Shouldering AR pistol with brace, no longer legal per ATF?

[ToddDubya]

Sure, but how will they know "how" you held the gun during the encounter unless you tell them?

I'm not saying to lie about it, but you probably held it like this ...

 

[NHCraigT]

Nope. The shoulder brace is an accessory that is not permanently affixed to the pistol. When you are looking at the weight of the pistol for legal purposes, it is the weight without any accessories (at least following Federal standards), so you would weigh without scope, without mags, without brace.

To clarify; The SB15 is an "arm" brace, and not a shoulder brace......

(I think that's what you actually meant)

 

[browncoat]

To clarify; The SB15 is an "arm" brace, and not a shoulder brace......

(I think that's what you actually meant)

Thanks for catching that before the ATF hauls me off to the gulag

 

[Kevin_NH]

The problem with an AR pistol in MA is that any pistol that weighs more than 50 oz runs afoul of the AWB. The problem is compounded by the fact that once a firearm is a rifle, it can never become a pistol. So all those pre-ban guns can't be used to get around the AWB, since 99.9% of the pre-ban lowers started life as rifles.

Could you take rifle, register it as an SBR, and then remove the shoulder stock to make it work like a pistol. By federal law, this keeps it registered as an SBR, so it wouldn't be an AWB-violating pistol by MA law? Basically and end-run around the weight limit.

 

[browncoat]

Could you take rifle, register it as an SBR, and then remove the shoulder stock to make it work like a pistol but keep it registered as an SBR?

Federal law if you built it as a rifle you can't make it a pistol. If you built it as a pistol you could sbr it and return it to a pistol, but as a pistol under ma law you would be violating the awb

 

[mikem317]

About the vertical foregrip: I think I read somewhere that if your AR pistol is longer than 26" you can put on a vertical foregrip, and anything less than the 26" would be considered AOW if you install a vertical foregrip.

In the letter, they addressed the AFG not the VFG. I think you're right on the VFG. A pistol equipped with an AFG is lawful per NFA. Not so much with the VFG. Unfortunately. Only good news is that it's the $5 tax not the $200 tax.

 

[sweed]

In the letter, they addressed the AFG not the VFG. I think you're right on the VFG. A pistol equipped with an AFG is lawful per NFA. Not so much with the VFG. Unfortunately. Only good news is that it's the $5 tax not the $200 tax.

Even if it's over 26" in length from end of barrel (not muzzle device) to the end of the buffer tube/ sig brace?

 

[Kevin_NH]

Federal law if you built it as a rifle you can't make it a pistol. If you built it as a pistol you could sbr it and return it to a pistol, but as a pistol under ma law you would be violating the awb

The NFA defines an SBR to include any "weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or barrel of less than 16 inches in length.".

Under Federal law, you can take a rifle, register it as an SBR under the NFA, and then chop it up to make it look like a pistol; because it started life with a shoulder stock, it is still an SBR. But would MA agree? Luckily, I have no horse in this race.

 

[Neuro]

Where does it say that these "ATF Letters" apply to anyone not mentioned in the correspondence? I am not addressed in either of these and have no way of knowing of them without it being sent to me.

What is the authority behind these letters?

 

[Neuro]

The problem with an AR pistol in MA is that any pistol that weighs more than 50 oz runs afoul of the AWB.

Don

What if it doesnt have a detachable magazine? Like the SKS?

 

[drgrant]

In the letter, they addressed the AFG not the VFG. I think you're right on the VFG. A pistol equipped with an AFG is lawful per NFA. Not so much with the VFG. Unfortunately. Only good news is that it's the $5 tax not the $200 tax.

Half right. You still need to pay a $200 tax to make an AOW, just not to transfer it. So if you make an AOW it will still cost you $200. The $5 tax is only for existing, already registered, AOWs.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

Could you take rifle, register it as an SBR, and then remove the shoulder stock to make it work like a pistol. By federal law, this keeps it registered as an SBR, so it wouldn't be an AWB-violating pistol by MA law? Basically and end-run around the weight limit.

I don't know. But doing this would not make any sense.

The whole point of this arm brace is that it allows you to end up with effectively a SBR without having to jump through NFA hoops. ($200 stamp, CLEO signoff, prints, pictures, etc, or the creation of a trust to avoid those things)

So creating an SBR and then adding the brace to it is pointless, since what most people want, is an SBR anyway.

To put a finer point on it. A 6" AR pistol without the arm brace is a stupid, useless toy. . . . .

A 11" AR pistol with an arm brace is a reasonable alternative to a SBR.

One other thing. You are seeing all kinds of AR pistols coming out with 10-12 inch barrels. These are clearly intended to be use dwith the brace, since its nearly impossible to support the muzzle weight with just your hand. Prior to the brace, most AR pistols had 6 or 7 inch barrels.

Don

 

[soloman02]

I don't know. But doing this would not make any sense.

The whole point of this arm brace is that it allows you to end up with effectively a SBR without having to jump through NFA hoops. ($200 stamp, CLEO signoff, prints, pictures, etc, or the creation of a trust to avoid those things)

So creating an SBR and then adding the brace to it is pointless, since what most people want, is an SBR anyway.

To put a finer point on it. A 6" AR pistol without the arm brace is a stupid, useless toy. . . . .

A 11" AR pistol with an arm brace is a reasonable alternative to a SBR.

One other thing. You are seeing all kinds of AR pistols coming out with 10-12 inch barrels. These are clearly intended to be use dwith the brace, since its nearly impossible to support the muzzle weight with just your hand. Prior to the brace, most AR pistols had 6 or 7 inch barrels.

Don

Shouldering the buffer tube on a 11.5" barrel wasn't that bad and did make holding the gun easier. Getting a sight picture was a different story as the iron sights were too close to the eyes with just a tube.

 

[dcmdon]

Shouldering the buffer tube on a 11.5" barrel wasn't that bad and did make holding the gun easier. Getting a sight picture was a different story as the iron sights were too close to the eyes with just a tube.

Right. So you could either support it well and not use the sights. Or you could hold it out and use the sights while your arm fatigued in 5 seconds. Useless.

Don

p.s. As I say this, I'm thinking of a workaround that could contradict myself. If you put an aimpoint way out forward on a top rail, you could hold the gun in close with the buffer as a brace and probably get a decent sight picture through the dot sight.

 

[soloman02]

Right. So you could either support it well and not use the sights. Or you could hold it out and use the sights while your arm fatigued in 5 seconds. Useless.

Don

p.s. As I say this, I'm thinking of a workaround that could contradict myself. If you put an aimpoint way out forward on a top rail, you could hold the gun in close with the buffer as a brace and probably get a decent sight picture through the dot sight.

A red dot in the normal position on an AR was fine for eye relief. The rear sight would also be fine if it were moved up. But the normal BUIS position of next to the CH was too close when using just the tube.

 

[dcmdon]

A red dot in the normal position on an AR was fine for eye relief. The rear sight would also be fine if it were moved up. But the normal BUIS position of next to the CH was too close when using just the tube.

There's no law that says you can't move the BUIS up to the front end of the upper receiver or even farther forward if you have some kind of continuous free floating rail.

It may look hokey, but it will work.

Eithe rway. When you can add the Sig brace for a couple of hundred bucks, its a no brainer in my mind.

 

[browncoat]

The NFA defines an SBR to include any "weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or barrel of less than 16 inches in length.".

Under Federal law, you can take a rifle, register it as an SBR under the NFA, and then chop it up to make it look like a pistol; because it started life with a shoulder stock, it is still an SBR. But would MA agree? Luckily, I have no horse in this race.

Ah, but if you chop it up to make it look like a pistol, it could be treated as a pistol, just as if you put a 16" barrel on it, you could treat it like a rifle. You are under no obligation to report to the ATF when you have taken it out of SBR configuration. The question is whether removing the stock makes it a pistol rather than an SBR, because if it does you could get into trouble for having something like a forward grip on it rather than an AFG.

 

[dcmdon]

I can't comment on MA law, but I can comment on CT law.

CT has a definiton in its statutes that effectively makes any firearm with a barrel of less than 12 inches a handgun. That can cause all kinds of problems. It means that a person could carry a pre-ban AR15 (which is not an AW) with a 11.9" or less barrel in their car fully loaded.

It also means that if you want to transfer one, the buyer would need a pistol permit.

Either way, this opens some interesting loopholes, although I don't know of anyone who has taken advantage of this..

Don

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/pistol_rev.htm

 

[sweed]

About the vertical foregrip: I think I read somewhere that if your AR pistol is longer than 26" you can put on a vertical foregrip, and anything less than the 26" would be considered AOW if you install a vertical foregrip.

In the letter, they addressed the AFG not the VFG. I think you're right on the VFG. A pistol equipped with an AFG is lawful per NFA. Not so much with the VFG. Unfortunately. Only good news is that it's the $5 tax not the $200 tax.

Even if it's over 26" in length from end of barrel (not muzzle device) to the end of the buffer tube/ sig brace?

Still trying to figure this out

 

[browncoat]

I can't comment on MA law, but I can comment on CT law.

CT has a definiton in its statutes that effectively makes any firearm with a barrel of less than 12 inches a handgun. That can cause all kinds of problems. It means that a person could carry a pre-ban AR15 (which is not an AW) with a 11.9" or less barrel in their car fully loaded.

It also means that if you want to transfer one, the buyer would need a pistol permit.

Either way, this opens some interesting loopholes, although I don't know of anyone who has taken advantage of this..

Don

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/pistol_rev.htm

What I bolded sounds like a solution not a problem

 

[NHCraigT]

Well, well, well = Here's the latest from the ATF:


"OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF "STABILIZING BRACES"

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

.....The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked......

http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry

 

[Quiet]

Well, well, well = Here's the latest from the ATF:


"OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF "STABILIZING BRACES"

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf





http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry

That's interesting. You have a pistol with a brace that is perfectly legal. You go to the range. People are checking it out. Someone holds it up to their shoulder and BANG! It's now a rifle. That person has just manufactured a rifle from a pistol, and you are now the proud owner of an illegal rifle.

Bullshit.

 

[browncoat]

That's interesting. You have a pistol with a brace that is perfectly legal. You go to the range. People are checking it out. Someone holds it up to their shoulder and BANG! It's now a rifle. That person has just manufactured a rifle from a pistol, and you are now the proud owner of an illegal rifle.

Bullshit.

Isn't it only a rifle while being used as a rifle? I think there must be atf fairy dust that magically creates the transition.

 

[warwickben]

What if it doesnt have a detachable magazine? Like the SKS?

Guess you never seen duck bill mags?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Neuro]

so now i need the ATF to define shoulder......

From the internets..."Now I can build a fully automatic M-16, but as long as I only USE it in semiautomatic mode, I've REDESIGNED it as a semiautomatic, meaning it's legal. Right guys?"

 

[Kevin_NH]

That's interesting. You have a pistol with a brace that is perfectly legal. You go to the range. People are checking it out. Someone holds it up to their shoulder and BANG! It's now a rifle. That person has just manufactured a rifle from a pistol, and you are now the proud owner of an illegal rifle. Bullshit.

He puts it back down on the bench, and it's a pistol again. Magic!

 

[Quiet]

Isn't it only a rifle while being used as a rifle? I think there must be atf fairy dust that magically creates the transition.

He puts it back down on the bench, and it's a pistol again. Magic!

I'm no legal beagle, but I thought once you've converted a pistol to a rifle, it's a rifle forever, unless you go through the paperwork process to convert it back. No? Or is it simply illegal to do the conversion so it can never be legal again?

So maybe it's a pistol when the guy picks it up, he illegally converts it to a rifle, it's a rifle until someone files the paperwork to turn it into a rifle then files the paperwork to turn it back into a pistol.

Or something like that. I don't know this stuff well at all, I could be 100% wrong.

 

[warwickben]

I'm no legal beagle, but I thought once you've converted a pistol to a rifle, it's a rifle forever, unless you go through the paperwork process to convert it back. No? Or is it simply illegal to do the conversion so it can never be legal again?

So maybe it's a pistol when the guy picks it up, he illegally converts it to a rifle, it's a rifle until someone files the paperwork to turn it into a rifle then files the paperwork to turn it back into a pistol.

Or something like that. I don't know this stuff well at all, I could be 100% wrong.

Nope you can convert a pistol to rifle and back.
Plenty of slides and parts to make glocks ,1911's, Mac 10's , uzi's and so on carbines


Rifles can't be made a pistol.
And once machine gun always a machine gun.

 

[Quiet]

Nope you can convert a pistol to rifle and back.
Plenty of slides and parts to make glocks ,1911's, Mac 10's , uzi's and so on carbines


Rifles can't be made a pistol.
And once machine gun always a machine gun.

LOL you can make a pistol a rifle, then convert that rifle to a pistol, but you can't convert a rifle to a pistol.

I understand what you're saying, but that sentence really tickles me.

 

[warwickben]

LOL you can make a pistol a rifle, then convert that rifle to a pistol, but you can't convert a rifle to a pistol.

I understand what you're saying, but that sentence really tickles me.

Yeah it's weird as long as it starts as a pistol you can convert it back but if I bought a uzi or Mac carbine I can't toss a short barrel on and remove the stock . But I could toss a stock and long barrel on a pistol version. Then when I want a pistol convert them back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk