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

[Parker Schreiber]

Question, if you remove the brace and install a AR buffer tube which is simply covered in foam that is considered a SBR under this new "ruling"?

Quoting from pages 102 and 103:
ATF will not attempt to precisely measure the surface area or make the determination based on the existence of any minimum surface area. Instead, ATF will consider whether there is any surface area on the firearm that can be used to shoulder fire the weapon. If the firearm 102 includes surface area that can be used for shoulder firing the weapon, the weapon potentially qualifies as a “rifle”; in contrast, if the weapon does not include such surface area, then it does not qualify as a “rifle.”

But wait on the previous page, one of the factors in making that determination is (again quoting):
whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

So you are left with guessing whether a particular ATF agent will consider the foam addition as something which can be used for shoulder firing. Isn't that lovely?

 

[MoRivera]

According to this part on page 270, the extension/buffer tube is enough that can be shouldered, so according to them it's a rifle and if the barrel is shorter than 16", an SBR.

 

[wcorey]

The way I read it in the explanation under "definition of a rifle"; "other factors", (v) basically says if a manufacturer advertises, say a particular ar bare buffer tube, as something that could be shouldered it can then count as a shouldering device.
Then the one that really gets me is (vi), sounds like if someone "in the general community" (here for instance), said that they use all bare buffer tubes to shoulder then now any tube is a shouldering device, for everybody...
The art of ambiguity...

So unless you can somehow track who advertises what and who comments on what, basically everywhere/anywhere, then you can never be sure of what you have, ever.

 

[MoRivera]

The way I read it in the explanation under "definition of a rifle"; "other factors", (v) basically says if a manufacturer advertises, say a particular ar bare buffer tube, as something that could be shouldered it can then count as a shouldering device.
Then the one that really gets me is (vi), sounds like if someone "in the general community" (here for instance), said that they use all bare buffer tubes to shoulder then now any tube is a shouldering device, for everybody...
The art of ambiguity...

So unless you can somehow track who advertises what and who comments on what, basically everywhere/anywhere, then you can never be sure of what you have, ever.

It seems in the included pages that it's up to the 'discretion' of the ATF as to whether just a buffer tube or any rearward extension makes the gun 'shoulder-able'. Or does that mean that it provides an attachment point for a brace, but the tube itself is fine? Methinks this is left purposely vague so that they can screw you any way the want.

 

[50 BMG]

confused yet?????? I am LOL. The buffer tube I am referring to states on the box " AR 15 Pistol Buffer tube assembly". It can not accept a stock of any kind. Wasn't the ATF initial intention to eliminate
Pistol braces". Thanks to everyone for your input.

 

[PappyM3]

… Methinks this is left purposely vague so that they can screw you any way the want.

Well, yes. They even said that regardless of points, the ATF can still determine a pistol a rifle. So the points don’t even matter.

 

[In God We Trust]

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Wasn't the ATF initial intention to eliminate Pistol braces". Thanks to everyone for your input.

According to the ATF, 'This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.' So if you take them at their word, their intention was to prevent people from circumventing the NFA by adding arm straps to what in reality a short-barreled rifle or shotgun.

Of course, many of us think the NFA restrictions on barrel length are nonsense to begin with, and may not survive constitutional muster under NYSRPA. And the rule, as written, doesn't include any safe harbors, leaving us unsure what's now legal or not.

 

[knoxy]

brace_final_rule_guidance-non-commercial | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

www.atf.gov

The very first picture/example they posted......

View attachment 710246


'Short'?

Yeah I saw that. Realized I was dealing with retards. As usual. 16" is 16". Not a "pistol". Not a "SBR". So ghey.

 

[240Geezer]

It seems in the included pages that it's up to the 'discretion' of the ATF as to whether just a buffer tube or any rearward extension makes the gun 'shoulder-able'. Or does that mean that it provides an attachment point for a brace, but the tube itself is fine? Methinks this is left purposely vague so that they can screw you any way the want.

Possibly.
Although according to the lawyer guy vid, if the buffer tube / rear extension is part of the functioning of the firearm then it is exempt. To paraphrase.
For AR15 type pistols that is the case, so exempt.
Now a carbine / pistol length buffer tube is a tad short to shoulder comfortably.
But an A2 fixed stock buffer tube is a couple inches longer.
Just saying.

 

[240Geezer]

It also looks to me like this is aimed at commercial arms manufacturers like Springfield or Sig or whoever makes the Banshee type pistols.
Guns that were sold and 4473'd as pistols but definitely have a brace that is "shoulderable".
As opposed to Joe Blow the gun geek. There is no practical way to stop them from putting whatever they want on the back end of a short barreled firearm.

 

[MoRivera]

Well, yes. They even said that regardless of points, the ATF can still determine a pistol a rifle. So the points don’t even matter.

I think they just nixed the whole points thing altogether, even they know it was a fiasco. So is this.

 

[PappyM3]

I think they just nixed the whole points thing altogether, even they know it was a fiasco. So is this.

Ah, I hadn’t read the officially published rule yet. I heard the changes made late last year were just spelling/grammar and the like so they didn’t warrant a new comment period. But a change that big most certainly needed a new comment period. Holy crap.

I’m guessing their new wording is designed to ban things like the Black Collar Arms “Adjustable Pistol Support”, which is designed as basically a rear mono-pod for precision pistol work: APS Adjustable Pistol Support - Black Collar Arms

 

[MoRivera]

Maybe they know that this thing is so convoluted that it's bound to be in court and sifted through, so just less to have to deal with detail-for-detail.

Law-abiding citizens transformed into criminals overnight!

After years of flip-flopping, the ATF has issued a rule recharacterizing guns with pistol braces, making millions of currently owned guns subject to federal

www.americanthinker.com

 

[MoRivera]

View: https://youtu.be/_vIsYTh65KQ

 

[dcmdon]

So you have to glue thumbtacks to the buffer tube after you take the brace off?

Atf rulings = AIDS

NO. If you read further, you will read that the fact that the buffer tube is necessary for it to function means that the ATF does not consider it to be a stock.
In contrast, if you had a pistol with a pic rail on the back and added a buffer tube using an adaptor, it could be considered to be a stock.
So an AR with just a buffer tube can be a handgun to the feds.
And if that same AR doesn't meet the CT definition of a handgun (barrel greater than 12") or rifle, then its an Other.

Bottom line. If you have an AR based CT other with an arm brace, take the brace off and the gun is legal per both the ATF and CT.

 

[MoRivera]

You just may have to register it if Nifty Ned gets his way.

 

[MoRivera]

So word is that we can register our others that have less-than16" barrels as SBR's via the 'amnesty period' eForm 1 with ATF.

 

[dcmdon]

You need to differentiate between fed and state law and always understand that whatever you build may be a different type of firearm federally than with the state.

Ned has nothing to do with registering a SBR.

Yes. You are correct that there is a "free" registration amnesty period until May. It's now "word", its written, official ATF policy. (for now, ha)

For people who wanted an SBR but didn't want to pay the $200, this is actually great news.

For people who wanted an SBR but didn't want the Feds to know that they had one in a searchable, computerized database, this is effectively a ban.

For most CT people, those who did a DPS3 when they bought it, it's good news, since the state already has your purchase in their database.
So. . . in summary. I think this is a good thing for most CT gun owners, particularly those who bought CT Others.

 

[MoRivera]

You need to differentiate between fed and state law and always understand that whatever you build may be a different type of firearm federally than with the state.

Ned has nothing to do with registering a SBR.

Yes. You are correct that there is a "free" registration amnesty period until May. It's now "word", its written, official ATF policy. (for now, ha)

For people who wanted an SBR but didn't want to pay the $200, this is actually great news.

For people who wanted an SBR but didn't want the Feds to know that they had one in a searchable, computerized database, this is effectively a ban.

For most CT people, those who did a DPS3 when they bought it, it's good news, since the state already has your purchase in their database.
So. . . in summary. I think this is a good thing for most CT gun owners, particularly those who bought CT Others.

Well basically, if nothing else this is allowing us to keep them as-is without having to destroy or turn anything in, which for me at least is more important than being able to add an actual stock to them.

Ned has nothing to do with registering a SBR.

I'm referring to HB6667, the expanded state 'assault weapons ban' that's on the table, assuming that it will entail a state 'registration' like back in 2013 as opposed to forfeiture/confiscation. Assuming he'd have something to do with that, or at least his table would.

Ironic thing is that if they push that through, it'll enable us to go the full SBR anyway.