define the words... I consider a pistol something designed to be efficiently fired with a single hand. AR pistols, scorpions, stribogs, etc are not that. They might meet some technical legal definition based on barrel lengths but you know they're not the same category as a revolver or a glock. That's why every article and video featuring them calls them sub-guns or PDWs or PCCs... nobody really considers these pistols.

As for the braces 99% of them are being shouldered and used exactly like a stock. They were simply a loophole to the SBR law and if you read the ATF's new ruling they have numerous examples from SB Tactical and other makers flagrantly stating it. I don't agree with SBRs being any more dangerous than their full sized counterparts or their NFA status.. but I just call it like I see it.

Calling it a loophole doesn't make it not so. It's either a pistol or it's not. And it is.

 

[Artilleryman]

Eh, a loophole is an ambiguity, omission or other gap in a law / rule that allows some wiggle room to bypass intent. Pistol braces were an intentional design and (previously & repeatedly) ATF approved. That's quite far from being a loophole. Whether they were used by some in a manner not consistent with ATF requirements isn't a factor from the perspective of the term's definition. That was simply intentional misuse. Not really trying to put too fine of a point on this. But again, I've seen too much of the anti's rhetoric creeping into common usage so I point it out when I encounter it. Orwell nailed it.

 

[jamez]

Calling it a loophole doesn't make it not so. It's either a pistol or it's not. And it is.

We can argue over semantics but it doesn't really matter.. we don't make the laws. I'm not here to demonize anything and I enjoy shooting SBRs over everything else, it's not like I'm happy about any of this either. In a perfect world SBRs are treated like non NFA guns and braces aren't needed by anyone except the disabled they were supposedly intended for..

 

[Artilleryman]

Relax, it's not my intent to argue nor is it a knock against you personally. I'm merely pointing out how subtle & intentional twists to lingo are weaponized by the anti gun folks. One of the most pervasive is the term "gun violence" which has created a Pavlovian response in millions of people. This kind of linguistic manipulation is among the most effective tools being used against the 2A. Awareness is important.

 

[Flopsweat]

Relax, it's not my intent to argue nor is it a knock against you personally. I'm merely pointing out how how subtle & intentional twists to lingo are weaponized by the anti gun folks. One of the most pervasive is the term "gun violence" which has created a Pavlovian response in millions of people. This kind of linguistic manipulation is among the most effective tools being used against the 2A. Awareness is important.

Exactly. The word "loophole" is just another of their weapons, like "common sense", "homophobe", "denier" and on and on.

We can argue over semantics but it doesn't really matter.. we don't make the laws. I'm not here to demonize anything and I enjoy shooting SBRs over everything else, it's not like I'm happy about any of this either. In a perfect world SBRs are treated like non NFA guns and braces aren't needed by anyone except the disabled they were supposedly intended for..

Oh no! Not the semantic argument argument.

 

[6Corsa6]

I was thinking of registering my mossberg shockwave because I have a pistol brace on it but it specifically says sbs can't be registered in the 120 day grace period. Does that mean the ATF didn't change the ruling on if a shockwave with a brace is still ok or not?

 

[TTSX]

Eventually, they might but only until supplies dry up. Then I imagine many fewer short barrels in general will be manufactured because the alluring factor is gone. Expect an early summer sales event. Braces will probably be on a fire sale for the distributors who have 'em within a month. Some local shops have pulled the braces off their pistols for sale.

 

[Flopsweat]

I was thinking of registering my mossberg shockwave because I have a pistol brace on it but it specifically says sbs can't be registered in the 120 day grace period. Does that mean the ATF didn't change the ruling on if a shockwave with a brace is still ok or not?

Interesting question. The "rules" mention SBRs repeatedly but never once SBSs.

 

[arrowshooter]

I think there are outright ban proof variants, but so also think a shortened cheek brace with a rounded or pointed end that dissuades shouldering is proof enough on paper that it's a device not intended for shouldering. Pair that with OAL or a new standard tube length be it 1-2 inches shorter, they'll have to define this exact number.

I believe the ATF left the Length of Pull parameter out so that they are not tied to a number like was listed on the 4999. This leaves it open for them to SBR anything with a buffer tube if they so choose.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Interesting question. The "rules" mention SBRs repeatedly but never once SBSs.

Very last of the "Q's" on the FAQ's

28. CAN A SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN BE REGISTERED DURING THE 120-DAY TAX FORBEARANCE PERIOD?
• No. The forbearance period only applies to SBRs.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

 

[Flopsweat]

Very last of the "Q's" on the FAQ's

28. CAN A SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN BE REGISTERED DURING THE 120-DAY TAX FORBEARANCE PERIOD?
• No. The forbearance period only applies to SBRs.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

Nice catch. Let me amend that:

The "rules" mention SBRs repeatedly but never once SBSs. They are mentioned in the FAQs, but only in the context of tax forbearance.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Nice catch. Let me amend that:

The "rules" mention SBRs repeatedly but never once SBSs. They are mentioned in the FAQs, but only in the context of tax forbearance.

So does that mean that braced shotguns are now considered SBS and must be registered for $200.00 ea OR that they are still braced shotguns and unaffected by the brace-to-SBR ruling?