# ATF about to ban pistol braces.



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Looks like the ATF is about to ban pistol stabilizing braces.

Of course they also have a plan for you to register your weapons as a SBR. For a short time they will wave the permission slip fee if you register your weapons. We all see were this is going, right?

Maybe we could just remove them??

https://www.personaldefenseworld.co...=+wAPg8ijqGAfFALIvBpY1AA3SuMkJhmkGexv49sZvNU=


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

My local gun store guy told me this the other day. Hear it comes.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The tip of the ice berg. After the time expires to come clean and register, there will be new directives from our betters. We will be told there is no such thing as God given rights because there is no Hod and anything we do is by their leave. Yes it will get much worse before it gets better.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Defund the ATF.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Well if you really think about it, it makes sense. Obviously you can disagree but most "pistols" with braces I've seen look like a regular SBR to me. I have two SBRs.

Besides my two SBRs I have numerous suppressors and I think it ridiculous for the government to require approval & stamps for both. But if that is the law, then I understand the ruling. We all know people buy braces to get around that law... not because they are functionally better than a "regular" stock on a SBR. Even the author of that linked article agrees:

*The ATF only reluctantly approved the addition of a pistol stabilizing brace to big-boned pistols as an aid to allow disabled shooters to run their guns one-handed. This was an undeniably noble pursuit. The rub was that all of us succumbed to the inevitable temptation to fire brace-equipped pistols from the shoulder. We saw PSBs as deliverance from the onerous unconstitutional barrel length restrictions codified within the NFA. Alas, that was never going to last.*


----------



## paulag1955 (Dec 15, 2019)

He tries to play up the "glass half full" aspect of this, but, WOW, I'm feeling very glass half empty. I think I'd rather sell my Scorpion than register it with the government.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

A few thoughts on this;

Since when does the BATFE make legislation?

As of this date, isn't Donald J Trump still President and presides over the BATFE? Where is he on this anti-constitutional issue?

Nothing about this makes any sense at all and in my opinion, the BATFE needs defunded to the tune of about 80% immediately. 

Registration? This could get real...


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

Slippy said:


> A few thoughts on this;
> 
> Since when does the BATFE make legislation?


I'm no expert on this, but here is my take. The BATFE didn't make legislation. That was passed by Congress. But since every law can't cover every conceivable circumstance and since some other law (disability act) has some bearing, the BATFE made a ruling that braces on pistols would be allowed, so that the disabled could shoot (disability act). Others took advantage of this exception to bypass the actual law, by having healthy people put a brace on a shortened rifle... and still calling it a pistol. Because healthy folks were obviously bypassing the actual law, the BATFE is taking away that exception.



Slippy said:


> As of this date, isn't Donald J Trump still President and presides over the BATFE? Where is he on this anti-constitutional issue?


You think he is a conservative? Bump stocks were taken away during his term.



Slippy said:


> Nothing about this makes any sense at all and in my opinion, the BATFE needs defunded to the tune of about 80% immediately.


To me the ruling makes since because folks used a loophole to make SBRs without getting a stamp... which is the law. What makes sense is to do away with the law that requires stamps for SBRs and suppressors. The people have been let down again by our representatives in elected office.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Forget the political correctness and admit that “pistol braces” are used as shoulder stocks to turn AR “pistols” into SBR’s without jumping through the hoops to legally own an SBR.
Be honest.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Forget the political correctness and admit that "pistol braces" are used as shoulder stocks to turn AR "pistols" into SBR's without jumping through the hoops to legally own an SBR.
> Be honest.


If we're going to forget political correctness, admit that you don't need to pay the gubbamint money to own a firearm, let alone an SBR.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> If we're going to forget political correctness, admit that you don't need to pay the gubbamint money to own a firearm, let alone an SBR.


That is an entirely different argument.


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

Not really


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Meanwhile, thugs are committing crimes all over liberal shat-hole cities and most of them have never heard of or know what a "sig brace" is nor do they care. Yet they mostly roam free and are given a pass for their rioting, looting and criminal activity...while the government does its damndest to make a criminal out of innocent men and women who own this device. 

FUBAR


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

SGG said:


> Not really


SBR's have been illegal since the Federal Firearms Act of 1934.
So, why hasn't it been overturned in the last 86 years?

I agree, the average citizen should be allowed to have military weapons under the 2nd Amendment, but the fact is, that has had the hell infringed out of it since the ink was barely dry.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

No, they are not looking to make braces illegal. They are writing regulations that would basically require that all pistols be submitted for approval. They don't want to provide a cut-n-dry definition. They want it ambiguous without their official ruling 
They are also proposing an amnesty to register your pistol as an SBR, no tax, no charges, expedited application process.
They want to know who has them so when congress finally makes them illegal, they have a handy list to reference.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

To remedy the situation, as far as my pistol is concerned, even though the KAK Shockwave Blade has been ATF approved, I'll just remove it. No way to classify it as any kind of rifle without an apparatus of any kind on the tail end.
I keep my pistol, don't show up on a list, and avoid the confiscation scam they are setting up.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> To remedy the situation, as far as my pistol is concerned, even though the KAK Shockwave Blade has been ATF approved, I'll just remove it. No way to classify it as any kind of rifle without an apparatus of any kind on the tail end.
> I keep my pistol, don't show up on a list, and avoid the confiscation scam they are setting up.


What if they demand to see the weapon? Wouldn't the short barrel length cause it to be classified as a pistol or SBR even with the brace and buffer tube removed?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Sorry, it's all well and good to suggest we simply change a law that shouldn't have been a law in the first place. We all know that those who are making the laws no longer work for "We the People" and they have they no intention of changing any gun law in any fashion other then to regulate it more intensely and make more prohibitive to own. One step at a time they need the guns and if you think they intend otherwise you are either being naive, a fool, or both. I don't trust this freakin government or it's bureaucracy as far as I could throw it. It's grade A first class bull shit.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> Sorry, it's all well and good to suggest we simply change a law that shouldn't have been a law in the first place. We all know that those who are making the laws no longer work for "We the People" and they have they no intention of changing any gun law in any fashion other then to regulate it more intensely and make more prohibitive to own. One step at a time they need the guns and if you think they intend otherwise you are either being naive, a fool, or both. I don't trust this freakin government or it's bureaucracy as far as I could throw it. It's grade A first class bull shit.


I like the mood you woke up in this morning!! :vs_wave:


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

stevekozak said:


> I like the mood you woke up in this morning!! :vs_wave:


I'm pretty sure @Prepared One went to bed in the same mood...:vs_peace:


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Those silly stocks will be the least of your worries soon.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Those silly stocks will be the least of your worries soon.


It's time we make those stocks the least of our politicians' worries.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Chiefster23 said:


> What if they demand to see the weapon? Wouldn't the short barrel length cause it to be classified as a pistol or SBR even with the brace and buffer tube removed?


To be an SBR, it must meet the following definition:


> National Firearms Act:
> 'Short Barreled Rifle'
> *A rifle* having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.


Thus, it *MUST* be a "rifle" first.
To be a "rifle, it must meet the following definition:


> Gun Control Act:
> (c)Rifle
> The term "rifle" means a weapon *designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder* and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.


My receiver was "made" and sold as a pistol receiver by the manufacturer. I have the paperwork and it's on the FFL's books with my Form 4473.
It has never been "designed or redesigned" to be a fired from the shoulder.

Letters from the ATF don't mean jack squat in a court of law. The law is all that matters.
They can demand whatever they want. They'll have to arrest me and confiscate it to get a look at it, and it should be a cinch for any attorney worth a damn to win the case against them.
Until Congress changes the above definitions, the ATF is blowing smoke and hoping people jump.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> My receiver was "made" and sold as a pistol receiver by the manufacturer. I have the paperwork and it's on the FFL's books with my Form 4473.
> It has never been "designed or redesigned" to be a fired from the shoulder.


But, as soon as you put that "brace" on there, it was redesigned by you to be fired from the shoulder.
You may say "no, I use that as an arm brace", but anyone who has seen this weapon in use at a range knows different.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> But, as soon as you put that "brace" on there, it was redesigned by you to be fired from the shoulder.
> You may say "no, I use that as an arm brace", but anyone who has seen this weapon in use at a range knows different.


..........


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> ..........


Just go to You Tube, type "ar pistol brace shooting" into the search bar, and you will find quite a few videos of what anyone with a lick of common sense understands about "pistol braces".
They are simply a way (at the moment) to get around the SBR laws.

This is simply the first one that popped up.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Just go to You Tube, type "ar pistol brace shooting" into the search bar, and you will find quite a few videos of what anyone with a lick of common sense understands about "pistol braces".
> They are simply a way (at the moment) to get around the SBR laws.
> 
> This is simply the first one that popped up.


I guess I don't see the point. What was your motivation, or what did you hope to accomplish, in pointing that out to Kauboy?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> To be an SBR, it must meet the following definition:
> 
> Thus, it *MUST* be a "rifle" first.
> To be a "rifle, it must meet the following definition:
> ...


 All sounds good. But we live in a time the court will tell you what they think the law should be as you prepare for a stay in jail for a long time. Life is good when heave just laws and the courts follow them. Those days are gone for the most part.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Prepared One said:


> My local gun store guy told me this the other day. Hear it comes.


Why would anybody care?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

bigwheel said:


> Why would anybody care?


You may not care about bump stocks ( Already banned ) or Pistol braces, but that's not the point. This is nothing more then an incremental step by step attempt at getting all the guns. This isn't about gun control, never was, it's about control and power, for that, they need the guns. Like taxes, our freedoms, and privacy, a little at the time.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

stevekozak said:


> I guess I don't see the point. What was your motivation, or what did you hope to accomplish, in pointing that out to Kauboy?


Pointing out that the BATFE knows fully well that these "braces " are nothing more than a way around the SBR laws.
Now, if you don't like the law, and I personally think it is bad law, then there are only two options.
1. Obey the law.
2. Work to amend or overturn the law.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> You may not care about bump stocks ( Already banned ) or Pistol braces, but that's not the point. This is nothing more then an incremental step by step attempt at getting all the guns. This isn't about gun control, never was, it's about control and power, for that, they need the guns. Like taxes, our freedoms, and privacy, a little at the time.


SBR's have been restricted since 1934.
This is nothing more than legally defining what constitutes an SBR.

In 6 months, with Biden running amok, then we will see REAL gun grabbing, all the way down to Ruger 10-22 level.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Felon now or felon later. Make your own choice.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> SBR's have been restricted since 1934.
> This is nothing more than legally defining what constitutes an SBR.
> 
> In 6 months, with Biden running amok, then we will see REAL gun grabbing, all the way down to Ruger 10-22 level.


Understood RPD, these are only the opening moves. I think we can all agree the end game is all the guns. It's all progressive. So what, it's only the bump stocks, they are a gimmick. Oh, now it's the braces? So what, it's no big deal, and on and on. whether you want the brace, or a bump stock to play with, it's always been about getting the guns. The sheep are easily deceived. It's only a penny out of every dollar, Ok then, They only watch the streets with cameras and monitor the internet for our own good. No problem. I didn't need that penny or two, that bump stock, that brace........................................

My point as you know my friend, the government is not our friend and they never stop at common sense. :vs_smile:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> Understood RPD, these are only the opening moves. I think we can all agree the end game is all the guns. It's all progressive. So what, it's only the bump stocks, they are a gimmick. Oh, now it's the braces? So what, it's no big deal, and on and on. whether you want the brace, or a bump stock to play with, it's always been about getting the guns. The sheep are easily deceived. It's only a penny out of every dollar, Ok then, They only watch the streets with cameras and monitor the internet for our own good. No problem. I didn't need that penny or two, that bump stock, that brace........................................
> 
> My point as you know my friend, the government is not our friend and they never stop at common sense. :vs_smile:


I have never liked, nor trusted, our government after my eyes were opened in Vietnam.
They are all lying bastards, out for themselves, no matter who gets hurt or who dies.
That is my opinion of them all, Republican or Democrat, with a rare exception here or there.
It is all about a lust for power and control that borders on sexual. Any man or woman in office that will cheat on their marriage partners will screw us, too.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Breaking right now, 10:30 PM Eastern, ATF withdraws proposed guidance on pistol braces.

http://americanmilitarynews.com


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Breaking right now, 10:30 PM Eastern, ATF withdraws proposed guidance on pistol braces.
> 
> http://americanmilitarynews.com


https://www.prepperforums.net/forum...f-s-regulation-pistol-stabilizing-braces.html


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> But, as soon as you put that "brace" on there, it was redesigned by you to be fired from the shoulder.
> You may say "no, I use that as an arm brace", but anyone who has seen this weapon in use at a range knows different.


By putting on my ATF approved brace, I have done nothing to redesign the pistol into anything other than a pistol with a stabilizing brace.
The ATF already made clear that he brace making contact with the shoulder is NOT a redesign.
The physical item must meet the definition of a redesign, and mine does not, as stated by them.

Because Fudds at the range think they know what they're talking about when they don't, I'll choose not to have it on when firing at the range, to avoid the drudgery of dealing with said people.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> All sounds good. But we live in a time the court will tell you what they think the law should be as you prepare for a stay in jail for a long time. Life is good when heave just laws and the courts follow them. Those days are gone for the most part.


I'm more optimistic, I suppose.
Considering there is a gentleman who formerly worked for the ATF who has been used as an expert witness AGAINST them, and has been winning.
He's called in when the question of an AR-15 receiver is brought up.
The lower receiver is the firearm, right?
But is it?
Not according to the federal definition.


> Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11
> firearm receiver:
> "[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."


The courts have been agreeing that felons found to be in possession of AR-15 lower receivers are, in fact, NOT guilty of processing a firearm because the AR-15 lower receiver does not meet the definition of a firearm receiver.

Here's a good video concerning the issue and identifying the former agent:





The point is, judges are human and humans are flawed, but not all of them are bad.
Like I said, I'm just more optimistic when the facts are so clear.


----------

