How many NES members are now considered Felons? ATF AR/AK pistol brace fiasco.

My understanding is you cannot "undo" an NFA designation. Once the ATF defines it or you register it as a SBR, that firearm is an SBR forever.

This is why you should only build pistols.

The ATF will deregister SBRs (takes a few months, some kind of letter you send them) but you basically kiss your 200 bucks goodbye. Not sure why anyone would do that, lol.
 
I'm not getting it, is a broomhandle Mausers or a Luger with a wood stock/holster become a SBR when the stock is used.
 
.
I'm not getting it, is a broomhandle Mausers or a Luger with a wood stock/holster become a SBR when the stock is used.
Those are "weird" and i think exempt. Certain old milsurps are exempt. I think this is mostly mausers and some BHPs... maybe a few others. Somewhere there's a list.
 
Who cares, like any state or local level cop is gonna keep track of this crap. When I was 18 and only had an FID I got hassled by a local cop about an SKS (got pulled over with the rifle case on my back seat) and I had to explain to him that I was in the clear because it had a fixed magazine and that even though I had modified it I made sure it was 922r compliant and he looked at me like a deer in headlights, he stuttered out something about slowing down and went back to his car and took off. If your getting investigated by the feds you're probably already screwed so might as well go all in.
 
.
Those are "weird" and i think exempt. Certain old milsurps are exempt. I think this is mostly mausers and some BHPs... maybe a few others. Somewhere there's a list.
Thanks for the reply, I'm not one to go out of my way to comply, but just thought the thread is interesting. I would bet the "Fast and Furious" boys will be very encouraged by China joe and the Ho.
 
Who cares, like any state or local level cop is gonna keep track of this crap.
Generally nobody even bats an eye except for full-auto.

New Hampshire AG has already stated that local/state cops aren't empowered to enforce federal gun laws (mostly in reference to GFSZA).


The ATF will deregister SBRs (takes a few months, some kind of letter you send them) but you basically kiss your 200 bucks goodbye. Not sure why anyone would do that, lol.
OTOH, if there's a window for no-tax-paid registration of "braced pistols" as SBRs, I'm lining up the pistols they already know about (e.g. bought at Riley's) and registering the ones I don't ever plan to transport across state lines.

Since it wouldn't have cost me $200 to put them on the registry, no loss in removing them. Only real downside is that the extra engraving would reduce their resale value.
 
Last edited:

I wonder how this effects anyone here in Mass that built an AR pistol using a fixed mag lower?
Those of us in the Union of Soviet Massachusetts Counties (USMC..go figure😂😂) were made felons on July 20, 2016. Welcome to the club free staters!😂👍🏻🇺🇸
 
Generally nobody even bats an eye except for full-auto.

New Hampshire AG has already stated that local/state cops aren't empowered to enforce federal gun laws (mostly in reference to GFSZA).

OTOH, if there's a window for no-tax-paid registration of "braced pistols" as SBRs, I'm putting the pistols they already know about (e f.g. bought at Riley's) and registering the ones I don't ever plan to transport across state lines.

Since it wouldn't have cost me $200 to put them on the registry, no loss in removing them. Only real downside is that the extra engraving would reduce their resale value.

I'd never sell anything that was ever engraved, unless it was something I was going to do as a manufacturer.

I doubt they will do a full amnesty, because people will just register everything and crapflood the system.

I am hoping the end of this bullshit is just an easier to understand determination. My gut feeling is some of it we wont like some of it will be good because it will just put it to
bed. They should have just established this test back when it was determined that braces werent magically illegal if you touched it to your shoulder. Would have saved everyone a
lot of grief. We'll never know, but my gut feeling is that there are factions inside ATF even. There is, or was at least, clearly, one faction that likes pistol braces and the way we use them, because it clearly reduces the burden on NFA branch staff. I mean thinking critically, pistol braces have avoided like probably at least 100,000 nfa registrations at this point. Secretly, this
faction probably think that things like SBR, SBS, AOW, are completely f***ing stupid but because that shit is burned into the law they can't just make it administratively die. Then there's the other faggot faction in ATF, which is "all the gay all the time. " If there weren't factions this issue would have never been created to begin with, because upon seeing the first pistol brace,
they would have just said "this is a stock, this is illegal, end". They didn't do that because someone, or several people, or a faction, wanted to seize an opportunity to make life easier for
themselves and for the industry. The problem with the ATF, other than it existing, is internally its somewhat of an enigma wrapped within an enigma. The "good cop, bad cop" thing
exists all over the place.
 
@MattLaAtLaw on the ATF draft:


ETA:
We have to separate what is actual law from what is fear, threat, and fudd lore. The ATF does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to ban braces or decree them to be stocks. The question was--and still is--was the particular firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder primarily.
 
Last edited:
I'd never sell anything that was ever engraved, unless it was something I was going to do as a manufacturer.

I doubt they will do a full amnesty, because people will just register everything and crapflood the system.

I am hoping the end of this bullshit is just an easier to understand determination. My gut feeling is some of it we wont like some of it will be good because it will just put it to
bed. They should have just established this test back when it was determined that braces werent magically illegal if you touched it to your shoulder. Would have saved everyone a
lot of grief. We'll never know, but my gut feeling is that there are factions inside ATF even. There is, or was at least, clearly, one faction that likes pistol braces and the way we use them, because it clearly reduces the burden on NFA branch staff. I mean thinking critically, pistol braces have avoided like probably at least 100,000 nfa registrations at this point. Secretly, this
faction probably think that things like SBR, SBS, AOW, are completely f***ing stupid but because that shit is burned into the law they can't just make it administratively die. Then there's the other faggot faction in ATF, which is "all the gay all the time. " If there weren't factions this issue would have never been created to begin with, because upon seeing the first pistol brace,
they would have just said "this is a stock, this is illegal, end". They didn't do that because someone, or several people, or a faction, wanted to seize an opportunity to make life easier for
themselves and for the industry. The problem with the ATF, other than it existing, is internally its somewhat of an enigma wrapped within an enigma. The "good cop, bad cop" thing
exists all over the place.

I watched a video of what seemed like a level headed guy. The one thing he focused on was a brace that had multiple positions and extended quite a ways back for a 'brace'. It looks like the standard braces aren't what they are really going after. Something about pull length or similar measurement and optics that pretty much mandated you fire the braced gun from the shoulder.

Edit: wrong werds I type sometimes.
 
I watched a video of what seemed like a level headed guy. The one thing he focused on was a brace that had multiple positions and extended quite a ways back for a 'brace'. It looks like the standard braces aren't what they are really going after. Something about pull length or similar measurement and optics that pretty much mandated you fire the braced gun from the shoulder.

Edit: wrong werds I type sometimes.

Somewhere there is a magic LOP number that was established somehow. If you put something like an SBA3 on a carbine tube, the max LOP of the whole thing is shorter than it would be with a typical stock.
 
Somewhere there is a magic LOP number that was established somehow. If you put something like an SBA3 on a carbine tube, the max LOP of the whole thing is shorter than it would be with a typical stock.

That's what I got from skimming his video, it's not a errrmaaahhgawwd all braces are illegals. It was 'this one, which we all knew was pushing the rules' is in the ATF's sights.

I mean, seriously, if it was the SBA3, it looks more like a collapsible stock than a brace. Don't get me wrong, I think SBR's on the NFA is just dumb on it's face.
 
Somewhere there is a magic LOP number that was established somehow. If you put something like an SBA3 on a carbine tube, the max LOP of the whole thing is shorter than it would be with a typical stock.
ATF says 13.5"... but pistols don't have LOP in the first place, so they're just making it up.

By the way... those Crickett youth .22 rifles everyone loves have a 10.5" LOP. They have a 16.125" barrel, but they do have a 30" OAL.
 
ATF says 13.5"... but pistols don't have LOP in the first place, so they're just making it up.
By the way... those Crickett youth .22 rifles everyone loves have a 10.5" LOP. They have a 16.125" barrel, but they do have a 30" OAL.
I have a Crickett, the LOP is too short for me; most of the time I fire it one-handed at arm's length, like a pistol.

There's no minimum LOP for a "rifle", law states a minimum length for barrel (16") and OAL (26"). Well, technically there's no law setting an maximum lengths on pistols, that's solely "rulemaking (aka "just making it up")

Will ATF decide that even <13" braced pistols are SBRs if the possessor has e a kid (or just short forearms)?
 
If anyone is actually reading this thing, NOTHING good comes out of it except maybe some undefined exception for initial registration, which I feel is unlikely to occur under Joe & Hoe..

Basically ATF says they want be able to look at any pistol and determine if it is an SBR using a long list of subjective reasons, up to and including that a given pistol just seems like (to any given agent) it would normally be fired from the shoulder. No measurements or actual objective criteria, just an evaluation of all details by anyone at the ATF...

Basically unless you bought an approved production gun (ie maybe some Sig) and didn't change a thing (ie adding or changing sights/optic could even make a pistol an SBR they specifically state), then no braced pistol is clearly legal by this new interpretation. Even then, they could always change their mind.

!
 
If anyone is actually reading this thing, NOTHING good comes out of it except maybe some undefined exception for initial registration, which I feel is unlikely to occur under Joe & Hoe..

Basically ATF says they want be able to look at any pistol and determine if it is an SBR using a long list of subjective reasons, up to and including that a given pistol just seems like (to any given agent) it would normally be fired from the shoulder. No measurements or actual objective criteria, just an evaluation of all details by anyone at the ATF...

Basically unless you bought an approved production gun (ie maybe some Sig) and didn't change a thing (ie adding or changing sights/optic could even make a pistol an SBR they specifically state), then no braced pistol is clearly legal by this new interpretation. Even then, they could always change their mind.

I read it, I think the ATF could have produced a much more succinct document;
all they really had to write was "BFYTW".
 
If anyone is actually reading this thing, NOTHING good comes out of it except maybe some undefined exception for initial registration, which I feel is unlikely to occur under Joe & Hoe..

Basically ATF says they want be able to look at any pistol and determine if it is an SBR using a long list of subjective reasons, up to and including that a given pistol just seems like (to any given agent) it would normally be fired from the shoulder. No measurements or actual objective criteria, just an evaluation of all details by anyone at the ATF...

Basically unless you bought an approved production gun (ie maybe some Sig) and didn't change a thing (ie adding or changing sights/optic could even make a pistol an SBR they specifically state), then no braced pistol is clearly legal by this new interpretation. Even then, they could always change their mind.

!
Worse than that. Their "objective" measures include weight and caliber. So a Thompson Contender, or a 10.5" S&W 500 could fail the test because they are each a "large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, [thus are] likely to be considered a rifle"
 
Worse than that. Their "objective" measures include weight and caliber. So a Thompson Contender, or a 10.5" S&W 500 could fail the test because they are each a "large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, [thus are] likely to be considered a rifle"

Well I do think the scope is limited to pistols with braces, although whats written doesn't keep repeating "if a weapon equipped with a stabilizing brace" the title indicates that is the scope. Now I am not sure what of say a little round cap over the end of a buffer tube - nothing in there to me indicates that when the smoke clears even a minor detail like that couldn't be construed as a stock.
 
If they really wanted to do something objective they would detail a dozen acceptable braced pistol designs, including all pertinent details and min/max dimensions (ie if weight, caliber, optic type/location or any of that make a difference then list it).. Then everyone could at least follow it knowing they met design 1, 2, 3, etc.. instead what we will get is nobody other than a few major manufacturers ever knowing what's "legal".

Granted it's all a ridiculous infringement based on ideas in movies or something from the 1930's, that gangsters were carrying these things around under trenchcoats. But still, they ought to be able show us what is and isn't "legal" without actually inspecting it.
 
If they really wanted to do something objective they would detail a dozen acceptable braced pistol designs, including all pertinent details and min/max dimensions (ie if weight, caliber, optic type/location or any of that make a difference then list it).. Then everyone could at least follow it knowing they met design 1, 2, 3, etc.. instead what we will get is nobody other than a few major manufacturers ever knowing what's "legal".

Granted it's all a ridiculous infringement based on ideas in movies or something from the 1930's, that gangsters were carrying these things around under trenchcoats. But still, they ought to be able show us what is and isn't "legal" without actually inspecting it.

You're asking for an agency whose literal legacy is overreach and killing people over minor infractions to act reasonably. Thats a pretty funny request.
 
You're asking for an agency whose literal legacy is overreach and killing people over minor infractions to act reasonably. Thats a pretty funny request.

Haha ya I know, plus when a .gov agency starts by talking about a new improved objective process you also know it will be anything but that.
 
I have a Crickett, the LOP is too short for me; most of the time I fire it one-handed at arm's length, like a pistol.

There's no minimum LOP for a "rifle", law states a minimum length for barrel (16") and OAL (26"). Well, technically there's no law setting an maximum lengths on pistols, that's solely "rulemaking (aka "just making it up")

Will ATF decide that even <13" braced pistols are SBRs if the possessor has e a kid (or just short forearms)?
First, yes the ATF BS is BS.
But let's be clear, they are not proposing that LOP be a single determining factor. LOP < X does not equal SBR. they look at a totality of a number of features to make a determination. This is why the Crickett will not be considered an SBR.
If you're going to comment, or in some other way argue against what they do, do so from an informed position. Nothing kills an argument more than arguing some incorrect and meaningless point. If you take the position that LOP should not make an SBR, they will simple not listen because you are correct, LOP doe not make an SBR, they never said it did.
 
ATF says 13.5"... but pistols don't have LOP in the first place, so they're just making it up.

By the way... those Crickett youth .22 rifles everyone loves have a 10.5" LOP. They have a 16.125" barrel, but they do have a 30" OAL.
First, yes the ATF BS is BS.
But let's be clear, they are not proposing that LOP be a single determining factor. LOP < X does not equal SBR. they look at a totality of a number of features to make a determination. This is why the Crickett will not be considered an SBR.
If you're going to comment, or in some other way argue against what they do, do so from an informed position. Nothing kills an argument more than arguing some incorrect and meaningless point. If you take the position that LOP should not make an SBR, they will simple not listen because you are correct, LOP doe not make an SBR, they never said it did.
I'm not arguing in support of any of the above, just pointing out issues with the reply I quoted.
 
I'm not arguing in support of any of the above, just pointing out issues with the reply I quoted.
I should have pointed out that this wasn't nessisarily targeted at you, but more the idiots out there that argue without understanding and thus making a fool out of themselves and the cause in general. I've been seeing a lot of comments the ATF making LOP a single determining factor, and saying the proposal is a final notice. I just would really like people to stop and get all the fact THEN slam the ATF.
 
Back
Top Bottom