• 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.

How will the impending ATF Brace regulations effect 'other firearms?

M

MoRivera

Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
96
Likes
33
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
This seems unclear, because 'others' are by definition an 'other firearm' by NOT being a rifle or a pistol. Or will the regulations applied to pistols automatically carry over since they are based off the same receivers/magazines/pistol grips/etc. and are not yet rifles?

Or...will 'others' be exempt from the new rulings because they're not pistols to begin with?
 
Just reading through the ATF Notice, it would seem that they'd apply it to anything semi-auto/pistol grip/etc. Not only that, now they're introducing regulations on different lengths of pull (when before it was under 13.5" only), sights and fore grips...all of which were legal features on 'others'. And even if you do somehow not accrue the 'points' that would make your configuration illegal, it's still then up to their judgement anyway whether or not it's 'close enough'.

So essentially, it's like tell me you're banning without saying you're banning.
 
Zero impact on the others like those from DLD. Others are weapons not meant to be shouldered, not useable with one hand and over 26” OAL. The new pistol brace worksheet requires sub 26” OAL. So zero impact.
 
drgrant said:
conflating fed with state law is a bad idea, imho even in this case they are two wholly separate silos of garbage
Click to expand...
I don’t see the conflation. OP is just asking about federal law the way I read the post.

Federal “other”s are very interesting. They are technically legal in MA and can never be an assault weapon. That does not mean you won’t have to prove it in court at some point, but black and white they can never be an AW as they are not a rifle, pistol or shotgun under federal law and our AWB is the 1994 federal law.

The sub 16” barreled “others” are “firearms” in MA and subject to the roster so need to be transferred as receivers. Otherwise…
 
CrackPot said:
I don’t see the conflation. OP is just asking about federal law the way I read the post.

Federal “other”s are very interesting. They are technically legal in MA and can never be an assault weapon. That does not mean you won’t have to prove it in court at some point, but black and white they can never be an AW as they are not a rifle, pistol or shotgun under federal law and our AWB is the 1994 federal law.

The sub 16” barreled “others” are “firearms” in MA and subject to the roster so need to be transferred as receivers. Otherwise…
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm just wondering if the new regulations apply specifically to AR 'pistols', or retroactively/by default any firearm with similar functionality that isn't a rifle. If you go by this....

www.govinfo.gov

GovInfo

Official Publications from the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
www.govinfo.gov www.govinfo.gov
Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify when a rifle is intended to be fired from the shoulder and to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with an attached purported stabilizing brace to determine whether these are rifles under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are firearms subject to the NFA. It amends the definition of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached stabilizing brace that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
Click to expand...

....it would seem so.

When it comes down to it, I have pre-bans and even an SBR, so when it comes to others they just won't leave the house, rather than trying to configure them to meet the 'points system', which is like having a dress code where you have to wear a monkey suit with no pants.

In God We Trust said:
ARs with arm braces are gay. It won’t effect me at all because I am hetero sexual
Click to expand...
Well, in CT unless your AR is manufactured prior to 1994, or you happened to register one made later with the state as an 'assault weapon' during a narrow window between 2013-2014, the state's 'assault weapon' ban makes it illegal to purchase AR-based (or any semi-auto/pistol grip/detacheable mag) rifles or pistols. Hence, the 'other weapon' configuration, technically being neither a pistol nor rifle. So having the brace was less about sexual preference and more about having something other than a bare recoil buffer tube on a configuration that had to be buttstock-free to remain compliant.
 
Last edited:
CrackPot said:
Zero impact on the others like those from DLD. Others are weapons not meant to be shouldered, not useable with one hand and over 26” OAL. The new pistol brace worksheet
requires sub 26” OAL. So zero impact.
Click to expand...
I didn't see where anything over 26" was exempt. Not saying that you're wrong (I certainly hope not)....maybe this line here (bolded), given that the 26" limit is where it goes from 'concealable' to not, and/or not a pistol.

The objective design features ATF considers in determining whether a weapon with an attached “stabilizing brace” has been “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” include, but are not limited to:
  • Type and Caliber. The type and caliber of firearm to which the stabilizing brace or similar item is installed. A large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.
  • Weight and Length. The weight and length of the firearm used with the stabilizing brace. A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.
  • Length of Pull. The “length of pull” refers to the distance from the trigger to the point at which a stock meets the shoulder. This is a measurement for rifles and shotguns used to accommodate shooters of different sizes. Because an arm brace need only reach the forearm, the distance between the trigger and the back of the brace is generally expected to be shorter than the distance between the trigger and the back of a stock on a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This measurement is not necessarily determinative of the intent of the manufacturer but is used in making an evaluation of the firearm. If a brace is of a length that makes it impractical to attach to the shooter’s wrist or forearm, then that may demonstrate that it is not designed as brace but rather for shoulder fire.
  • Attachment Method. The method of attachment of the stabilizing brace, to include modified stock attachments, extended receiver extensions, and the use of spacers. These items extend the distance between the trigger and the part of the
etc...
Click to expand...

So from the looks of it, whatever the firearm/weapon classified under before the ruling, once it starts the attachment of a brace will turn it into an un-registered SBR until you register it as such as long as it's not a rifle with a min. 16" barrel? And when you start looking at other added 'points' like any type of fore grip....an 'other' HAS to have a vertical fore grip to be an 'other' and not a pistol to begin with. So by default, it would seem an 'other' can't have any brace on it without becoming an SBR if this ruling takes effect. Even if you wanted to register it as an SBR, you can't in CT if it's not a pre-ban receiver (which is why people got them as others to begin with). If they were going 'allow' that, maybe the state would require declaring/registering it an 'assault weapon' again like you have to do with pre-bans when SBR'ing.
 
Last edited:
MoRivera said:
I didn't see where anything over 26" was exempt. Not saying that you're wrong (I certainly hope not)....maybe this line here (bolded), given that the 26" limit is where it goes from 'concealable' to not, and/or not a pistol.



So from the looks of it, whatever the firearm/weapon classified under before the ruling, once it starts the attachment of a brace will turn it into an un-registered SBR until you register it as such as long as it's not a rifle with a min. 16" barrel? And when you start looking at other added 'points' like any type of fore grip....an 'other' HAS to have a vertical fore grip to be an 'other' and not a pistol to begin with. So by default, it would seem an 'other' can't have any brace on it without becoming an SBR if this ruling takes effect. Even if you wanted to register it as an SBR, you can't in CT if it's not a pre-ban receiver (which is why people got them as others to begin with). If they were going 'allow' that, maybe the state would require declaring/registering it an 'assault weapon' again like you have to do with pre-bans when SBR'ing.
Click to expand...
What you need to do is download the worksheet.

Line 2 says "The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches." as one of the two prerequisites.
 
CrackPot said:
What you need to do is download the worksheet.

Line 2 says "The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches." as one of the two prerequisites.
Click to expand...
Right, but does that mean A) that it is completely exempt from any restrictions/rulings and can keep the brace if over 26", or B) that to even qualify as something compliant with a brace, it has to be within that length to start? Otherwise the presence of ANY brace will make it a no-no since because of its length (if under 16" barrel) and vertical fore grip.

I mean I would love the former to be true, but it seems too simple. To me, the kicker is this line...

NOTE:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA.
*As used in this worksheet, the term “accessory” is intended as a general term to describe the marketing of items commonly known as “stabilizing braces” and does not affect any ATF determinations whether such items when attached to a handgun are, in fact, “accessories” not necessary for the operation of the handgun, but which enhance its usefulness
or effectiveness, or whether they are component parts necessary to properly operate a weapon, such as a rifle. Furthermore, use of that term does not affect any determinationswhether such items are “defense articles” under the Arms Export Control Act. Please direct all inquiries as to possible liability for the firearms and ammunition excise tax,
26 U.S.C. sections 4181-4182 to the United States Department of Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).
Click to expand...

..but then if it does indeed say right after "The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches." So if we are holding them to that text above, then 12 to 26 has to apply to any firearm that they'd be holding to the point system. I do hope that's the case, but I think it would be a real uphill battle if you found yourself trying defend it in court and they'd just apply the same as they would to a pistol, and you'd be way over because of the fore grip as they'd judge the weapon itself as 'trying to crcumvent'. I get the feeling that the people who put this together didn't even know that 'other' versions existed, and if they did they would have included more language to clearly include them too.

Sorry if overthinking, just trying to figure some of this out.
 
Last edited:
MoRivera said:
Right, but does that mean A) that it is completely exempt from any restrictions/rulings and can keep the brace if over 26", or B) that to even qualify as something compliant with a brace, it has to be within that length to start? Otherwise the presence of ANY brace will make it a no-no since because of its length (if under 16" barrel) and vertical fore grip.

I mean I would love the former to be true, but it seems too simple. On the other hand, being over 26" they could just consider it a rifle despite what it qualified as before...and if the barrel is less than 16", then an illegal SBR until registered....which we can't do in CT since it's not a pre-ban. Unless we just don't put a brace on it.

Sorry if it seems like overthinking, just trying to figure some of this out. Any way you look at out, if you have to defend it in court you'd likely be up the creek.
Click to expand...
The point is that it cannot be an SBR with a OAL over 26" so pistol brace or stock or whatever does not matter relative to the SBR determination.
 
CrackPot said:
The point is that it cannot be an SBR with a OAL over 26" so pistol brace or stock or whatever does not matter relative to the SBR determination.
Click to expand...
Yeah I edited to try and be more clear. That line "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA." tells me that they'll still consider an 'other' with OAL over 26" the same, as they're implying some perceived overriding 'purpose' as the final right of judgment. :mad:

But then...there's no way an 'other' can achieve a qualifying score anyway, since it's over 26" and has a vertical fore grip..... nothing makes sense! Again, my apologies for being pedantic about it, but it's only because you know that they'll be.
 
Last edited:
Constitutional_brace_worksheet.xlsx

Notice the circular reference between cells A1 and cell A2 with contents “Shall not be infringed”

Quit debating this nonsense and just accept that you can either submit or your can resist. 26” OAL, 16” OAL, they both serve their purpose, which is providing agency to whoever possesses them to assert their will. I will remain free and unencumbered by further shackles of tyranny.

I’ll die on this hill. Literally. Not “protecting braces” but “if you don’t exercise your freedom, you’ll lose it”.
 
Atlantis said:
Constitutional_brace_worksheet.xlsx

Notice the circular reference between cells A1 and cell A2 with contents “Shall not be infringed”

Quit debating this nonsense and just accept that you can either submit or your can resist. 26” OAL, 16” OAL, they both serve their purpose, which is providing agency to whoever possesses them to assert their will. I will remain free and unencumbered by further shackles of tyranny.

I’ll die on this hill. Literally. Not “protecting braces” but “if you don’t exercise your freedom, you’ll lose it”.
Click to expand...
That's really what it comes down to because as I may have remarked elsewhere, these 'guidelines' aren't there to offer compliance, just obfuscation and 'you're screwed anyway'. Only a matter of time. Line in the sand, at the end of the day. As I said I have pre-bans and an SBR, so if they really want to get you they'll come after you anyway.

And frankly, I think this is all more about political posturing than actually putting any of this into substantial motion. Heaven knows this administration has to point to something as an 'achievement'.
 
Last edited:
OKay, so I guess this makes it a bit clearer...or as clear as one can get when it comes to these things...as to how 26" maximum OAL applies.

From:
30831Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–C

Overall Length. The overall length of
a weapon is relevant in classifying it as
a ‘‘rifle’’ or a ‘‘pistol’’ because, as a
firearm becomes excessive in length, it
is increasingly difficult to fire with one
hand. The AR-type pistol has an overall
length between 18 and 25 inches,
depending on barrel length (due to the
necessary inclusion of the buffer tube).
Other large frame pistols range between
14 and 22 inches, such as the AK-type
DRACO, HK SP5, and CZ Scorpion
EVO. Firearms possessing an overall
length between 12 and 26 inches may be
considered pistols for which a
‘‘stabilizing brace’’ could reasonably be
attached to support one-handed fire.
Firearms with an overall length of less
than 12 inches are considered too short
to indicate any need for a ‘‘stabilizing
brace.’’ Conversely, firearms exceeding
26 inches in overall length are
impractical and inaccurate to fire one
handed, even with a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’
due to imbalance of the weapon.


So it seems that just being over 26" disqualifies the weapon from any possible compliant configuration with a brace since according to them there's no sense in even having one for the purposes of one-handed firing - the gun's too big and heavy for it. Essentially, for 'others', put a pistol buffer tube and no brace on, or start booking boating trips.
 
MoRivera said:
OKay, so I guess this makes it a bit clearer...or as clear as one can get when it comes to these things...as to how 26" maximum OAL applies.

From:
30831Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–C

Overall Length. The overall length of
a weapon is relevant in classifying it as
a ‘‘rifle’’ or a ‘‘pistol’’ because, as a
firearm becomes excessive in length, it
is increasingly difficult to fire with one
hand. The AR-type pistol has an overall
length between 18 and 25 inches,
depending on barrel length (due to the
necessary inclusion of the buffer tube).
Other large frame pistols range between
14 and 22 inches, such as the AK-type
DRACO, HK SP5, and CZ Scorpion
EVO. Firearms possessing an overall
length between 12 and 26 inches may be
considered pistols for which a
‘‘stabilizing brace’’ could reasonably be
attached to support one-handed fire.
Firearms with an overall length of less
than 12 inches are considered too short
to indicate any need for a ‘‘stabilizing
brace.’’ Conversely, firearms exceeding
26 inches in overall length are
impractical and inaccurate to fire one
handed, even with a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’
due to imbalance of the weapon.


So it seems that just being over 26" disqualifies the weapon from any possible compliant configuration with a brace since according to them there's no sense in even having one for the purposes of one-handed firing - the gun's too big and heavy for it. Essentially, for 'others', put a pistol buffer tube and no brace on, or start booking boating trips.
Click to expand...
But “Other” Firearms are intended to be fired with 2 hands. So would this still apply?
 
So....the ATF's 'amnesty period'.....that so graciously allows people with braced pistols register them seemingly in order to keep them without having to SBR them., and perhaps without a $200 tax fee. How will this work out for CT 'others'? In order to SBR, you need to have a pre-ban lower at least and get that 'certified' by the state before the ATF will process....or a post ban that was certified as that assault weapon before 2014.

Wondering if they'll allow those with existing others to just bypass the state certification thing. But then, by definition the 'others' aren't pistols to begin with.



View: https://youtu.be/dGEK8FXSBwc
 
Last edited:
Here's another thought.....

...during this 'amnesty period', I wonder if we'll be able to SBR our 'others' straight up, or if the pre-ban/assault weapon pre-certification will still apply. Like maybe the amnesty period is the same as regular Form1, but just no tax stamp fee for a window of time.
 
the original CT "firearms" didn't even have a brace. Just some foam over the buffer tube.
So zero impact. Two completely different issues.

Look at my first post in this thread, from 2017. Braces weren't a thing yet. This is an early "firearm"

www.northeastshooters.com

HUGE loop hole in CT AWB. People are buying them now.

Hi all, I just thought I'd share an interesting development in the push back against PA 13-3 that essentially outlawed all future ownership of AR15s or any other pistol gripped, semi-auto, detachable magazine centerfire rifles. Its from the Freedom Shoppe. This is it: PA 13-3...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
dcmdon said:
the original CT "firearms" didn't even have a brace. Just some foam over the buffer tube.
So zero impact. Two completely different issues.

Look at my first post in this thread, from 2017. Braces weren't a thing yet. This is an early "firearm"

www.northeastshooters.com

HUGE loop hole in CT AWB. People are buying them now.

Hi all, I just thought I'd share an interesting development in the push back against PA 13-3 that essentially outlawed all future ownership of AR15s or any other pistol gripped, semi-auto, detachable magazine centerfire rifles. Its from the Freedom Shoppe. This is it: PA 13-3...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...
Yeah but they are now so I guess as with 'pistols', just take the brace off. But also, I was just wondering if we could actually SBR an 'other' during this
amnesty', or if it would be as it has been requiring a pre-ban or a 'registered assault weapon' prior to 2014. I'm guessing still the latter.

Boy they are going to get swamped with SBR applications. I have been waiting over 14 months for a silencer to get its tax stamp, I can only pray it clears before people start flooding in with eForm 1's.
 
MoRivera said:
Ruling has dropped.....

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule was published in the...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
Click to expand...
293 pages of "SCOTUS gonna kill this dead without Chevron".
 

Similar threads

Other Pistol Braces
Replies
9
Views
126
PappyM3
PappyM3
Pistole Brace on a rifle?
Replies
3
Views
429
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
'Others' can now be registered as SBR's....but...
Replies
7
Views
1K
allen-1
allen-1
How backed up is CT for renewals?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Catoperat
Catoperat
CT Other question
Replies
3
Views
964
Johearn
J
Back
Top Bottom