Ok let me ask a question, and sorry if this was covered and I missed it:
Why the fuck would I keep a pistol brace on a PISTOL that has been turned into an SBR that is form one?
And as far as keeping it legal... why not just remove the pistol brace and have the buffer tube only? There, done, legal? Figure out what to do with it later, get it registered as an SBR or whatever.
Maybe you missed it. The question wasn't if one could keep the brace on it, but if one were required to keep the brace on it. As posted in a previous reply, the ATF faq clears up that it is not required.
If one is going to SBR it any way, why not take advantage of the grace period to register it. Submit the paperwork, wait for approval. In the unlikely event that it isnt approved, destroy the brace. There, done, legal. Same outcome and you saved $200 per submission.
Someone is going to eventually get burned and become a test case for a pool noodle because that's how far this is going to go . I read what was sent to FFLs in 3 states it is plain that it will be a discretionary call by whomever is looking at the device as to whether or not it might be a comfortable shoulder placement. There in is the problem. I work in a place with this girl that is 4'10" and I'd be surprised if she weighs 75# , a Mares leg with a slip on pad would make a great woods rifle for her or even a carbine 92' but if she has over an 11" LOP I'd be really surprised as far as a well fitted stock goes . I have a close friend that's been scoped at least 6-7 times with a near 14" and it's almost a certainty under 12-3/4" . Now that I know how those deep crescent butts are supposed to be shot they are actually pretty pleasant to shoot .
So now we're back to what a 3" pool noodle that Arnold pinches between his elbow and biceps is obviously a brace but if the little bit of nothing I see at work does it it's a stock , and it may well be the only way short of fairly extensive modification to get a stock short enough.
Your whole reply makes very little sense to me, but I'm going to try to understand it.
Maybe it is up to the agent to make the call, but I would imagine that those agents have been given guidelines on what to consider and the AFT has put out a document containing a widerange of examples. Those examples make it pretty clear what will be considered to be an SBR. Besides if the agent makes the determination that your firearm is not an SBR, they have to give a written response stating as much. With that response it would be difficult for them to come after you at a later time for the same firearm and if they tried you'd easily win in court with their own documentation thrown back at them.
Were not talking about a mares leg here, we're talking about AR pistols with braces and the rule is about pistols with braces in general. A mares leg might get classified as a pistol, but it doesn't have a brace to even consider. A buttpad is designed to be a buttpad, it is designed to be shouldered. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If your co-worder attached a slip-on pad to the stock of a mares leg they would be redesigning it to be fired from the shoulder which would turn it into an SBR. Since the mares leg is usually around 24" (if my google skills are working) adding a slip on pad may increase its length enough to cause reclassification and other issues, but IMO that would be secondary to installing a butpad making it an SBR. I don't even know what you're talking about with the rest of that paragraph, but it doesn't appear to be a mare's leg.
What? What's Arnold squeezing a pool got to do with anything? You can't make a stock short enough, ITS A STOCK! What the mare's leg has isn't considered to be a stock it's considered to be a grip. Do you even know what you are attempting to talk about here? Slow down, use more words, and explain.
I guess my problem with all of this comes back to if I put a 24" barrel on a Contender, SAA or some other pistol or I stick the FCG in a device that is a rifle/carbine design that's all well and good but if I stick too much support on a pistol with an extended recoil everyone is going to jail .
Umm... What's an extended recoil supposed to be?
The Contender, SSA, and other pistols
are pistols. It's perfectly legal to put longer barrels on pistols. It's legal and aceptable to convert a pistol into a rifle, then back into a pistol. What is the question or issue here?
Before someone says it, by legal I mean in compliance with NFA/ATF rules. Whether you feel that is constitutional or not is irrelivant here.
If I buy a 110 based Striker build bottom metal for an BAR design mag and stick a 24" light target 6.5×300 Gibbs barrel on it is it a rifle or a pistol ....... Right it's a pistol because the action was sold as a Striker .
No, it's a pistol because it was sold as a pistol AND it does not have a stock. If you took that combination and attached a stock it would become a rifle. If you remove the stock it returns to being a pistol. If you left the stock attached and reinstalled the short factory (or other <16") barrel, it would become an SBR.
Come on now, this is all well established and not that difficult in uderstand.
You buy a Contender based arm as an other or a pistol and can swap whatever barrel you want to on it as long as you don't have the butt stock on it with less than a 16/18" barrel installed . If for some reason reason you bought it as an other with a butt stock and score a few super 14 barrels before you get the pistol grip you have shown intent and you may be showing intent even if you have both a pistol and rifle type receiver .
See above. Again, pistol, to rifle, back to pistol is legal and accepted. If a complete firearm is sold/transfered to you with a stock then it is not a pistol, it is a rifle, as such the rest of this is moot.
Lets say that you purchase a Contender RIFLE from a dealer and then "score a few super 14 barrels", if you do not also own a pistol then this can be used to show constructive intent and is illegal. Even if you purchase a pistol grip it is still illegal. You can't convert a rifle to a pistol.
Now if you purchase a Contender PISTOL you can score a few long (16" or greater) barrels and be perfectly legal, then you can also buy a stock and convert it into a rigle as you desire. Unless you also own a Contender Rifle I would recommend not purchasing the stock until after taking possession of the barrel, otherwise constructive intent could also be shown.
If you have both the Contender pistol and rifle, you are perfectly legal to own what ever partys and acessories you want. They will not attempt to prove constructive intent and would fail if they did. I'm pretty certain that battle has already been played out in court and the ATF lost their ass. Just don't assemble them in an illegal configuration, that would be giving them hard evidence which is a different story than intent.
If you purchased a complete firearm, it had both a stock and barrel less than 16", it was not sold as an SBR, and you did not have an approved form 4, then you are in illegal possession of an illegally purchased SBR.
Today this applies specifically to the Armalite Stoner design next year not so much .
No, today this applies to any pistol equipped with a brace. Doesn't matter if it's AR, AK, Glock, Ruger Charger, or what ever else. This applies to any pistol with a brace. The people talking about this are using the same tactics that the ATF and Demoncrats use to drum up support for making more gun control. AR's are just the ones being talked about because of the popularity and panic. Focusing on the AR drums up the views and therefore increases the ad and subscription revenue.
