Interesting ATF regulatory decision

DavidJayUden · 07-05-2019, 10:34 AM

Regarding AR "pistols, stabilizing brace extensions, and vertical foregrips...

https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/0...XqgIZxRDQZUOhU

dju

JTD · 07-05-2019, 12:18 PM

Why would anyone want to strap that contraption to their arm in the first place???? Hollywood?

People will keep inventing and buying these POS accessories until they give the fed anti gun bunch enough ammo to ban or restrict a whole class of firearm. Buy a rifle, or buy a pistol.....

DavidJayUden · 07-05-2019, 01:30 PM

I suspect that in reality they are using those strap on things as a buttstock, not tied to their wrist, in an attempt to thwart the BATF short barreled rifle definition. Put velcro on the buffer tube and take away the 90 degree part and no one would want one. Kind of like using a bump stock to have a full auto without all the hassle of buying and paying for a full auto.
I'm no fan of either.
dju

Roadster 02 · 07-05-2019, 01:45 PM

Because they still (barely) have the freedom to do so if they wish, even if others don't care for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTD

Why would anyone want to strap that contraption to their arm in the first place???? Hollywood?

People will keep inventing and buying these POS accessories until they give the fed anti gun bunch enough ammo to ban or restrict a whole class of firearm. Buy a rifle, or buy a pistol.....

HerrKaiser · 07-05-2019, 04:42 PM

Basically, the arm brace functions as a buttstock instead. But because people are “misusing the accessory” the ATF doesn’t know how to handle it. This is essentially them saying that in the specific case of the AR “pistol”, they’re largely giving up on trying to figure out its status as an SBR and forcing tax stamps for it in exchange for going after grips and instead looking for them in AOW status. I wonder how long before more pistols have some “arm braces” to try and cash in on the successful navigation of the issue pioneered by the AR pistols.

SteveM · 07-08-2019, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerrKaiser

This is essentially them saying that in the specific case of the AR “pistol”, they’re largely giving up on trying to figure out its status as an SBR and forcing tax stamps for it in exchange for going after grips and instead looking for them in AOW status.

What do you mean "forcing tax stamps" ? Got a link for that?

Most recent letter below (that I know of) regarding braces.

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/...ch-21-2017.pdf

HerrKaiser · 07-08-2019, 11:53 AM

Forcing tax stamps as an SBR. If the brace is a “shoulder stock” then the gun requires the $200 tax stamp. However, if it is being used as an “arm
Brace” then it is not a stock and is therefore a legal pistol that does not require the stamp.

The ruling is that people using the brace as a makeshift stock are just “misusing the accessory” and despite that the gun is being used as a de-facto SBR in this setup, the use of the brace as the stock means that it’s technically not a rifle but a pistol instead and so they can’t classify it as an SBR. Much the same idea as using a screwdriver as a framing hammer isn’t it’s intended use, but it’s what some people decide to do with it. However, beyond these semantics and on to more enforceable provisions of the NFA ‘34 in regard to AR-pistols. Pistols cannot have a vertical foregrip without being ascribed to “any other weapon” (AOW) Status that also requires a $200 stamp (an angled grip is fine though because gun laws are logical and make total sense). So what they are now doing with AR-pistols is cracking down on people trying to accessorize them with grips and other attachments that might bring them into AOW status along with the arm brace instead of pursuing the arm brace as an SBR status on the guns.

I don’t have any documentation and I have no need to as I don’t own any AR-style platforms. Most of what I’ve learned about these new policy rulings comes from talking with some FFL’s at local gun shows and shops.

Olle · 07-08-2019, 01:17 PM

This SBR business is starting to get ridiculous, especially since the "experts" at ATF have been going back and forth with it for years. IMO, an AK or AR-15 without buttstock is more dangerous than one with a stock, it's a very awkward weapon that can't even be aimed properly. Still, this configuration seems to be what ATF prefers in order to "satisfy the letter of the law".

I can't remember where I read this, but somebody traced down the origin of the SBR to an oversight in the NFA of 1934. The original proposal included a restriction that made handguns subject to the $200 tax stamp, so they had to define what constitutes a pistol. The proposed pistol restrictions were later removed, but some of the definitions were left in the final document. Thus, the law came to define a rifle of certain dimension as a pistol, and being a pistol it cannot have a buttstock. In other words: The whole SBR thing appears to stem from a simple mistake, which is now causing great confusion among gun owners, as well as ATF agents.

HerrKaiser · 07-08-2019, 01:24 PM

Ollie, I’ve heard that too. What amounted to a clerical error in the document’s final revisions has given Americans the headache that is the law in Regards to SBR’s/SBS’s since 1934. They were going to remove it all except for Full Auto tax stamps but only remembered pistols since that was the major political fight around its initial draft. They realized the stupidity of keeping SBR’s and SBS’s on there while removing pistols, but somehow it didn’t get taken out of there and now we are pretty much stuck with it forever.

07-05-2019, 10:34 AM	#1
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	Interesting ATF regulatory decision Regarding AR "pistols, stabilizing brace extensions, and vertical foregrips... https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/0...XqgIZxRDQZUOhU dju

07-05-2019, 04:42 PM	#5
HerrKaiser User Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: South Carolina Posts: 812 Thanks: 762 Thanked 811 Times in 385 Posts	Basically, the arm brace functions as a buttstock instead. But because people are “misusing the accessory” the ATF doesn’t know how to handle it. This is essentially them saying that in the specific case of the AR “pistol”, they’re largely giving up on trying to figure out its status as an SBR and forcing tax stamps for it in exchange for going after grips and instead looking for them in AOW status. I wonder how long before more pistols have some “arm braces” to try and cash in on the successful navigation of the issue pioneered by the AR pistols. __________________ -QM Looking for Mauser S/42 toggle train #22

07-08-2019, 11:53 AM	#7
HerrKaiser User Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: South Carolina Posts: 812 Thanks: 762 Thanked 811 Times in 385 Posts	Forcing tax stamps as an SBR. If the brace is a “shoulder stock” then the gun requires the $200 tax stamp. However, if it is being used as an “arm Brace” then it is not a stock and is therefore a legal pistol that does not require the stamp. The ruling is that people using the brace as a makeshift stock are just “misusing the accessory” and despite that the gun is being used as a de-facto SBR in this setup, the use of the brace as the stock means that it’s technically not a rifle but a pistol instead and so they can’t classify it as an SBR. Much the same idea as using a screwdriver as a framing hammer isn’t it’s intended use, but it’s what some people decide to do with it. However, beyond these semantics and on to more enforceable provisions of the NFA ‘34 in regard to AR-pistols. Pistols cannot have a vertical foregrip without being ascribed to “any other weapon” (AOW) Status that also requires a $200 stamp (an angled grip is fine though because gun laws are logical and make total sense). So what they are now doing with AR-pistols is cracking down on people trying to accessorize them with grips and other attachments that might bring them into AOW status along with the arm brace instead of pursuing the arm brace as an SBR status on the guns. I don’t have any documentation and I have no need to as I don’t own any AR-style platforms. Most of what I’ve learned about these new policy rulings comes from talking with some FFL’s at local gun shows and shops. __________________ -QM Looking for Mauser S/42 toggle train #22

07-08-2019, 01:17 PM	#8
Olle User Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,149 Thanks: 159 Thanked 663 Times in 318 Posts	This SBR business is starting to get ridiculous, especially since the "experts" at ATF have been going back and forth with it for years. IMO, an AK or AR-15 without buttstock is more dangerous than one with a stock, it's a very awkward weapon that can't even be aimed properly. Still, this configuration seems to be what ATF prefers in order to "satisfy the letter of the law". I can't remember where I read this, but somebody traced down the origin of the SBR to an oversight in the NFA of 1934. The original proposal included a restriction that made handguns subject to the $200 tax stamp, so they had to define what constitutes a pistol. The proposed pistol restrictions were later removed, but some of the definitions were left in the final document. Thus, the law came to define a rifle of certain dimension as a pistol, and being a pistol it cannot have a buttstock. In other words: The whole SBR thing appears to stem from a simple mistake, which is now causing great confusion among gun owners, as well as ATF agents. __________________ Deer Hollow Enterprises, LLC Gun repair and restoration

07-08-2019, 01:24 PM	#9
HerrKaiser User Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: South Carolina Posts: 812 Thanks: 762 Thanked 811 Times in 385 Posts	Ollie, I’ve heard that too. What amounted to a clerical error in the document’s final revisions has given Americans the headache that is the law in Regards to SBR’s/SBS’s since 1934. They were going to remove it all except for Full Auto tax stamps but only remembered pistols since that was the major political fight around its initial draft. They realized the stupidity of keeping SBR’s and SBS’s on there while removing pistols, but somehow it didn’t get taken out of there and now we are pretty much stuck with it forever. __________________ -QM Looking for Mauser S/42 toggle train #22

07-05-2019, 12:18 PM	#2
JTD User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: PA Posts: 424 Thanks: 217 Thanked 407 Times in 148 Posts	Why would anyone want to strap that contraption to their arm in the first place???? Hollywood? People will keep inventing and buying these POS accessories until they give the fed anti gun bunch enough ammo to ban or restrict a whole class of firearm. Buy a rifle, or buy a pistol.....

07-05-2019, 01:30 PM	#3
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	I suspect that in reality they are using those strap on things as a buttstock, not tied to their wrist, in an attempt to thwart the BATF short barreled rifle definition. Put velcro on the buffer tube and take away the 90 degree part and no one would want one. Kind of like using a bump stock to have a full auto without all the hassle of buying and paying for a full auto. I'm no fan of either. dju