That applies to any SBR, but a full length barrel and stock could be three times the cost of a stamp, we are not just talking about AR's Ever priced MPX barrels, HK and AK barrels plus labor to install and headspace, not everyone can do that themselves. So my point is with millions of braced pistols out there. they may lose some value. SBR's and SBS's in my opinion are for the more advance firearm owners and not the newbie, less dealers transfer them. a braced pistol may be someone's first purchase when they get a licence. it is unlikely an SBR would be
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces
- Thread starter DispositionMatrix
- Start date
pinefd
NES Member
I was doing a true SBR as mine was a rifle so it had nothing to fo with the stuff that went down today, just trying to beat the rush, I only glanced through the rule, as it does not apply to anything in MA. It dose talk about modifying the brace so it doesn't have a flat on the back to shoulder, Maybe cut it on a 45 degree angle. I'm sure there is more info to come on that, You Rhode Islanders have been taking it in the shorts the past several weeks on options to keep your property inside the law
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Matt Larosiere did a rather lengthy first pass on the rule in a livestream. Included docs list just about every configuration you're going to find for braced pistols. This is even worse than expected.
Fuddbusters LIVE: Emergency Pistol Brace Rule Stream
Fuddbusters LIVE: Emergency Pistol Brace Rule Stream
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,081
- Likes
- 6,645
Tartakovsky
NES Member
The ATF and attorney general literally don’t have the authority to waive the $200 tax stamp fee without an act of congress nor do they have the authority to issue a grace period for registration/compliance with NFA. They just got slapped for legislative regulation of bump stocks. They’ll get slapped for this. This is going nowhere.
Last edited:
I have not been following this, I could read up on it, yes, but articles/videos are all over the place.
If I were to register an alleged AR pistol and get the stamp. If this ruling is thrown out, does the stamp stay with the gun? So I could then put a stock on it and call it good? I only ask because a pistol AR in 300, with a suppressor, makes a pretty decent bedside gun.
If I were to register an alleged AR pistol and get the stamp. If this ruling is thrown out, does the stamp stay with the gun? So I could then put a stock on it and call it good? I only ask because a pistol AR in 300, with a suppressor, makes a pretty decent bedside gun.
Since bumpstocks just got poo poo'd and now legal again. It shows the ATF can't make law. So, there will be law suits to correct this situation.
As for doing your SBR for free. Sure, you can. But, it has to fall in their regulation. You are not supposed to change the gun from the pictured configuration on your paperwork.
All you are doing is putting restrictions on your gun. More paperwork if you want to sell it or leave the state without permission.
As for doing your SBR for free. Sure, you can. But, it has to fall in their regulation. You are not supposed to change the gun from the pictured configuration on your paperwork.
All you are doing is putting restrictions on your gun. More paperwork if you want to sell it or leave the state without permission.
I expect state based NFA restrictions to get tossed out along with AWB and magazine capacity laws before the decade is over.
pastera
NES Member
I see the outcome of this one being different than bumpstocks.
There is a relatively clear legal definition of a machine gun and bumpstocks found an innovative way to allow near automatic fire rates outside of that definition.
The definition of a short barrel rifle is also clear. However even though pistol braces are a good product, the public asked and manufacturers supplied products that clearly had more utility as SBR stocks than braces.
I see an outcome where the courts split the baby and keep the braces as NFA items but declare the tax stamp unconstitutional "as applied" with respect to the ADA and gives free stamps to those with medically documented disabilities.
The better option is to go after the entire regulation by taking down Miller since no legitimate legal scholar believes it to be proper case.
There is a relatively clear legal definition of a machine gun and bumpstocks found an innovative way to allow near automatic fire rates outside of that definition.
The definition of a short barrel rifle is also clear. However even though pistol braces are a good product, the public asked and manufacturers supplied products that clearly had more utility as SBR stocks than braces.
I see an outcome where the courts split the baby and keep the braces as NFA items but declare the tax stamp unconstitutional "as applied" with respect to the ADA and gives free stamps to those with medically documented disabilities.
The better option is to go after the entire regulation by taking down Miller since no legitimate legal scholar believes it to be proper case.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,740
- Likes
- 2,527
The bump stock rule has been upheld in one circuit and struck down in another. The Supreme Court will eventually have to decide that one. I'm cynical enough to believe that the Trump administration deliberately chose to promulgate a rule which directly contradicts the statutory language in order to avoid having GOP congresscritters to have to go on record voting on a ban by law.
I've read the final "brace" rule and find it has a deep flaw. The problem is the phrase "objective design," which is used in the final rule over 100 times. The use of the word "objective" means it's a finding of fact; what a hypothetical reasonable unbiased person would determine. Neither ATF agents nor any of us are unbiased.
I fear what that will mean in practice is that once you move beyond the examples, each time an ATF agent asserts a particular implementation violates the rule, the target of the assertion either gets to surrender or spend a small fortune to require a jury to decide.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
"Objective design" should put it in the same place as flash hiders. How is it marketed? The ATF and owner's opinions are biased, as you say, but the manufacturer and/or designer and their associated marketing materials should be admissible.
I don't need to stinkin bump stock. I have a pair of shorts with belt loops!
View: https://youtu.be/TBQrtzSdVDo
The better option is to abolish the NFA.
The best option is abolish the atf.
Neither will happen.
1000% agree but I'm struggling to understand what's so hard about dealing with this dumb 'ruling'.
Just slap an upper with a 16" barrel onto the lower with the brace and stick it in the safe? According what I've read, that configuration is perfectly legal and isn't classified as an SBR
Golddiggie
NES Member
I would like to know if someone was to register an SBR (paying the $200) could they then install either a stock or 'brace' as they wish? IIRC, it's been mentioned (don't recall where exactly) that if you go for the pistol tax stamp (no cost) then you CANNOT install an actual stock on it. Which means it will be forever configured as the "pistol" setup. Personally, I'd rather have the flexibility to install whatever the F I want on the back end of the gun and not worry about some JBT's ruining my life over an accessory item.
I'm going to keep watching how things develop on this illegal ruling.
I'm going to keep watching how things develop on this illegal ruling.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
in short? because people configured the firearm how they wanted it, and that's not with a 16" barrel.
That's before we get into the fact that not all these pistols are AR based, or that keeping the upper means you're still in constructive possession of a SBR
It does. There are pistol brace chassis for common handguns and such things like the Flux Raider, which are legal in MA. But the ATF is now deeming that they are too light to make use of a brace. And if it were SBRed, it would become illegal in MA because of the telescoping or folding newly defined stock.
Or the people who made AR pistols with fixed mag lowers, or anybody who made a bolt action pistol and added a brace, like a JTAC industries or similar.
Last edited:
This is EXACTLY what I thought of when I first saw that!
Ok, but what about krinkovs? Brens? Scars?
Not such a universal solution, unfortunately.
