ATF finna flip flop on pistol braces again?

Same applies as to the courts - F them. When the BATFE and states put tougher penalties on bump-stocks than actual machine guns, you know it’s all a game getting their jollies making us jump.
 
I believe NFA should be abolished and even full auto shouldn't be anything special, hell I don't even believe in background checks and most of the reasons people become prohibited from gun ownership.

But with that said, in the spirit of the (ridiculous) law, we have been pushing the limits on pistol braces for a long time. Has kinda reached a point where the lines are so thin basically the difference between an SBR and pistol has become a strap on the stock (oh sorry, I mean brace)..

Most logically at this point they would just abolish the idea of an SBR, obviously those restrictions are not keeping anyone safer as braced pistols are completely mainstream with no problems resulting. As we know that isn't happening... short of it, sooner or later someone is going to question the whole adjustable brace on a carbine buffer tube thing.
 
But with that said, in the spirit of the (ridiculous) law, we have been pushing the limits on pistol braces for a long time. Has kinda reached a point where the lines are so thin basically the difference between an SBR and pistol has become a strap on the stock (oh sorry, I mean brace)..

You should bear in mind that the ATF effectively is the entity who created this rabbit hole to begin with not all that long ago, partially because they got sick of being perpetually crapflooded with SBR stamp apps . Nobody "pushed the limits" on anything without probing them and getting approval letters and so on. It literally took years between the approval of the first brace and subsequently, BATFE giving up on the notion that "you cant put a pistol brace up to your shoulder and fire the gun that way" etc. That died in 2017, iirc, and then a metric shit ton of people (likely many thousands) took that ball and ran with it ever since.

I would bet anything whatever internal gonads and strife someone there has about braces is going to go away when someone important at NFA branch says "Uhh, thanks a lot for starting those rumors. Now we have twice the amount of SBR apps, all because of the rumor, and still have only the same amount of people to process applications. " They'll never admit this publicly, but IMHO that was the entire genesis for the "brace" thing to begin with. Someone at BATFE thought it was stupid so they ruled, on several occasions, that a brace was not a stock, and hence intentionally created that sort of hole for people to exploit to begin with. That BATFE of several years ago wanted "braces to happen," as a thing, anyone that doesn't see this is blind.
 
You should bear in mind that the ATF effectively is the entity who created this rabbit hole to begin with not all that long ago, partially because they got sick of being perpetually crapflooded with SBR stamp apps . Nobody "pushed the limits" on anything without probing them and getting approval letters and so on. It literally took years between the approval of the first brace and subsequently, BATFE giving up on the notion that "you cant put a pistol brace up to your shoulder and fire the gun that way" etc. That died in 2017, iirc, and then a metric shit ton of people (likely many thousands) took that ball and ran with it ever since.

I would bet anything whatever internal gonads and strife someone there has about braces is going to go away when someone important at NFA branch says "Uhh, thanks a lot for starting those rumors. Now we have twice the amount of SBR apps, all because of the rumor, and still have only the same amount of people to process applications. " They'll never admit this publicly, but IMHO that was the entire genesis for the "brace" thing to begin with. Someone at BATFE thought it was stupid so they ruled, on several occasions, that a brace was not a stock, and hence intentionally created that sort of hole for people to exploit to begin with. That BATFE of several years ago wanted "braces to happen," as a thing, anyone that doesn't see this is blind.

The other practical consideration with braces is its not just a handful of juvenile AR geeks buying shady parts from boutique companies and installing them in their parents basement: it's Sig, Springfield, Ruger, etc etc, all these big companies are blasting out full production models employing braces.

I have noticed though, and someone will probably have an example otherwise, all the big company stuff does use a pistol buffer tube, and even the small manufacturers that specialize in parts, uppers, lowers, kits etc call anything w/ a slotted tube a carbine and use a pistol tube on pistol lowers. So although you can go a little further legally it seems like there is some unwritten interpretation that a pistol buffer tube makes it inherently a pistol (well that and a strap).
 
The other practical consideration with braces is its not just a handful of juvenile AR geeks buying shady parts from boutique companies and installing them in their parents basement: it's Sig, Springfield, Ruger, etc etc, all these big companies are blasting out full production models employing braces.

I have noticed though, and someone will probably have an example otherwise, all the big company stuff does use a pistol buffer tube, and even the small manufacturers that specialize in parts, uppers, lowers, kits etc call anything w/ a slotted tube a carbine and use a pistol tube on pistol lowers. So although you can go a little further legally it seems like there is some unwritten interpretation that a pistol buffer tube makes it inherently a pistol (well that and a strap).

Some of it is that but IMHO a lot of it is just cost. The "cooler" pistol braces that fold or collapse, anyone that makes them is not giving them away. Those devices are under patent protection of some sort, likely. Even if you take like an SB tactical brace and take 30% off, it's still expensive. This would add substantial cost to the base price of something common, like a short barreled AR pistol.... The pistol tube option is cheap for a big name manufacturer, all they have to do is have a pistol tube, the correct buffer/spring, and a brace which an probably made out of a couple nylon straps and one injection molded part that wasn't designed to move much, bam, done.
 
Last edited:
I've said for years that it makes no sense that putting a stock on a pistol turns it into a rifle. It's not a rifle, it's a pistol with a shoulder stock and it makes no sense that some guns like the Mauser or Luger pistols are exempt from the SBR laws when using a shoulder stock because they have some historical hooey that makes them special because if that's the case then it's bullshit that pre 1900 antique break action shotguns that have barrels under 18 inches are still classified as Short Barrel Shotguns because shorter shotguns were favored for close quarters back then.

I have no doubts that the modern ATF (cuz under Bush Sr. and Clinton they were jackboots) has looked at the stupidity of the SBR/SBS laws in that taking a rifle or shotgun with the minimum OAL and barrel lengths and making them shorter does nothing to increase their lethality and really, how many violent crimes involving guns are short barrel shotguns and rifles used? Further, what exactly is stopping any criminal, who is in possession of a rifle or shotgun and intending to use it in commision of a crime, from chopping the barrel down illegally?

The answer is nothing, all it becomes is an extra charge on a list of charges to add a few years to a jail sentence, yet what it does in reality is put the law abiding American at a disadvantage if they feel an SBR or SBS is better for their own protection.

Another interesting facet of the SBR & SBS laws is back when the NFA was being written, the anti's at the time weren't even focusing on them, it was handguns they wanted to ban outright. SBR/SBS regulation was a compromise because one side didn't want all handguns banned.

I'm sure if we asked any field agent within the ATF who's been on the job over 5 years what sense most of the gun laws that are on the books have in regards to fighting crime or improving public safety, they'd say very little because they know what the data and facts are. Apart from machine guns and destructive devices and some AOW's, I don't think the ATF wants anything to do with most of the shit the NFA and GCA created. Yeah, I'm sure the ATF loves getting hundreds of guns a year from possible importers to see if they'll pass the stupid points system for the Sporting Purposes test, then fail, but have manufacturing moved into the US and have the whole thing wind up being moot.

So, bottom line is will ATF go back on the pistol braces? Not willingly no, but they will if a President with a different attitude than the current one comes in. I wouldn't doubt it if the ATF had been waiting for Obama to go before they approached Sessions or Trump on basically legalizing braces to help reduce the workload that goes into the tax stamp process so that money from the budget can be used elsewhere and I can only imagine how the ATF feels about the thousands of suppressors they have to register every year.
 
The other practical consideration with braces is its not just a handful of juvenile AR geeks buying shady parts from boutique companies and installing them in their parents basement: it's Sig, Springfield, Ruger, etc etc, all these big companies are blasting out full production models employing braces.

I have noticed though, and someone will probably have an example otherwise, all the big company stuff does use a pistol buffer tube, and even the small manufacturers that specialize in parts, uppers, lowers, kits etc call anything w/ a slotted tube a carbine and use a pistol tube on pistol lowers. So although you can go a little further legally it seems like there is some unwritten interpretation that a pistol buffer tube makes it inherently a pistol (well that and a strap).
The KAK Shockwave fits on the buffer tube, but it's not slotted and has no strap at all and IIRC is the cheapest "brace" currently made at around $40.

The thing was basically built to be used as a stock.

KAK-SHKWV-BLK_04.jpg
 
I've said for years that it makes no sense that putting a stock on a pistol turns it into a rifle. It's not a rifle, it's a pistol with a shoulder stock

Not according to federal law. But you knew that already.

and it makes no sense that some guns like the Mauser or Luger pistols are exempt from the SBR laws when using a shoulder stock because they have some historical hooey that makes them special because if that's the case then it's bullshit

I agree that it is bullshit but IMHO they exempted stuff like ancient Mauser, Luger, BHPs etc because a lot of those things predated the NFA and there were tons in circulation as war trophies or whatever. So rather than make people dewat them or force someone to pay a tax on what was otherwise a title 1 handgun, they simply exempted them rather than process stamps (or create an amnesty) for those things. It also did not help matters that they likely, at the time, had no way of knowing who had these kinds of guns with an attendant shoulder
stock.

that pre 1900 antique break action shotguns that have barrels under 18 inches are still classified as Short Barrel Shotguns because shorter shotguns were favored for close quarters back then.

Yes, likely more stupidity on their part but keep digging on SBS/AOW and things get murky back then, real fast.

I have no doubts that the modern ATF (cuz under Bush Sr. and Clinton they were jackboots) has looked at the stupidity of the SBR/SBS laws in that taking a rifle or shotgun with the minimum OAL and barrel lengths and making them shorter does nothing to increase their lethality and really, how many violent crimes involving guns are short barrel shotguns and rifles used? Further, what exactly is stopping any criminal, who is in possession of a rifle or shotgun and intending to use it in commision of a crime, from chopping the barrel down illegally?

Actually most of this brace stuff is a Trump thing, although I believe some of the waffley stuff happened at the tail end of the Obama admin, too, when they started to step away from
their previous viewpoints.

The answer is nothing, all it becomes is an extra charge on a list of charges to add a few years to a jail sentence, yet what it does in reality is put the law abiding American at a disadvantage if they feel an SBR or SBS is better for their own protection.

Another interesting facet of the SBR & SBS laws is back when the NFA was being written, the anti's at the time weren't even focusing on them, it was handguns they wanted to ban outright. SBR/SBS regulation was a compromise because one side didn't want all handguns banned.

I partially disagree, moral panic retards (the same people who largely banned automatic knives, etc) likely threw SBS and SBR into the mix because of things like Bonnie and Clyde, probably the most famous people to ever use "short rifles/machine guns" and "short shotguns". Bonnie and Clyde got gunned down in May, NFA passed in July of that year. So they started with a
boner for machine guns but other stuff got tacked on, because of the screeching/braying of moral panic types.

I'm sure if we asked any field agent within the ATF who's been on the job over 5 years what sense most of the gun laws that are on the books have in regards to fighting crime or improving public safety, they'd say very little because they know what the data and facts are. Apart from machine guns and destructive devices and some AOW's, I don't think the ATF wants anything to do with most of the shit the NFA and GCA created. Yeah, I'm sure the ATF loves getting hundreds of guns a year from possible importers to see if they'll pass the stupid points system for the Sporting Purposes test, then fail, but have manufacturing moved into the US and have the whole thing wind up being moot.

Any agents who aren't shitbirds, sure, they would agree that most of the stuff is dumb and has very little to do with criminal activity. The ones that are just looking to rack up a
score and are ambivalent about RKBA, they love all those stupid laws because it gives them more obscure charges to throw on the pile.

So, bottom line is will ATF go back on the pistol braces? Not willingly no, but they will if a President with a different attitude than the current one comes in. I wouldn't doubt it if the ATF had been waiting for Obama to go before they approached Sessions or Trump on basically legalizing braces to help reduce the workload that goes into the tax stamp process so that money from the budget can be used elsewhere and I can only imagine how the ATF feels about the thousands of suppressors they have to register every year.

I firmly believe there are different factions within BATFE. There is one faction that is probably like "well if the NFA exists it should be modernized and we should make all this shit electronic so
we can do it faster" and then there's another faction that likely embraces the inherent stupidity of the entire thing as a form of obstructionism, although I think the NFA branch dealing
with stacks and stacks of shit would likely say to those people- "these laws aren't deterring anyone from buying this stuff, outside of MAYBE a handful of states that ban NFA based on its federal designation as such, otherwise we wouldn't have piles of NFA applications to process" etc. It is pretty mind numbing to me that someone can't go to an 07/SOT and just pay $200 + a fee, and have a dealer log into an ATF site and register the damn gun/can/whatever all electronically with rapid approval, with a "stamps.com" like thing that literally pumps out a barcoded stamp on the spot or something. The only thing that would legitimately still "take time" is transferring a pre 86 machine gun which hadn't be transferred in a long ass time because they'd actually need an examiner to, well, actually examine the paperwork and trail of shit behind it. Other than that there's no reason why an NFA transfer should be any different than a computer based NICS check, with the exception that the dealer would just forward the tax payment to the feds on the spot.
 
Some of it is that but IMHO a lot of it is just cost. The "cooler" pistol braces that fold or collapse, anyone that makes them is not giving them away. Those devices are under patent protection of some sort, likely. Even if you take like an SB tactical brace and take 30% off, it's still expensive. This would add substantial cost to the base price of something common, like a short barreled AR pistol.... The pistol tube option is cheap for a big name manufacturer, all they have to do is have a pistol tube, the correct buffer/spring, and a brace which an probably made out of a couple nylon straps and one injection molded part that wasn't designed to move much, bam, done.

Ya I was more thinking why they use a maxim defense $300 brace on a saint edge, crazy expensive complicated thing of which the only redeeming quality seems to be it adjusts but doesn't use a carbine buffer tube.

But ya even the basic SB brace is $60+ and compared to a magpul MOE or something its not as nice and does less.

I get into the same trap when putting a "pistol" together but it's more because even with a carbine stock I only run them a click out and am pretty comfortable with them fully collapsed. So for a pistol I am happy with a fixed brace and would rather steer way clear with obvious differences so as not to ever raise a question with any non enlightened LEO types. No matter which way you cut it, nothing called a "stock" fits on a pistol tube (more likely in my case it would be LEO gearing up to bust balls over a loaded rifle in my vehicle, not so much demanding tax stamp proof but such is always a possibility).
 
Ya I was more thinking why they use a maxim defense $300 brace on a saint edge, crazy expensive complicated thing of which the only redeeming quality seems to be it adjusts but doesn't use a carbine buffer tube.

But ya even the basic SB brace is $60+ and compared to a magpul MOE or something its not as nice and does less.

I get into the same trap when putting a "pistol" together but it's more because even with a carbine stock I only run them a click out and am pretty comfortable with them fully collapsed. So for a pistol I am happy with a fixed brace and would rather steer way clear with obvious differences so as not to ever raise a question with any non enlightened LEO types. No matter which way you cut it, nothing called a "stock" fits on a pistol tube (more likely in my case it would be LEO gearing up to bust balls over a loaded rifle in my vehicle, not so much demanding tax stamp proof but such is always a possibility).

I've debated back and forth as well, whether to upgrade to a SB3 brace or just keep my KAK SW Blade...I always opt to just keep it simple with the KAK SW Blade, since I don't see the point in spending $150 on a brace for a 10 round fixed pistol lower.
 
I've debated back and forth as well, whether to upgrade to a SB3 brace or just keep my KAK SW Blade...I always opt to just keep it simple with the KAK SW Blade, since I don't see the point in spending $150 on a brace for a 10 round fixed pistol lower.

Ya I wouldn't even own a fixed mag 10 round AR pistol, seems totally useless, sorry :).. maybe in 50 BEO or 12 gauge could be cool (if you can't have capacity then have power instead).

For sure if I did I wouldn't get all into if its adjustable or not.
 
Ya I wouldn't even own a fixed mag 10 round AR pistol, seems totally useless, sorry :).. maybe in 50 BEO or 12 gauge could be cool (if you can't have capacity then have power instead).

For sure if I did I wouldn't get all into if its adjustable or not.
No other realistic way to have one in MA with the weight limit.
 
Ya I wouldn't even own a fixed mag 10 round AR pistol, seems totally useless, sorry :).. maybe in 50 BEO or 12 gauge could be cool (if you can't have capacity then have power instead).

For sure if I did I wouldn't get all into if its adjustable or not.

I just put one together just as a personal symbolic FU to Maura, since she tried to sue JS Arms for manufacturing an AW and lost in court.

I have enough SBRs and preban lowers to keep myself busy with all the evil features.
 
Ya I wouldn't even own a fixed mag 10 round AR pistol, seems totally useless, sorry :).. maybe in 50 BEO or 12 gauge could be cool (if you can't have capacity then have power instead).

For sure if I did I wouldn't get all into if its adjustable or not.

It's not useless if you can repair it in about 5 minutes or so/convert it when out of state... [laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom