• 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.

ATF says it is now legal to shoulder arm brace

Hope it's true too... Post up "the letter" if it does actually come out and isn't a delayed "April fools" joke by .gov...
 
Here you go. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...es-Stabilizing-Brace-Letter-Final-3.21.17.pdf

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...istol-equipped-with-an-sb-tactical-arm-brace/

In 2013, SB Tactical introduced the AR-pistol “stabilizing brace.” Navy veteran Alex Bosco designed the brace for a wounded warrior who had lost an arm in combat. The ATF approved the device for general use. The People of the Gun soon realized that an AR-15 pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace could be used as a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Justifiably worried about falling afoul of onerous, expensive, time-consuming and extremely punitive NFA requirements, more than a few law-abiding Americans wrote the ATF asking for clarification.

In January 2015 the ATF released an open letter answering their concerns. The Bureau stated that the act of placing an AR-15 pistol on the shooter’s shoulder constituted a “redesign” of the firearm, instantly turning it into an unregistered SBR. You could fire a brace-equipped AR pistol from your hip, your chest, even your forehead. Shoulder it, though, and you’re committing a federal felony.

Sales of pistol arm braces dropped as concerns about legality grew. Despite the fact that the ATF would have had a very difficult time defending their decision in court, no one wanted to be “that guy” to test it.

For the last two years the issue has simmered in the background. In February a leaked ATF memo indicated that a new ruling was on its way. TTAG can now reveal that the ATF has issued a new opinion letter clearing the way for owners of SB Tactical stabilizing braces to shoulder their “pistols.”

Click here to read the full ATF opinion letter. Here’s the important bit:

With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder.

If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock — for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace — and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively “redesigned” the firearm for the purposes of the NFA.

Bottom line: if an unmolested SB Tactical stabilizing brace is attached to the buffer tube of an AR-15 pistol, the resulting firearm can be legally shouldered and fired without “making” it a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearm Act. However as soon as you do anything to change the brace (even just removing the strap) you have now “made” an SBR.

This letter applies solely to pistol arm braces which have been submitted to the ATF FTB branch and have received approval. SB Tactical is the only maker to have received this approval. If you have a non-SB Tactical pistol brace, this ruling does not apply to your brace. Shoulder those at your own risk.

Sources also tell TTAG that the ATF will be designing a litmus test to identify the difference between a stock and an arm brace (rather than the Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” approach). The test’s protocols are as yet unknown, but the mention of “comfort” above may mean that the ATF will be looking to ensure that the length of the arm brace is short enough to make it inconvenient to shoulder among other requirements.

Is this a reversal of the ATF’s policy? The ATF says no — in their letter they specifically call this a “clarification” of their policy and not a revision. But I can’t help feel that this is as close to a non-reversal reversal as we can expect from the bureaucratic nightmare that is the U.S. government.
Click to expand...
 
Thought it was always legal, oh well.

Now we just need them to make it legal to put a vertical foregrip on an AR pistol. No big deal there either.
 
https://www.sb-tactical.com/blog/sb...er-use-sb-tactical-pistol-stabilizing-braces/

I am probably going to get drunk and order one of these, it's about the least gay iteration of a **** you to the ATF. Plus, I can take it out of state without a permission slip. Oh, and I can keep it loaded regardless of whether it is in my vehicle or not, since HB84 was gutted.

1_SBPDW_on_AR_Left_Collapsed_Ghosted-60_Web.jpg


https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sbpdw/
 
Last edited:
edmorseiii said:
You know better then to ask a question like that. None of this means shit and none of our opinions about this letter are worth the time you took to read this. It can and likely will change tomorrow, so shoulder away, or don't.
Click to expand...

It's more a question for those at the range that might question me than anything else.
 
Golddiggie said:
It's more a question for those at the range that might question me than anything else.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is that concerned about any of this and doesn't have the chops to read the information and make a grown up call based on their own understanding of these useless letters probably aught not dance on the NFA line, and anyone on the range being nosy about your gear should MYOFB.

Just my $.02.

- - - Updated - - -

Varmint said:
No, right now only the SB Tactical is approved.

Mass laws/edicts - meh - but I think it's smart to obey Federal laws.
Click to expand...

Except this is not law.

BUT, if you want to over think this, SB Tactical designed the Sig product, so....
 
Varmint said:
No, right now only the SB Tactical is approved.

Mass laws/edicts - meh - but I think it's smart to obey Federal laws.
Click to expand...

IIRC, they took over for what SigTac was... It's identical to one that they had available. The original one.

edmorseiii said:
BUT, if you want to over think this, SB Tactical designed the Sig product, so....
Click to expand...

That's what I thought... So it should be 'kosher' with the one I have...
 
weldingmachine said:
As soon as the ATF becomes part of the Legislative branch these letters might mean squat. until then they don't
Click to expand...

This information is good for lawyers to pontificate, should you get jammed-up using another 3rd-party arm brace as a stock, and shouldering it. IMHO, this means your local LEOs aren't going to be policing the proper-use of 'arm braces' anymore. If anyone has the legal definition of what, exactly, constitutes an 'arm brace' in the eyes of Federal Law, I'd love to read it here.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
This information is good for lawyers to pontificate, should you get jammed-up using another 3rd-party arm brace as a stock, and shouldering it. IMHO, this means your local LEOs aren't going to be policing the proper-use of 'arm braces' anymore. If anyone has the legal definition of what, exactly, constitutes an 'arm brace' in the eyes of Federal Law, I'd love to read it here.
Click to expand...

There isn't, and I would like to know when a local LEO was policing anything remotely close this nonsense.
 
Supposedly the "key" is to not to do anything to the brace that would render it incapable of being used as an arm brace. So that velcro strap better be operable, dammit! [rofl]
 
So for a hundred or so dollars more than the costs of a Sig arm brace you can have an sbr.
Yeah and about six month or so wait.

Then you avoid all the strap crap..[rofl]

Crappy engraving job free!

Only down side is traveling with it.. or just put a 16" barrel on it for the trip!
 
This ATF letter, like the last ATF letter, is meaningless. Completely and utterly meaningless. It has no legal value. How they choose to enforce these garbage firearm laws (with regards to a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW) that hold no societal value is and will remain arbitrary and subjected to their whim. How a court will view it should the issue arise will be even more arbitrary. So do what you want and what you feel comfortable with. The letter changed nothing.
 
Bonesinium said:
This ATF letter, like the last ATF letter, is meaningless. Completely and utterly meaningless. It has no legal value. How they choose to enforce these garbage firearm laws (with regards to a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW) that hold no societal value is and will remain arbitrary and subjected to their whim. How a court will view it should the issue arise will be even more arbitrary. So do what you want and what you feel comfortable with. The letter changed nothing.
Click to expand...

Not quite, if BATFE says in an approval letter that it is OK specifically for the device/situation you have, it at least provides some defense via estoppel. I think even a shitty federal prosecutor would see that from the outset.

Never heard of BATFE giving people shit over AR pistols with arm braces, anyways, at any time since the arm brace got invented. I think they've been desensitized to them a bit.

-Mike
 
Bonesinium said:
This ATF letter, like the last ATF letter, is meaningless. Completely and utterly meaningless. It has no legal value. How they choose to enforce these garbage firearm laws (with regards to a pistol, rifle, SBR, AOW) that hold no societal value is and will remain arbitrary and subjected to their whim. How a court will view it should the issue arise will be even more arbitrary. So do what you want and what you feel comfortable with. The letter changed nothing.
Click to expand...

If they wanted to, they could kick in mydoor tonight and arrest me for possession of a stapler and I'd have to fight it in court, However, this letter certainly provides guidance for people trying, in good faith, to follow these foolish laws.
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
537
1919FAN
1919FAN
It used to be Bush’s or Trump’s fault. Now, it’s guns.
Replies
2
Views
188
FisherTech
F
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
323
powerman
powerman
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
648
groundscrapers
G
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Flint
F
Back
Top Bottom