[Nincomp]

I find the whole pistol-brace situation bizarre. I admit that part of my problem is that in general I dislike loopholes used to subvert the intention of laws or regulations. It seems that I have an inner boy-scout that bothers me, even when I disagree with the original rule. Nevertheless, I would love to have a behind-the-scenes look at the lead up to the interpretation that we have today. It could have been a deliberate move to add a loophole, but it could also have been a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where the ATF was being accused of discriminating against the handicapped. Most people could predict what would happen next, but maybe the writer did not have that much imagination. I wonder if the writer's boss later called him an idiot or a genius?

As for the earlier comment from 68FNG concerning the ATF making new laws: I am not a lawyer, but I do have some experience working with lawyers dealing with compliance of federal regulations. This has provided some insight on how easy it is to get differing interpretations of poorly written or vague sections of law. My understanding is that once a federal law like the National Firearms Act is passed, the agency dealing with that law has the authority to make interpretations of that law. This has the affect of law at that time, but can be challenged in court. The NFA did not anticipate and define the type of stabilizing brace for a pistol that was proposed. The June 25 letter linked in the original post refers to itself as "guidance" for the National Firearms Act's definition of a stabilizing brace for a pistol. This guidance could easily be changed or refined unless it is actually written into the law. It could also be challenged more easily in court. Also, if the ATF receives a lot of letters or emails complaining about arm braces being used as stocks, they can revisit the issue.

It is important to note that the June 25 guidance seems to cover the sale and ownership of pistols with supporting braces like the one reviewed. The device, according to its manufacturer, was not intended for use as a shoulder stock. On the other hand, it is important to note that the ATF letter does not state that it is legal to utilize the pistol brace as a shoulder stock. It would not surprise me if it is later determined that the very act of utilizing the brace as a shoulder stock changes the weapon into an unregistered SBR. Whether merely shooting the weapon as an unregistered SBR would be a crime, I don't know. I find it interesting that at least a couple of youtube firearms-related sites make a point of never showing anyone shooting a pistol with its support brace touching their shoulder for this reason.

Things will certainly get ugly when the new pistols with arm braces begin to be used in crimes. I suspect that the general populace are not sufficiently aware of SBR's to have a knee jerk reaction to them like the one for machineguns. I think that the reaction will depend largely on what happens during the crimes. By this I mean injuries or deaths caused by the armbraced pistol that wouldn't have been caused by a more common pistol (.45acp, 9mm, 38special, etc). Examples include: incidents in which the soft body armor of police and guards is pierced, accurate fire at medium range or beyond (30+yds? ) changing the dynamics of a firefight, or wounding or killing behind barriers that would have stopped a "regular" pistol round. Then again, a high-profile case where criminals are seen shouldering the armbrace may be enough to cause a reaction.

It is conceivable that there will be no general outcry to change the pistol-brace decision. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[Nincomp]

This thread got me thinking...something that isn't easy to do.:a23: As I watched more videos of people shouldering the "arm brace", I noticed that people were not using their common sense. Some people said that an arm brace shorter than a certain length could be used as a stock, whereas others said that it was perfectly OK to use the brace as a stock as long as the brace has not been modified. I decided to read the actual ATF letters of interpretation to share my opinions with you. I have included links to copies of the letters, so you can read them and make your own decision. I would be happy to be proved wrong in this case.

In short, as I am writing this, shouldering an unmodified arm brace shouldn't send you to jail, BUT, and this is a big BUT,* it is very unlikely that the ATF's current policy would survive a significant court challenge. Even if arm braces survive, most of the currently sold braces could be deemed illegal. My reasoning is this: The original arm brace that was approved in 2012 worked well as an arm brace, but was so uncomfortable when used as a shoulder stock that, in ATF's view, it would never be used that way. The ATF has stated this again over the years, which could be laying the groundwork to reclassify many of today's "arm braces" as stocks. This would of course, change the status of the weapons to SBR's.** It can be argued that the approval of arm braces as a class depends upon them being too uncomfortable to be used as shoulder stocks. I will admit that I am not a lawyer, I have just laid out some of the facts as I see them. The ATF, arm brace makers and vendors probably have "lawyered up" and will be in ass-covering mode when the rifle caliber pistols start being used as SBRs in crimes. Before long, there is likely to be a "picture is worth a thousand words" of a criminal shouldering his "pistol" like a SBR.

Now for the boring part: references
My personal belief is that somebody in the ATF recognized that they had created a monster and that resulted in the 2015 ATF paper : "Open letter in the redesign of "stabilizing braces"". The 2015 letter notes that manufacturers swear up and down that arm their braced weapons were not designed to be used as SBR's. The ATF's response was, that according to this logic, anyone who shoulders an arm brace has effectively "redesigned" it into an illegal NFA item. As you might imagine, this did not go over well. Here is part of a letter from ATF to SB-Tactical. It gives you an idea of the original intent You'd have to be a heartless jerk to deny SBT's request:

Central to ATF's determination is your representation that the purpose and intent of your design, as with previously approved designs, is solely to allow shooters-particularly those with disabilities-to better support large handguns or pistols when firing one-handed…In closing, FTISB finds that the submitted sample is approved for use as a pistol stabilizing brace…

The ATF letter of 03/21/2017 responds to issues raised about the 2015 letter and uses more lawyer-speek. It backed down on the "use it like an SBR and you have redesigned it into one" stance, sort of. This letter is carefully worded to show the intent of ATF's earlier decisions. It also states "we stand by the conclusions" of the 2015 letter. They again state they did not intend for arm braces to be used as SBR's and discuss their reasoning more. The letter starts with a sentence that makes a point that they initially approved one arm brace, of a specific design, not a whole class of braces with radically different designs. This will make it easier for ATF to state that many of today's devices which were sold as arm braces never qualified in the first place. Page 2 starts:

"In 2012, ATF determined that a specific arm-stabilizing brace- marketed as a "shooter's aid" to assist in shooting large buffer tube equipped pistols- was not a shoulder stock and therefore could be attached to a firearm without that act constituting the making of a NFA firearm."

There is also this sentence that states one of the features that was important in their decision to approve that one brace.

"With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATF, is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder. (the underlined words are my emphasis).

The ATF didn't foresee braces being used as stocks because they reasoned that it would be too uncomfortable to do so. This is a designer/manufacturer responsibility. Basically, if doesn't hurt to use it, you're screwed. The importance of the lack-of-comfort as a stock is why the ATF makes such a big deal about modifying the brace:

"If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder stock-- for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace - and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively "redesigned" the firearm for the purposes of the NFA."

ATF can't utilize the "shoulder it and go to jail" policy stated in the 2015 letter because it was argued that merely holding a legal device differently can't make it illegal. But what if your arm brace never qualified as a legal arm brace in the first place....In other words, from the factory, the brace should have been too uncomfortable to use as a shoulder stock. If you do anything to make it a better or more comfortable shoulder stock or a worse arm brace, you have "redesigned" a legal pistol into an illegal SBR.

Now comes the part in the ATF letter that most vendors say means it is fine to use the brace as a shoulder stock (completely unmodified, of course). The problem is that it does not state that the shouldering is definitely OK: It actually says "maybe yes, maybe no". Take your chances.

"Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock - even if the firearm happens to be fired by the shoulder."

2015 letter: https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download

2017 letter: https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/atf-letter-march-21-2017.pdf

* don't any of you guys tell my wife that I was writing about big butts.:a01:

** edited to say, if the former arm brace is removed, you have a big-assed pistol rather than a SBR

 

[Nincomp]

My stance/interpretation is this:

I currently have a LEGAL AR Pistol. It uses a carbine buffer stock as designed, it is not intended to be shouldered. If I inadvertently shoulder it to shoot without intention I by definition of the NFA Letters am not breaking the law...

With that said: If I go to a public gun range and shoot my AR Pistol all day long shouldered I am breaking the spirit of the law because I am with intention using it as a butt stock. If I go to a three day class with an AR Pistol and shoulder it for three days.. I am breaking the spirit of the law and if caught could face legal issues.

Make Sense? Agree/Disagree?

BTW I have another post with two letters from the NFA. I keep laminated copies in my truck and go bag and in the gun safe so I can make "An Attempt" to show that my AR Pistol is lega.

That sounds reasonable to me.
Of course, if you want to be absitively positootly sure, you could always have some barbed wire, nails and a razor blade or two sticking out of the brace. I mean, what is the cost of a few trips to the emergency room if it gives you peace of mind, right?

 

[Nincomp]

How many have been sold and how many times have you personally witnessed them being shouldered . One or two idiots on u tube is not a representation of the masses .

When asked about them in a Q&A on InRange, Ian and Kurt admitted that a significant number of 2-gun competitors have used the pistols. All of those competitors used the brace as a shoulder stock. Of course, InRange avoids showing anyone shouldering one of the pistols on their Youtube channel.

 

[Nincomp]

The spirit of the law is create barriers for lawful ownership. Oh, and law has no spirit.

One purpose of the of the law was to reduce the likelihood that Law Enforcement Officers would be outgunned by criminals with easy-to-conceal high powered weapons. This was in the time of criminals like Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone and other Tommy-gun and BAR toting gangsters. When the NFA law was written, pistols were considered to be considerably less powerful than rifles. Remember that rounds like .357 mag and .44 mag did not exist at the time. The foolish assumption of the lawmakers was that people would not employ loopholes to get around the law.

In the 1930's, the majority of Americans considered the NFA to be a "protect the Police" issue. It would have been considered unamerican to oppose it. Sentiment has changed over the years. I wouldn't say that the proponents of SBR's and SBR-like pistols don't care if more police get killed as these weapons become more common, but I suspect that the left will eventually portray it this way.